# Historical Background of Pakistan and its People



## Neo

*Historical Background of Pakistan and its People​*

*PART-1*

*SOME REDEEMING ASPECTS *

Muslim world is a vast and immense mass of land sprawling from West Africa facing the Atlantic to southern Philippines far in the Pacific. Its northern limits touch the Volga in Russia while southern frontiers run up to Mozambique in South-East Africa on the Indian Ocean. In China, in addition to Sinkiang, Muslims are in substantial numbers in the provinces bordering Burma and in the districts around Peking. Total population of Muslims in the world is estimated at one billion. 

In this book it is proposed to deal with only a small segment of this vast and varied world -- with the land and people of the region called Pakistan. The purpose is not to discuss each and every aspect of their history nor to give a comprehensive account of their activities. It is intended to bring out only certain salient aspects which have either escaped the notice of historians or failed to receive sufficient emphasis from them. This book will substantiate the historical truth that the creation of an independent State of Pakistan in the sub-continent in the middle of the 20th century was not an oddity or a strange phenomena, nor have the people inhabiting this new political entity asserted their separate status from India for the first time. 

Pakistan in different forms and in different backgrounds has appeared many a time in these very regions and endured longer than other independent states of this sub-continent, making enormous contribution to civilization. The history of its people is full of colour, thrill and excitement; of gallant deeds and sublime performance. It has, perhaps, witnessed more invasions than any other part of the world, absorbed more racial strains than any other region and more ideas have taken birth in the bosom of this land than elsewhere. 

It was in these lands that the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the most brilliant in the annals of human history, flourished with its main centres at Moenjo Daro in Sind, Harappa in the Punjab, Kej in the Baluch territory and Judeiro Daro in the Pathan region. It was here that Buddhist culture blossomed and reached its zenith under the Kushans in the form of Gandhara civilization at the twin cities of Peshawar and Taxila. It was on this very soil that the Graeco-Bactrian civilization had its best flowering and left the indelible marks of finest Greek art in the potwar plateau around Rawalpindi. The entire Baluchistan is strewn with the remains of the earliest products of man's activities. "Western Pakistan is a region which has been conspicuously important in the development of civilization." (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown. Pakistan Miscellany). 

"In our present state of knowledge, we may regard the period of the Indus Valley culture as the first epoch in the history of civilization in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent. The second epoch is again one in which the north-west figures basically. This is the period when the Aryan entered through the passes of the north-west at a time assumed to be about 1500- 1200 B.C. and possessed the culture of the Rig Veda, which is the first and most important book of the early Indo-Aryans and was probably compiled by 1000 B.C." (Ibid) 

"Of the two river systems that of the Indus, now mainly in Pakistan, had the earliest civilization and gave its name to India. The fertile plains of the Punjab watered by the five great tributaries of the Indus had a high culture over two thousand years before Christ, which spread down the lower course of the Indus as far as the sea." (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham.) 

In valour and patriotism the people of these lands have been second to none. It was the people of the Indus Valley that held back the Aryans for decades; it was in the Punjab that the advance of ferocious Mongols was halted for more than a century. But for this defence the tender sapling of Muslim state planted at Delhi in the early 13th century A.D. would have been trampled upon and smothered out. Among more recent events the stiff resistance that Napier encountered from the Sindis and Baluchis is still fresh in our minds. The revolt of the 'hurs' of Sind against British rule in the 20th century is another glorious mark in this series. Pathans' defiance of the British rule and their perpetual struggle in the cause of freedom is a story of only the other day. Kashmiris have suffered silently but never ceased their fight for freedom. The lands of Pakistan are indeed drenched with the blood of many a hero and saturated with the wisdom of many a sage. And what is more exhilarating, it was from these lands that Islam commenced its journey in the sub-continent.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Neo

*PART-2*

*PAKISTAN RARELY PART OF INDIA *

But, as the following discussion will prove, during the Hindu period it was the people of the Indus Valley in the West and the Padma-Meghna Delta in the East that mostly emerged triumphant. Both the wings remained independent of Gangetic Valley and in fact Pakistan-based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than India has ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ------ cultural, commercial as well as political ---- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that these two wings became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by the two wings. In the pre-Muslim period, Indias great expansion covering large portions of the sub-continent took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. I shall quote a few passages from history to substantiate my statement. 

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

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

"The Gurjara empire of Bhoja may be defined as, on the north, the foot of the mountains; on the northwest, the Sutlej; on the west the Hakra or the lost-river forming the boundary of Sind." (Ibid). 

"The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is extremely obscure. At some time, not recorded, a powerful kingdom had been formed, which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra of lost-river, so that it comprised a large part of the Punjab, as well as probably northern Sind." (Ibid) 

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

The above quotations amply prove that none of the periods of its greatest expansion did India succeed in occupying Pakistan. The only exception is the Maurya period in the 3rd century BC when Asokas empire is said to have extended up to the Hindu Kush, north of Kabul. Even in this isolated case of the Mauryas, historians are aware that Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who hailed from Pakistan (Punjab), did not get Pakistan by conquest but by diplomacy from the Greek rulers who had succeeded Alexander. 

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

During its five thousand-year known history, Pakistan has been subservient to Central Indian governments only during the Maurya, the Turko-Afghan and British periods who were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian respectively. While the Mauryan (300-200 BC) and British (1848-1947) periods lasted barely a hundred years each, the turko-Afghan period was the longest covering a span of 500 years. 

Here we come across an important ideological point. All the three religions i.e. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which succeeded in uniting the sub-continent under the Maurya, Turko-Afghan and British rulers stood for universal brotherhood and were spread all over the world. In the context of ideology, the implications are obvious i.e., only people believing in universal brotherhood could unite and hold this sub-continent together. Otherwise Pakistans independence could never be challenged nor its people subdued by Indias Hindu Governments. 

It is of these celebrated lands and of their intrepid people that we shall narrate the story here. In this article we shall give a brief historical background and the contribution made by each of the groups that inhabit it: We shall begin with a general account of the entire country first and then take up the history of each group.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-3

PAKISTAN - CRADLE OF CIVILIZATIONS:
COMMON HISTORY*

When the pall of darkness recedes from the firmament of the past unfolding the first pre-historic vision of Pakistan, we descry the imposing spectacle of a splendid Civilization spread over a thousand-mile length from the glistening snow-capped mountains of Kashmir to the glittering sand dunes facing the Arabian Sea. This was Indus Valley Civilization, one of whose distinguishing characteristics was its independent existence, completely detached from what is today known as India. This independent entity had its own government, its own culture, its own religion, its own history, its own art and architecture, rules and regulations. From this centre radiated great ideas and ideologies, techniques and trades, which enriched every aspect of human life. Taking this period as the starting point of our known past till our own times the land of Pakistan has invariably led an independent existence.

Another unique aspect of Indus Valley Civilization was that it embraced within its fold almost the entire country now known as Pakistan, with two important centres of culture and administration-one at Harappa on the bank of Ravi in Sahiwal District of the Punjab and another at Moenjo Daro on River Indus in the Larkana District of Sind. According to more recent discoveries other important centres and sizeable towns of Indus Valley Civilization were situated at Chanhu Daro in Nawabshah District, Judeiro-daro near Quetta and Shahi Tump in the Valley of the Kej (Mekran). Modern archaeological research has brought to light a large number of smaller centres spread over Baluchistan, Frontier and Kashmir. And at it's peak this Pakistani civilization stretched from parts of northwest India to southern Afghanistan. It's colonies have been found as far away as Turkmenistan in the north, Bahrain and southeast Iran in the west, near Bombay (India) in the south, and in western U.P.(India) in the east.

Thus, the very first pre-historic picture of Pakistan emerging before our eyes presents the twin aspects of (a) separate independent country, and (b) a common culture with a common government. I shall dilate a bit here on the uniformity in various fields of life that prevailed in Pakistan during the Indus Valley Civilization.

From time immemorial the world has known two different countries and cultures in the sub-continent; one based on the Indus and its five tributaries known as Sindhu and the other on the Ganges Valley known as Bharatvarta. "Herodotus did not reckon among the 'Indoi' any of the people then in occupation of the Indus basin.... In thus excluding from the limits of India proper the Punjab as well as Gadara, Herodotus was in agreement with the Sanskrit scriptures; and there is a piece of evidence which suggests that, without knowing it, he may have been following Vedic authority through a chain of intermediate informants." (A Study of History, Vol. III, By A.J. Toynbee). The Sindhu country with its Indus Valley Civilization - also known as Harappa culture - had its sway from Rupar on upper Sutlej to the lower reaches of the Indus on the Arabian Sea, a distance of about a thousand miles - almost the same territory now covered by Pakistan.

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

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

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

The pattern of civilization in this country was so uniform that even the bricks were usually of the same size and shape from one end to the other. A very large number of weights all belonging to a uniform system have been found in the two capital cities as well as at Chanhu-daro and other smaller cities in Sind, at Mehi in Baluchistan and at Sutkagen-Dot in Makran. "The regular planning of the streets, the layout of cities and the common weights and measures suggest a single state covering the entire area." (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham)

"At a certain period, diversity is replaced by uniformity over an area incomparably vaster than anything we have yet seen in pre-historic south Asia. A complete agreement in details of material culture is found over an area stretching from the Makran coast to Kathiawar and northwards to the Himalyan foothills, a huge irregular triangle with the sizes measuring 950 by 700 by 550 miles. From end to end of this territory, from some forty settlement-sites come pottery vessels of identical mass-produced types; houses are built of baked bricks of standard dimensions, stamp-seals are engraved with similar scenes, a uniform script which is yet unread prevails and a standard system of weights is recognizable. While some sites are villages, others are towns and 350 miles apart stand two cities (Harappa and Moenjo Daro) twin capitals of an empire. Under the jejune archaeological nomenclature of Harappa culture there lies concealed one of the greatest nameless kingdoms of Asia".(Pre-historic India, By Stuart Piggot)

"The overriding fact remains that they (Harappa in the Punjab and Moenjo Daro in Sind) are situated upon the same river system and are culturally identical. That identity extends throughout the immense territory of the Indus civilization from Kashmir to Karachi.... The Indus Civilization exemplifies the vastest political experiment before the advent of the Roman Empire....... Whatever the political implications, the cultural unity of the civilization is itself a sufficiently imposing phenomenon......" (Early India and Pakistan to Ashoka, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler)

One of the most interesting crops grown by the people of the Harappa culture was cotton, of which a fortunate single find at Moenjo Daro has given conclusive evidence. Extensive trade in cotton and cotton cloth is a strong possibility particularly with Mesopotamia where cotton was known as Sindhu and this word later passed into Greek as 'sindon'.

"As to the peculiar products of India it is interesting that Herodotus told the Greek world, perhaps for the first time, of the trees that bore wool, surpassing in beauty and in quality the wool of sheep; and the Indians wear clothing from these trees." (The Cambridge history of India, Vol. I, By E.J. Rapson)

The climate of major portion of Pakistan during the long period of this civilization was different from what it is today. The whole of Indus region was well-forested providing fuel to burn bricks; and Baluchistan, now almost a waterless desert, was rich in rivers. This region supported a sizeable agricultural population which lived in a large number of villages.

The archaeological evidence of continuous occupation of the city sites over centuries shows that continuity of government was somehow assured throughout the long period that its civilization lasted from say 3,000 B.C. to 1,500 B.C.- for over fifteen hundred years. There are strong indications of this culture being deeply religious where tradition was transmitted unimpaired for centuries. The remarkable conservatism and scrupulous preservation of even the details of every-day life for long periods proves that the civilization was theocratic based on religion and ideology. It would not be far wrong to call it an ideological state. That was Pakistan 5,000 years ago.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-4

COMING OF THE ARYANS*

This prosperous and flourishing civilization (Indus Valley) was brought to an end by the savage invasions of the Aryans about 1,500 B.C. These warlike nomads had encountered a very sophisticated civilization that of the Indus Valley. Large number of skeletons discovered in Harappa, Meonjo Daro and other places shows that the local people put up stiff resistance and died fighting valiantly. There are traces of widespread devastation caused by the invaders in the entire Pakistan. A scorched earth policy seems to have been followed which extinguished almost all traces of civilization in the region. "Evidence from Baluchistan, Sind and the Punjab is reasonably consistent in implying that at some period likely to have been before 1,500 B.C., to use a convenient round figure, the long established cultural traditions of north-western India (i.e., Pakistan) were rudely and ruthlessly interrupted by the arrival of new people from the West. The Aryan advent was in fact the arrival of Barbarians into a region already highly organized into an empire based on a long established tradition of literate urban culture." (Pre-historic India, By Stuart Piggot)

"In the hymns of the Rigveda, the invasion constantly assumes the form of an onslaught upon the walled cities of the 'aborigines'...... It is not indeed impossible that the name of Harappa itself is concealed in the Hari-Yupia which is mentioned in the Rigveda as the scene of a battle." (Early India and Pakistan to Ashoka, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler)

However, the Aryans during their stay in Pakistan picked up much from the Indus Civilization which stood them in good stead during their settled life in India. "Aryans entered and Aryanized the middle country of the Ganges Doab after picking up ideas of craftsmen in the Indus Valley and the Baluch borderland." (Ibid) 

According to some authors Chandragupta Maurya and his dynasty were the ghosts of the Harappa Empire. "To the complex pattern of the Indian Middle Ages the ancient urban civilization of the Punjab and the Indus surely contributed not a little. And this was a contribution not only in the sphere of religious speculation or in traditions of ritual and ceremonial observances: The whole character of medieval Hindu society and the structure of its polity and government seem inevitably a reflection of the civilization of Sind and the Punjab. (Ibid)

Some modern historians even link the great Ajanta art to the Indus Valley Civilization because "the Vedic Hindu culture which prevailed before the Buddhistic culture in north India is not known to have had any painting worth the name." (Indian Culture, By S. Abid Hussain)

The Aryan tribes which occupied Pakistan have been identified as Sivas, Parsas, Kayayas, Vrichivants, Yadus, Anus, Turvasas, Dratyus and Nichyas. The Sivas Aryans had their capital at Sivistan which is supposed to be modern Sehwan.

It may be of interest to mention here that so long as the Aryans stayed in Pakistan, they did not evolve that particular religion called 'Hinduism' with its caste system and other taboos. It was only when they crossed the Sutlej and settled in the Gangetic Valley that this abomninable system was evolved. "While settled in the Punjab the Aryans had not yet become Hindu.... The distinctive Brahmanical System appears to have been evolved after the Sutlej had been passed. To the east of Sutlej the Indo-Aryans were usually safe from foreign invasions and free to work out their own rule of life undisturbed. This also explains the absence of Hindu holy cities and temples in Pakistan." (Oxford history of India, By V.A. Smith, 3rd edition)

"The castes were hardened by the time the Aryans occupied the middle land i.e., the Gangetic Valley and distinguished themselves from their brethern in Sind and the Punjab who were despised by them for not observing the rules of caste .... and for their non-Brahmanical character." (Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur)

"While the Aryans had by now expanded far into India, their old home in the Punjab, Sind and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely, and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where the Vedic sacrifices are not performed." (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham)

However, the one redeeming point that emerges from the Aryan occupation of Pakistan for over five hundred years from 1,500 B.C. to 1,000 B.C. is that during this entire period this countly again led a separate existence. It had hardly anything to do yet with the rest of the sub-continent and continued the traditions of cultural and political independence inherited from the Indus Valley Civilization. As such, even under Aryan occupation, Pakistan was an independent country separate from India.

"The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas". (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)

When the Aryans conquered India and migrated from Pakistan in about 1,000 B.C., the latter country again became independent and did not conform to the system that began to be evolved in the Gangetic Valley by its conquerers. Except for the Rigveda, the remaining three Vedas and other religious books of the Hindus such as Upanishads, Shastras, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, the two epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata etc., on which their social and cultural system rests, were written outside Pakistan.

For the next about five hundred years from 1,000 B.C. to 500 B.C. little is known about Pakistan. Many of the Aryans had left this country (and many remained) and the only point clear is that these areas had again become independent, were averse to the religious system evolved by the Aryans in India, leading to a rift between the two. The Aryans were extremely unhappy at this revolt by the people of Pakistan and had begun to despise and abhor them placing them outside their fold.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-5

PART OF PERSIAN EMPIRE*

The next chapter of Pakistan's history unravels itself with the attack of Persians under Darius (522 B.C.486 B.C.) who made this region a province of Achaemenian Empire (or may be earlier under his grand-father Cyrus). Darius affirms this in his inscriptions at Persepolis and Naksh-e-Rustam mentioning Hapta Hindva (seven rivers) as a province of his Empire. The conquered provinces of the Punjab and Sind were considered to be the richest and most populous satrapy of the Empire, to the revenues of which they were required to pay the enormous tribute of a million sterling. (Studies in Indian History, By K.M. Panikkar). This 15th (20th according to some) Satrapy of Darius' Empire extended up to Beas - almost the same area as now covered by Pakistan.

Vincent Smith says: "although the exact limits of the Indian satrapy under Darius cannot be determined.. it must have comprised the course of the Indus from Kalabagh to the sea, including the whole of Sind, and perhaps included a considerable portion of the Punjab east of Indus."

"We know nothing certain about the fate of this region until the latter half of the 6th century B.C. when Gandhara (Peshawar in the NWFP and Rawalpindi region in the Punjab) together with the province of Indus were included in the Persian Empire of the Achaemenids." (the Cambridge History of India, Vol.I, Edited by E.J. Rapson)

"It seems that Darius I held the entire course of the Indus from the Upper Punjab to the Arabian Sea and some land to the east of the river how far east is not known, but most authorities seem to think that he had the sections of Sind west of the Rajputana Desert and had penetrated into the Punjab beyond the Indus.

"The one generalization we can make is that politically the north-west was again separate from central, northern, and eastern India. The fact seems clearly to have facilitated the invasion of Alexander and to have contributed to the cultural divergence between the north-west and the rest of the subcontinent in the centuries after his time." (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown).

A Pakistani contingent fought in Xerxes' army on his expedition to Greece. Herodotus mentions that the Indus satrapy supplied cavalry and chariots to the Persian army. He also mentions that the Indus people were clad in armaments made of cotton, carried bows and arrows of cane covered with iron. Herodotus states that in 517 B.C. Darius sent an expedition under Scylax to explore the Indus.

As part of the Persian Empire, Pakistan had a flourishing economy; inter-regional trade developed considerably and several caravan cities sprang up. Charsadda on the Peshawar road and Taxila near Rawalpindi were supposed to have been two of the many centres of trade and intellectual activity during the pax-Persica of the latter half of the 6th century B.C.

"The materials available to the scholar today indicate that the northwestern part of the sub-continent was an economically advanced province in the last centuries of the first millennium B.C. to the early first millennium of our era. Herodotus describes the Indians inhabiting the part of the sub-continent under the Achaemenids as the most numerous of all peoples known to him, a people who "paid (to the Achaemenids) a tribute which was great in Comparison to the others." (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky)

As such, as part of the Achaemenian Empire she became involved in Middle East politics. Since Darius had defeated the Greeks extending the western frontiers of his Empire up to River Danube, and since Pakistani troops had participated in this campaign and in another war against Greece under Xerxes (486-465 B.C.), when Alexander came out to take revenge for his country's previous defeats he made it a point to attack and annex Pakistan. The fact that Pakistan was part of the Persian Empire till Alexander's time is proved by the call which Darius III, the last of the Achaemenian dynasty was able to issue to troops of the md us satrapy when making his final stand at Arbela to resist the Greek invasion of Persia by Alexander. According to the historian, Arrian, some of the forces of Indus people were grouped with their neighbours, the Bactrians and the Sogdians, under the command of the satrap of Bactria at Arbela against Alexander.

An important point to be noted here is that even during the period Pakistan was under the Achaemenian Empire from the time of Darius, about 500 B.C. to the arrival of Alexander in 327 B.C., i.e., a span of almost two hundred years, it enjoyed complete autonomy. Its administration was under several local rulers (rajas) who merely acknowledged the suzerainty of the Persians. During the last days of the Achaemenians when the monarchy had become decadent autonomy was asserted to a still greater extent.

"Alexander's invasion of the Punjab (326/27-325) is sometimes mentioned as marking the beginning of Greek influence upon the sub-continent. Though this statement is in a sense true, it is probably more accurate to say that because the Achaemenian empire included the north-west and Alexander took it over in conquering that empire, it was natural that Hellenism, on developing in that Empire after Alexander's time, should enter the North-West. (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-6

ALEXANDER'S INVASION*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-7

UNDER THE MAURYAN EMPIRE*

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

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

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-8

GRAECO-BACTRIAN RULE*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-9

THE SAKAS*

The Graeco-Bactrian rule, like that of its predecessor the Mauryan, did not last for more than a century. Internecine warfare and internal schisms soon weakened them. Pakistan was divided into several petty Greek Kingdoms which easily fell victim to the great wave of Scythians (Sakas) which took place in the middle of the first century B.C. This was a huge sea of nomads which, pressed in Central Asia and on China's borders by fiercer and tougher people migrated on an extensive scale. They overthrew the Greek rulers and established their sovereignty as well as settlements all over Pakistan.

Pakistan began to receive many waves of Sakas and Parthians. In the next stage beginning from 1st century B.C. wave after wave of the people such as the Kushans, the White Huns and the Gujjars also began to settle in Pakistan. In the course of time, all of these groups constituted an overwhelmingly predominant element of its population. This composition continues to this day. These waves were so large and cataclysmic that everything was sub-merged in it or absorbed by it. The waves of Sakas were so enormous and their settlements so vast that Pakistan came to be known to Greek geographers as Scythia and in Indian literature as Saka-dipa.

The first three Saka kings of Pakistan were Maues, Azes I and Azilises. Their numerous coinages are, almost without exception, copied from those of their Yavana (Greek) predecessors. As regards language and culture, the Sakas mostly adopted those of the Pahlavas or Parthians of Iran. In fact at a later stage Saka-dipa (Pakistan) was ruled by Pahlava princes. The most well-known of them was Gondopharnes whose capital was Taxila. During his reign (20-48 A.D.) St. Thomas, according to early ecclesiastical legends, preached Christianity in his dominions.

"Of the political history of this period a great deal is still in suspense. The leaders of the Sakas in the Indus basin seem to have first acknowledged the power of the local Greek Indian rulers. It is not until a few decades later that they felt themselves strong enough to lay claim to supreme suzerainship. Ghandara became the centre of the Saka domains, and the eastern Capital city of Taxila was chosen by the Saka king Mavak (Maues or Mauakes in the ancient authors, and Moga in early Indian sources) in the middle of the first century B.C. as its residence. Mavak's successors propagated their power over a considerable part of the Punjab.

"In the north-west in the Punjab, however, the Saka leaders' hold was shortlived. The dynasty founded by Mavak was overthrown by the Parthians as early as the beginning of the first century of our era.

"In the Western Punjab, Upper Sind and Derajat, a number of warring rulers related to the Surens, a Parthian clan controlling the eastern areas of Iran, held sway. The Parthian Kings, who keep ousting one another, rule over this country" (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu.V.Gankovsky).

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-10

THE KUSHANS*

The next important chapter in Pakistan's history begins with the arrival of another wave of Central Asian tribes called the Yueh-chi. Because of the turbulent and unsettled conditions on the borders of China, one tribe was chasing out the other and occupying their grazing lands. One such movement brought the Yueh-chi to Pakistan, a branch of which was known as the Kushans. This was about the middle of the first century A.D. 

The Kushans overthrew the Saka-Parthian princes and established an empire which became one of the world's greatest and most distinguished both from the point of view of territory as well as cultural and religious achievements. The Kushan ruler who Conquered Pakistan was Vima Kadphises who was succeeded in about 78 A.D. by Kanishka. The Kushan rule, however, did not completely eliminate the Sakas from Pakistan. They had permanently settled down in these areas in large numbers and continued to be governed by their princes who merely extended allegiance to the Kushan kings.This is proved by the Sue Vihara inscription in the Bahawalpur Division which is dated in the regnal year of Kanishka 11(89 A.D.). Even the era said to have been founded by Kanishka in 78 A.D. was known as Saka Era. "There is evidence to show that they (Sakas) still governed their own states, no doubt as feudatories more or less nominal of the Kushans" (Cambridge History of India, Vol.1, edited by E.J. Rapson).

The Kushans, with their capital at Purushapura (Peshawar) had their dominions on both sides of the Hindu Kush i.e., extending up to and including parts of Turkistan in the north-west, embracing the whole of modern Afghanistan, and in the east the entire Pakistan and major portion of northern India. The greatest ruler of the dynasty, Kanishka, had adopted Buddhism and it was during his period that both Buddhist religion and Greek art reached their zenith which is known under the nomenclature of Gandhara Civilization. It was again during his regime and because of his efforts that Buddhism spread in Central Asia and China. This period is regarded as the most important in the history of Buddhism.

The budding and blossoming of Gandhara art was not a new phenomena in Pakistan's history as this land had given birth to several such brilliant civilizations since pre-historic times beginning with Indus Valley Civilizadon. Judeiro Daro and Shahi Tump in Baluchistan; Moenjo Daro, Kot Diji, Amri, Chanhu Daro, and Sehwan in Sind; Harappa, Sari Kola and Taxila in the Punjab, Takht-i-Bahi and Mingora in NWFP have been seats of learning and art, centres of great religious activity and pivots of political power. It may be pointed out that Sari Kola in Pindi Division (3000 B.C.), Kot Diji in Khairpur Division (2800 B.C.) and Amri in Dadu District (3000 B.C.) are all pre-Indus Valley civilizations.

"When the great monarch Kanishka actively espoused the cause of Buddhism and essayed to play the part of a second Ashoka, the devotion of the adherents of the favoured creed received an impulse which speedily resulted in the copious production of artistic creations of no small merit.

"In literature the memory of Kanishka is associated with the names of the eminent Buddhist writers Nagarjuna, Asvaghosha and Vasumitra. Asvaghosha is described as having been a poet, musician, scholar, religious controversialist and zealous Buddhist monk. Charaka, the most celebrated of the early Indian authors treating of medical science, is reputed to have been the court physician of Kanishka.

"Architecture, with its subsidiary art of sculpture, enjoyed the liberal patronage of Kanishka, who was like Ashoka a great builder. The tower at Peshawar built over the relics of Buddha and chiefly constructed of timber stood 400 feet high. The Sirsukh section of Taxila hides the ruins of the city built by Kanishka. A town in Kashmir, still represented by a village bore the King's name" (Oxford History of India, by V.A. Smith).

A unique feature of Kanishka's empire was that with the capital at Peshawar its frontiers touched the borders of all the great civilizations of the time, while its Central Asian provinces lay astride the Roman Middle East-Chinese trade routes. Roman Empire during the days of Trajan and Hadrian (98-138 A.D.) had expanded furthest East almost touching Pakistan's Kushan Empire. Similarly, Kanishka's conquests had brought Khotan,Yarkand and Kashgar within Pakistan's jurisdiction effecting direct contact with China. This was one of the most important factors in providing impetus to art and architecture, science and learning in Pakistan. The best specimen of Graeco-Roman art discovered in and around Peshawar, Swat and Taxila belong to this period, mostly executed during the 2nd century A.D. in the reigns of Kanishka and his son Huvishka. The Kushans exchanged embassies with the Chinese as well as the Romans. Mark Antony had sent ambassadors, and the Kushans sent a return embassy to the court of Augustus "In the middle of the first century of our era, one of the Tokhari princes belonging to the Kushans, Kujula Kadphises, unified the dispersed Tokhari principalities. As he grew stronger, the leader of the Kushans extended his suzerainship to the lands south of the Hindu Kush, in the Kabul Basin and on the Upper Indus. Kujula Kadphises's successors, the most prominent of whom was Kanishka (circa A.D. 78-120) kept on the expansive policy of his subcontinent (Kashmir, the Punjab and Sind). The rulers of Gujrat, Rajasthan and the states lying in the Ganges-Jumna doab were the vassals of the Kushan kings. The Kushan kings also held control of the territory of the present day Afghanistan, Kashgar, Khotan, Yarkand and the southern areas of Middle Asia. Gandhara i.e., the territory lying in the valleys of the Kabul and the Middle Indus, became the centre of a vast empire. The city of Purushapura (the present-day Peshawar) is known to have been the capital of Kanishka.

"The Kushan empire dissolved in the third century of our era. The Iranian shahs of the Sassanid dynasty took in the western territories. Various dynasties of Middle Asia took hold of the lands north of the Hindu Kush" (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu.V.Gankovsky).

After ruling for over two hundred years from the middle of the 1st century A.D. to the middle of the 3rd century A.D. the Kushan Empire collapsed. Already, a few decades earlier, its frontiers had shrinked to those of Pakistan having shed the territories beyond Hindu Kush in Central Asia and eastward of Sutlej in India. The final blow was administered by Shahpur I, the head of a new dynasty of Sassanians that had emerged in Iran in 226 A.D. after a long period of anarchy prevailing for over 500 years since Alexander had eliminated the Achaemenians. "Shahpur I clearly includes in his Empire the greater part of Pakistan. Shahpur's son Narses had been made Shah of Seistan, Baluchistan and Sind and the seashore i.e., Pakistan and a bit more" (Pakistan in early Sassanian times, By M. Sprengling).

But this time Iran could not keep its sway over Pakistan for long. Though defeated, Kushans continued to rule over Pakistan for a considerably long period with the smaller kingdoms still retained by the redoubtable Sakas---both being Central Asian tribes. It seemed that ethnically and politically the Central Asian elements had become a permanent feature of Pakistan. Strong Kushan-Saka dynasties continued to exist in Kabul and Pakistan until another great event in the history of this area i.e., the Hun invasions in the 5th century A.D.-----some principalities survived even till the Arab conquest.

An important development had taken place in the neighbouring Country of India a little earlier which deserves our attention. Buddhism, which was on the decline from the 3rd century A.D. onward was overthrown by Hinduism reasserting its lost hegemony. This process culminated with the coming into power of the Guptas by the end of the 4th century A.D. A point of considerable significance to be noted here is that though the Gupta Empire is considered one of the most glorious in the annals of Hindu history covering a vast area of this sub-continent, yet it could not bring Pakistan under its tutelage. During the Gupta period, Pakistan was in the hands of Kushan Shahis and Sassanians. Even during Samudragupta's triumphal career this region remained independent of India. "Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority ofthe Kushan kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin...... Gupta Empire---the greatest in India since the days of Ashoka-extended in the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir" (Oxford History of India).

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-11

WHITE HUNS (Hephthalites)*

Coming back to the Hun invasion it may be mentioned that this was also, like that of the Sakas, one of the greatest migrations of Central Asian nomadic tribes in the history of Pakistan and the sub-continent. The particular branch of the Huns which was encamped in the Oxus Valley and which came to Pakistan was known as Epthalite or White Huns. They were accompanied by a number of other tribes including Gurjaras. They started coming in wave after wave from the middle of the 5th century A.D. and very soon became rulers of Pakistan. One of their mighty rulers was Mehar Gul (Sunflower) whose capital was Sakala, Sialkot.

The mass immigration of Huns and Gurjaras extending over the 5th and the 6th centuries constitutes a turning point in the history of Pakistan and of northern India both politically and socially. Politically because henceforth, till the arrival of Muslims, they were the ruling class in Pakistan and in most of northern India. Socially because the origin of majority of the tribes of Pakistan and those of Rajputana is traceable to them. "No authentic family or class traditions go back beyond the Hun invasion. All genuine tradition of the earlier dynasties has been absolutely lost. The history of the Mauryas, Kushans and Guptas, so far as it is known has been recovered labourously by the researches of scholars, without material help from living tradition." (Ibid). Many of Afghan-Pathan tribes and most of the Rajput and Jat clans of the Punjab and Sind are, according to modern scholars, descended from the Epthalites i.e., White Huns.

There was a period of confusion forming the transition from one age to another. Pakistan and north India had left the Early Period of history and entered what is generally termed as the Medieval Period. During the transition the hordes of foreign invaders were gradually absorbed into the Hindu body politic and new grouping of states began to evolve. This period was marked by the development of the Rajput clans never heard of in earlier times. They began to play highly prominent role after the death of Harsha so much so that the 500-year period from the 7th century A.D. to the 12th century A.D. (i.e., till the arrival of Muslim Turks) may be called the Rajput period.

The Hun invasions and their consequences broke the chain of historical tradition. Living clan traditions rarely if ever go back beyond the 8th century and few go as far. The existing clan-castes only began to be formed in the 6th century. The Brahmans found their advantage in treating new aristocracy, whatever its social origin, as representing the ancient Kshatriya class of the scriptures, and the novel term Raja-putra or Rajput, meaning king's son, or member of a ruling family or clan came in use as an equivalent of Kshatriya." (Oxford History of India).

During this 500-year period, again, Pakistan was under quite independent Rajput kingdoms separate from those of India. Even the Gurjara-Pratihara Empire of northern India which was one of the most important formed during this period did not include Pakistan, not even during the days of its greatest and most powerful king Raja Bhoja. "The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D. is extremely obscure." (Ibid). At some time during this period, a powerful kingdom had been formed in Pakistan which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra or 'lost river' in East Punjab so that it comprised a large part of the NWFP and the Punjab. At the time Mahmud Ghaznavi came into power at the end of the 10th century A.D. this kingdom was still in existence and it was with its ruler Raja Jaipal that he came into clash.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-12

ARAB RULE*

During the period of Rajput supremacy in north India i.e., 7th to 12th century A.D. another event occurred in the history of Pakistan which ultimately brought about a profound change in its entire composition and character. The great Muslim soldier Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered Pakistan early in the 8th century (712 A.D.) and extended the Umayyad Muslim rule to the Indus Valley. Strangely indeed, like Alexander he travelled and subdued the whole of Pakistan from Karachi to Kashmir. The only difference between the two was that while Alexander entered Pakistan from the north, Mohammad Bin Qasim came from the south. "With a force of 6,000 men Mohammad Bin Qasim, a youth of 20 conquered and reorganised the whole country from the mouth of the Indus to the border of Kashmir, a distance of 800 miles, in 3 years. The country of Sind in those days also included the Punjab." (The making of India, by Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali).

But Mohammad Bin Qasim's conquests up to Kashmir could not be sustained by Muslims for long. The Umayyad rule had stretched too far straining its nerves and exhausting its resources to the breaking point. From Lisbon in Portugal to Lahore in the Punjab was too long a distance to bear the strains and stresses of communication and administrative control. After Mohammad Bin Qasim's departure, therefore, Muslim rule shrinked to Sind and southern Punjab. Even in these areas several small non-Muslim kingdoms still held sway. However, from this period (8th century A.D.) onward Pakistan was divided into two parts for a long time; the northern one comprising of the Punjab and NWFP under a non-Muslim Raja and the southern one comprising of Multan, Sind and Baluchistan under various Muslim rulers. This state of affairs continued till 1000 A.D. when Mahmud Ghaznavi appeared on the scene. During this 300-year period also (712 A.D.-1000 A.D.) as can be observed from the above facts, Pakistan had hardly anything to do with India. Both the northern and southern parts were having their own independent governments --- the latter owing nominal allegiance te the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, again looking westward. We shall discuss the 300 year Arab rule in Pakistan in some detail later on!

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-13

GHAZNAVID RULE*

The next period in Pakistan's history begins with the defeat of Raj Jaipal and his son Anandpal, rulers of northern areas of Pakistan, and of the Ismaili and Carmathian rulers of southern areas i.e., Multan and Sind at the hands of Mahmud Ghaznavi, leading to the unity of the two region. Eleventh century ushered in an era of Muslim rule over the entire length and breadth of Pakistan. During the 32 years of his rule Mahmud invaded Pakistan and India more than 17 times and though he carried his successful arms up to Muthra, Kanauj, Baran and Gawaliar, he did not annex any area beyond Ravi. As such, Pakistan continued to remain separate from India, again looking westward constituting a part of the Ghaznavi Empire. The boundaries also were almost the same which had been coming down from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization. It will be notice that this phenomena of Pakistan forming a separate country with its eastern boundaries running upto either Ravi, Beas or Sutlej has been recurring again and again.

The Ghaznavid rule in Pakistan lasted for over hundred and seventy five years from say 1010 A.D. to 1187 A.D. It was during this period that Lahore assumed considerable importance as the eastern-most bastion Muslim power and as an outpost for further advance in the East. It was city of ghazis, saints and intellectuals. Apart from being the second capital and later on the only capital of Ghaznavid kingdom of Pakistan it had a great military and strategic significance. Whoever controlled this city could look forward to and be in a position to sweep the whole of East Punjab to Panipat and Delhi.

Contrary to the general belief that Mahmud Ghaznavi was a Hindu-killer or destroyer of Hindu religious places, he was extremely liberal towards them. His army consisted of a large number of Hindus and some of the commanders of his army were Hindus. Sonday Rai was the Commander of Mahmud's crack regiment and took part in several important campaigns with him. The coins struck during Mahmud's reign bore his on the one side and the figure of a Hindu god on the other.

Not only Mahmud Ghaznavi but his successors also were great patrons of Hindus. In fact some of the historians of the early period feel that the main cause of the fall of the Ghaznavid Empire was their excessive reliance on Hindus and the appointment of Hindus to positions of great responsibility. When in 1034 A.D. - 426 A.H., the Governor of Lahore, Ahmed Nial Tagin was suspected of rebellion, Sultan Masud Ghaznavi sent General Nath, a Hindu, to crush him. When Nath was killed in the fighting, Masud sent another of his Hindu generals, Tilak, who succeeded in killing Nial Tagin by treachery. This is the story of the Ghaznavids who are generally considered Hindu-killers.

It may be of interest to note here that Mahmud Ghaznavi's exploits of Somnath and the destruction of the temple are mentioned only by Muslim historians. No Hindu record, either contemporary or of a later date, makes any mention of it. Unfortunately some Muslim historians had the habit of painting an exaggerated picture of the campaigns of their rulers which was exploited by English and Hindu historians of our own times to present Muslim rulers as destroyers of temples.

So far one of our objects has been to underline the fact that right from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization down to the end of the Ghaznavid rule at the fall of the 12th century A.D. over a period of more than four thousand years, Pakistan has been invariably a single, compact, separate entity either independent or part of powers located to her west; its dependence on or forming part of India was merely an exception and that too for an extremely short period. It was only when the Muslims established themselves at Delhi early in the 13 century A.D. that Pakistan was made a part of India, but not in the pre-Muslim period. And once Muslims' successors in the sub-continent, the British, relinquished power in the middle of the 20th century, Pakistan reverted to its normal position of an independent country. Indian propaganda that the division of this sub-continent was unnatural and unrealistic is fake and fraudulent. Muslims had joined this region of Pakistan with India in the early 13th century A.D. when the Delhi Sultanate was formed; again Muslims have disconnected it from India giving it the normal and natural form which its geographical, ethnical, cultural and religious identity demanded.

"Barred from the east by desert and jungle, Pakistan in ancient time looked westward by land and sea. Only when, in the middle ages, powerful Islamic armies thrust through into the North Indian plains, was the traditional bias towards the west seriously modified; and even then the Indus region retained close and special cultural links with the lands which we know as Iran and Iraq." (Ancient trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler).

"Periods during 2500 years of history when the Punjab, which is the most important section of the north-west, has been culturally assimilated to the rest of the sub-continent, or even to North India, are few if any at all. The centuries in which the Punjab and any substantial part of North India have been politically united are also few. It is then no surprise in our time to find Pakistan looking to the West rather than to the East. For that area the strongest ties of international life are the cultural. This is a current manifestation of an ancient tradition." (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Norman Brown).

During this period of four thousand one hundred and fifty years, Pakistan was ruled by India only during the short 95-year period of Mauryan Empire which, for the greater part, was a Buddhist regime.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*PART-14

POST-GHAZNAVID ERA*

After the conquest of Pakistan and a major portion of northern India; and Bangla Desh at the end of the 12th and beginning of 13th century A.D., Mohammad Ghori appointed four Governors for the conquered regions. It should be noticed that here also Pakistan was treated as separate from India. He appointed Tajuddin Yaldaz for (Ghazna) Afghanistan, Naseruddin Qubacha for Pakistan, Qutubuddin Aibak and Shamsuddin Altamash for northern India and Bakhtiar Khilji for Bengal. When, at the death of Mohammad Ghori, Qutubuddin Aibak succeeded him in 1206, Naseruddin Qubacha, Governor of Pakistan did not consider himself or his country (Pakistan) subservient to Delhi. He remained independent as long as he was alive and it was only after his death in 1227 that Shamsuddin Altamash annexed Pakistan. From 1227 to 1739 i.e., a span of 500 years, Pakistan remained a part of India --- entirely Muslim period and because of Muslim efforts.

In 1739 Nadir Shah attacked India and after defeating the Mughal Emperor Mohammed Shah (Rangeela) claimed Punjab (from Lahore westward), N .W.F.P., Baluchistan and Sind as provinces of his Empire. On the death of Nader Shah one of his generals, Ahmed Shah Abdali estabished the kingdom of Afghanistan in 1747 and made Pakistan part of his newly created state, not only de jure but de facto. He claimed Kashmir, Peshawar, Daman, Multan, Sind and Punjab upto Sutlej. Thus it will be noticed that only a few years after Aurangzeb's death in 1707 A.D. Pakistan's westward attachements again revived.

When the Abdali kingdom weakened early in the 19th century due to internecine warfare, Pakistan did not revert to Indian control but instead an independent kingdom arose in Punjab headed by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh. What is most interesting is that the eastern frontiers of Ranjit Singh's kingdom, again, did not go beyond Sutlej, the traditional frontier of Pakistan. The British who had established their control over Delhi in 803 warned Ranjit Singh not to try to impose his authority on the Sikh Sardars of East Punjab i.e., beyond Sutlej. As for Sind, from as early as the last days of Aurangzeb, it had begun to assert its independence and a succession of semi-independent dynasties under the Daudpotas, Kalhoras and Talpurs continued to rule over this province till British conquest in 1843 A.D. All these dynasties looked more towards Iran, Kabul and Qandhar than towards Delhi. Same was the case with Baluchistan which was now under the sway of the Khanate of Kalat.

Sikh rule (Sikhism?) lasted for almost half a century and when it collapsed, Pakistan as again brought under India, not by the Hindus but by an alien power, the British. After ruling over Pakistan for about a century (1848-1947) when the British relinquished control, these lands reverted back to their normal position of an independent country--- this time the task was accomplished in the name of Islamic ideology since the region had acquired Muslim majority by now.

It must have become quite clear to the readers that except for the Maurya, Turko-Mughal and British periods---- one Buddhist, one Islamic and one Christian---- Pakistan invariably remained independent or part of powers located on her west. In fact there have been more occasions when northern India was ruled by Pakistan based kingdoms than Pakistan being ruled by northern Indian kingdoms. The Graeco Bactrians with their capital at Taxila ruled over a large part of northern India for quite some time; the Kushans with their seat of power at Peshawar held sway over most of the Gangetic Valley. The Sakas and Huns ruling from various cities of Pakistan brought major portion of northern India under their control.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Part-15

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present: *


1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire. 

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India. 

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule. 

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India. 

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India. 

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India. 

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India. 

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India. 

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India. 

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India. 

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts. 

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India. 

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India. 

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule. 

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India. 


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## aryan2007

> The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.
> 
> Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif



well I think the Southern India has been a part of India then for a much lesser time... or for that matter even North Eastern India.. and Pakistan should include Indian Historical Punjab also.. Kashmir has also not been a part of India for a very long time... Again Kalinga, Magadha empires were distinct..So what do we call India??

This relatively flat piece of land bordered by mountains and water otherwise called India has been truly united as a political entity under 1 ruler only for a very brief period under the Mauryan Empire, the British Empire and the Mughal empire...

Being such a vast country India cannot have cent per cent cultural similarities as a matter fact in India as in Pakistan customs, languages/dialects, ethnic groups change rapidly from one part to the other.... the uniting cord of India and Pakistan has been language both have been derived from a common ancestor, ethnic groups can be broadly clubbed together, Topographies can be clubbed together.. It is quite clear that Balochistan serves as the buffer area b/w India and Iran.. NWFP and HK Mountains B/w Afghanistan/Central Asia and India... Himalayas b/w India and TIbet... and the dense Jungles and Hills and harsh terrain of NE b/w India and Burma... 


sir India is an ammalgamation .. and that ammalgamation includes lands which now form part of Pakistan.. it is not as though Pakistan and INdia were divided by 100 leagues of oceans.. The only 2 provinces which can be considered distinct/buffer zones are NWFP and Balochistan ... though I can by using your logic point out that Eastern Afghanistan can also be considered a part of India ;-) 


I think such articles can only claim to be false shot in the arm for people still trying to find substance in the 2 nation theory.. as I have said 2 nation theory was not a clash of civilsations or this land was chosen because it divided the 2 people into opp. culture.. simple fact is these districts had more muslims.. and as we all know in a democracy relative majority wins and not absolute.. so .. this was nothing but a clash of egos influence and power struggle... and the populace voted as per their interests..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*The Road To Independence​*
The British had emerged as the dominant force in South Asia. Their rise to power was gradual extending over a period of nearly one hundred years. They replaced the Shariah by what they termed as he Anglo-Muhammadan law. English became the official language. Thes and other developments had great social, economic and political impact especially on the Muslims of South Asia. 

The failure of the 1857 War of Independence had disastrous consequences for the Muslims. Determined to stop such a recurrence in future, they followed deliberately a repressive policy against the Muslims. Properties and estates of those even remotely associated with the freedom fighters were confiscated and conscious efforts were made to close all avenues of honest living for the Muslims. 

*Indian Reaction to Britishers *

The Muslims kept themselves aloof from western education as well as government service. But their compatriots, the Hindus, did not do so. They accepted the new rulers without reservation. They acquired western education, imbibed the new culture and captured positions hitherto filled in by the Muslims. If this situation had prolonged, it would have done the Muslims an irrepairable loss. The man to realise the impending peril was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-1898), a witness to the tragic events of 1857. His assessment was that the Muslims' safety lay in the acquisition of western education and knowledge. He took several positive steps to achieve this objective. He founded a college at Aligarh to impart education on western lines. Of equal importance was the Anglo-Muhammadan Education Conference, which he sponsored in 1886, to provide an intellectual forum to the Muslims for the dissemination of views in support of western education and social reform. Similar were the objectives of the Muhammadan Literary Society, founded by Nawab Abdul Latif (1828-93), but its activities were confined to Bengal. 

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was averse to the idea of Muslims participation in any organised political activity which, he feared, might revive British hostility towards the Muslims. He also disliked Hindu-Muslim collaboration in any joint venture. His disillusionment in this regard primarily stemmed from the Urdu-Hindi controversy of the late 1860s when the Hindu enthusiasts vehemently championed the cause of Hindi in place of Urdu. He, therefore, opposed the Indian National Congress, when it was founded in 1885, and advised his community to abstain from its activities. His contemporary and a great scholar of Islam, Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928), shared his views about the Congress, but he was not opposed to Muslims organizing themselves politically. In fact, he organized the first significant and purely communal political body, the Central National Muhammadan Association. Although its membership was limited, it had above fifty branches in different parts of the subcontinent and it accomplished some solid work for the educational and political uplift of the Muslims. But its activities waned towards the end of the 19th century. 


*All-India Muslim League *

At the dawn of the 20th century, a number of factors convinced the Muslims of the need to have an effective political organization. One of the factors was the replacement of Urdu by Hindi in the United Provinces. The creation of a Muslim province by partitioning the Province of Bengal and the violent resistance put up the Hindus against this decision was another. But the most important factor was the proposed consititutional reforms. The Muslims apprehended that under such a system they would not get due representation. Therefore, in October 1906, a deputation comprising 35 Muslim leaders met the Viceroy at Simla and demanded separate electorates. Three months later, the All-India Muslim League was founded at Dhaka mainly with the object of looking after the political rights and interests of the Muslims. The British conceded separate electorates in the Government of India Act of 1909 which confirmed League's position as an All-India Party. 


*Hindu-Muslim Relations* 

The visible trend of the two major communities going in opposite directions caused deep concern to leaders of all-India stature. They struggled to bring the Congress and the Muslim League on one platform. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was the leading figure among them. After the annulment of the partition of Bengal and the European powers' aggresive designs against the Ottoman empire and North Africa, the Muslims were receptive to the idea of collaboration with the Hindus. The Congress-Muslim League rapporchement was achieved at the Lucknow session of the two parties in 1916 and a joint scheme of reforms was adopted. In the Lucknow Pact, the Congress accepted the principle of separate electorates and the Muslims in return for 'weightage' to the Muslims of the Muslim minority provinces agreed to surrender their slim majorities in the Punjab and Bengal. The post-Lucknow Pact period witnessed Hindu-Muslim amity and the two parties came to hold their annual sessions in the same city and passed resolutions of similar content. 

The Hindu-Muslim unity reached its climax during the Khilafat and the Non-cooperation Movements. The Muslims of South Asia, under the leadership of Ali Brothers, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, launched the historic Khilafat Movement after the First World War to protect the Ottoman empire from dismemberment. Mohandas Karamchand Ghandhi (1869-1948) linked the issue of swaraj (or self-government) with the Khilafat issue to associate the Hindus with the Movement. The ensuing Movement was the first country-wide popular movement. Although the movement failed in its objectives, it had far-reaching impact on the Muslims of South Asia. After a long time they forged a united action on a purely Islamic issue which created momentarily solidarity among them. It also produced a class of Muslim leaders experienced in organizing and mobilizing the public. This experience was of immense value to the Muslims during the Pakistan Movement. 

The collapse of the Khilafat Movement was followed by the period of bitter Hindu-Muslim antagonism. The Hindus organized two highly anti-Muslim movements, the Shudhi and the Sangathan. The former movement was designed to convert Muslims to Hiduism and the latter was meant to create solidarity among the Hidus in the event of communal conflict. In retaliation, the Muslims sponsored the Tabligh and Tanzim organizations. 

*Muslim Demands *

In the 1920s the frequency of communal riots was unprecedented. In the light of this situation, the Muslims revised their constitutional demands. They now wanted preservation of their numerical majorities in the Punjab and Bengal; separation of Sind from Bombay; constitution of Baluchistan as a separate province and introduction of constitutional reforms in the North-West Frontier Province. It was partly to press these demands that one section of the All-India Muslim League cooperated with the Statutory Commission sent by the British Government, under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon in 1927. The other section of the League boycotted the Simon Commission for its all-white character and cooperated with the Nehru Committee to draft a constitution for India. The Nehru Report had an extremely anti-Muslim bias and the Congress leadership's refusal to amend it disillusioned even the moderate Muslims.

Several leaders and thinkers having insight into the Hindu-Muslim question proposed separation of Muslim India. However, the most lucid exposition of the inner feelings of the Muslim community was given by Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) in his presidential address to the All-India Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930. He proposed a separate Muslim state at least in the Muslim majority regions of the north-west. Later on, in his correspondence with Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, he included the Muslim majority areas in the north-east also in his proposed Muslim state. Three years after his Allahabad address, a group of Muslim students at Cambridge, headed by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali, issued a pamphlet Now or Never in which, drawing letters from the names of the Muslim majority regions they gave the nomenclature of Pakistan to the proposed state. 

*Round Table Confrences & Elections *

Meanwhile, three Round Table Conferences was convened in London during the period 1930-32, to resolve the Indian constitutional problem. The Hindu and Muslim leaders could not draw up an agreed formula and the British Government had to announce a 'Communal Award' which was incorporated in the Government of India Act of 1935. Before the elections under this Act, the All-India Muslin League, which had remained dormant for some time, was reorganised by Muhammad Ali Junnah, who had returned to India in 1935 after a self imposed exile of nearly five years in England. The Muslim League could not win a majority of Muslims seats since it had not yet been effectively reorganised. However, it had the satisfaction that the performance of the Indian National Congress in the Muslim constituencies was bad. After the elections, the attitude of the Congress leadership was arrogant and domineering. The classic example was its refusal to form a coalition government with the Muslim League in the United Provinces. Instead it asked the League leaders to dissolve their parliamentary party in the Provincial Assembly and join the Congress. Another important Congress move after the 1937 elections was its Muslim mass contact movement to persuade the Muslims to join the Congress and not the Muslim League. One of its leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru, even declared that there was only two forces in India, the British and the Congress. All this did not go unchallenged. Quaid-i-Azam countered that there was a third force in South Asia constituting the Muslims. The All-India Muslim League, under his gifted leadership, gradually and skilfully started to consolidate the Muslims on one platform. It did not miss to exploit even small Congress mistakes in its favour. 

*Muslim Nationalism *

The 1930s saw realization among the Muslims of their separate identity and their anxiety to preserve it within separate territorial boundaries. An important element that brought this simmering Muslim nationalism in the open was the charater of the Congress rule in the Muslim minority provinces during 1937-39. The Congress policies in these provinces hurt Muslim susceptibilities. These were calculated aims to obliterate the Muslims as a separate cultural unity. The Muslims now abandoned to think in terms of seeking safegaurds and began to consider seriously the demand for a separate Muslim state. During 1937-1939, several Muslim leaders and thinkers inspired by Allama Iqbal's ideas, presented elaborate schemes of partitioning the sub-continet on cummonal lines. The All-India Muslim League on March 23, 1940, in a resolution at its Lahore session, demanded separate homeland for the Muslims in the Muslim majority regions of the subcontinent. The resolution was commonly reffered to as the Pakistan Resolution. 

The British Government recognized the genuineness of the Pakistan deman indirectly in the proposals for the transfer of power which Sir Stafford Cripps brought to India in 1942. Both the Congress and the All-India Muslim League rejected these proposals for different reasons. The principle of secession of Muslim India as a separate dominion was, however, conceded in these proposals. After the failure, a prominent Congress leader, C. Rajagopalachari, suggested a formula for a separate Muslim state in the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress, which was rejected at the time but later on, in 1944, formed the basis of the Gandhi-Jinnah talks. 

The Pakistan demand was popularised during the Second World War. Every section of the Muslim community - women, students, Ulema and businessmen - was organised under the banner of the All-India Muslim League. Branches of the party were opened in the remote corners on the subcontinent. Literature in the form of phamphlets, books, magazines and newspapers was produced to explain the Pakistan demand and distributed largely. 

*Faliure of Hindu-Muslim Negotiations & Elections *

The support gained by the All-India Muslim League and its demand for Pakistan was tested after the failure of the Simla Conference 1945. Elections were called to determine the respective strength of the political parties. The Muslim League swept all the thirty seats in the central legislature and in the provincial elections also its victorywas outstanding. After the elections, on April 8-9, 1946, the All-India Muslim League called a convention of the newly elected League members in the central and provincial legislatures at Dehli. This convention which constituted virtually a representative assembly of the Muslims of South Asia, on a motion by the Chief Minister of Bengal, Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, reiterated the Pakistan demand in clearer terms. 

*British Efforts to Break Deadlock *

In early 1946, the British Government sent a Cabinet Misiion to the subcontinet to resolve the constitutional deadlock. The Mission conducted negotiations with various political parties but failed to evolve an agreed formula. Finally, Cabinet Mission announced its own plan which, among other provisions, envisaged three federal groupings, two of them comprising the Muslim majority provinces, linked at the Center in a loose federation with three subjects. The Muslim League accepted the Plan, as a strategic move, expecting to achieve its objective in a not-too-distant future. The Congress also agreed to the Plan but soon realising its implications to the Congress, its leaders began to interpret in a way not visualised by the authors of the Plan. This provided the All-India Muslim League an excuse to withdraw its acceptance of the Plan and the party observed August 16 as a 'Direct Action Day' to show Muslim solidarity in support of the Pakistan demand. 

In October 1946, an Interim Government was formed. The Muslim League sent its representatives under the leadership of its General Secretary, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, with the aim to fight for the party objective from within the Interim Government. After a short time the situation inside the Interim Government and outside convinced the Congress leadership to accept Pakistan as the only solution of the communal problem. 

*Independence *

The British Government, after a last attempt to save the Cabinet Mission Plan in December 1946, also moved toward a plan for the partition of India. The last British Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, came with a clear mandate to draft a plan for the transfer of power. After holding talks with political leaders and parties, he prepared a Partition Plan for the transfer of power which, after its approval by the British Government, was announced on June 3, 1947. Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the plan. Two largest Muslim Majority provinces, Bengal and Punjab was partitioned. The assemblies of west Punjab, East Bengal, and Sind; and in Baluchistan, the Quetta Municipality and the Shahi Jirga voted for Pakistan. Referenda were held in the North-West Frontier Province and the District of Sylhet in Assam which resulted in an overwhelming vote for Pakistan. On August 14, 1947, the new state of Pakistan came into existance.


----------



## Neo

*Pakistan in Early Days​*
*Euphoria fades*

The new nation of Pakistan began its journey from independence riding a ground swell of public support. in this too, my findings contradict the conventional narrative in Bangladesh history books. Bengali scholars argued that although the Urdu speaking group was very pleased with the turn of events, Bengalis knew from the very beginning that things would not go their way. The stories I collected paint a different picture. Just as Ansar Ali asserted that no Muslim from his generation could truthfully claim they were not pro-ML at the time, the interviews make it clear that in 1948 at least, it was impossible not to feel buoyant about the new state. MSI, who later was branded as a collaborator for his role in 1971, recollects: "I was standing on this brick road, what they called a herringbone road, because that was how the bricks were arranged. And on that day, I was so happy, I looked up at the sky, and made a small prayer: 'Allah, please don't let this country go into the hands of the mullahs.'" 

So optimistic was the mood, that even the Urdu speaking "outsiders" who came to from India were welcomed by local residents. What is equally remarkable about the early years of Pakistan is how quickly this euphoria faded. Several factors contributed to this, of which the most unexpected was the sudden death of Jinnah, his terminal condition being something that he had kept secret until his dying day. Following the loss of the Qaid i Azam (father of the nation), came the mysterious assassination of his successor, Liaqat Ali Khan. In contrast with India's relatively stable two decades of rule by Nehru, Pakistan got off to a very bumpy start. 

In spite of the political upheavals in the beginning, there were many economic opportunities in the new state. At least in the initial years, there was such a dearth of qualified Muslims, every person with even a high school degree was guaranteed a choice assignment. Gradually though, a pattern emerged and it became clear that the dominant group was, and would continue to be, Urdu speakers who had migrated to Pakistan from India (primarily from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh)-- popularly known as the mohajirs. Bengali historians in the 1960s ascribed this imbalance to a systematic bias against Bengalis. However, my travels and interviews in Karachi made it clear that there were other explanations for this imbalance. The mohajirs often came from villages where they had left everything behind, and had often been witness to large-scale carnage. For these people, there really was no looking back-- Pakistan was the promised land. Because of the Darwinian self-selection that went into the migration process, these migrants came to Pakistan with an incredible amount of drive and desire to succeed. Generally, the people that chose to migrate also had a high level of education. Sakr Khanu Badruddin Lakhani, a Karachi resident and migrant from Bihar, described how her mother already had a Bachelors' degree-- a highly unusual achievement for a woman in 1944. 

One other, more controversial aspect of the mohajir success story is their alleged aptitude for business. Many of the mohajirs had been wealthy in India, and managed to bring a large portion of their savings with them. These savings were often seed money for new ventures in Pakistan. Prior business connections also helped them to win the confidence of government institutions. At the same time, Bengali historians assert that, the mohajirs received biased treatment when applying for loans and permits. In response to this, the otherwise even-handed Hasan Zaheer states in The Separation of East Pakistan: The rise and realization of Muslim Bengali nationalism: "The fact of the matter was that the Bengali middle classes had failed to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities offered by the departure of Bengali Hindu businessmen. They failed to exert themselves to learn new trades, and did not develop entrepreneurial flair as the locals and migrants from India did all over West Pakistan. There was no indigenous capital or enterprise in East Pakistan to set up industries or take over the trade." Mr. G Inam owned the largest construction company in East Pakistan, but lost everything after 1971 when he had to migrate to Karachi. He explained his own success as the result solely of hard work: "Nobody handed me anything. I came over to what is now Bangladesh, and I had a burning desire to succeed. I did everything I could to get to that objective, but I had to work hard for it." Although these arguments made a strong case that the mohajirs were "more talented and entrepreneurial" than the Bengalis, Professor Mojaffar Ahmed added a different angle to this debate when he reminded me that Bengali businessmen could often not even get a permit if they did not have Urdu-speaking partners. Clearly hard work was important, but belonging to a group perceived to be "business-minded people" did not hurt either. 

*The language movement*

The 1952 language riots, protesting the imposition of Urdu as the only state language, were of pivotal importance in Pakistan's early trajectory. Coming only four years after independence, the incident revealed deep contradictions lying underneath the surface of the new state. The attempt to impose Urdu as the state language in order to foster solidarity resulted in quite the opposite. The action was a major blunder because it alienated even the most die-hard Pakistan and ML supporter. Because Urdu was only spoken by 4% of the general population, the incident revealed a streak of blatant favoritism. That people like Mofaxxal Haider Chowdhury would be furious over the incident was no surprise, since his specific field of study was Bengali. But the move alienated even those who saw Pakistan as a "savior" to Muslims of the subcontinent. Jubeida Khatoon entered the new state with great enthusiasm. Particularly in light of her horrific experience during the Calcutta riots, she was quite inclined to accept many government impositions as "necessary" for unity. But even she declared that, the move to ban Bengali was a mistake on the government's part. Clearly, the planners had thought that casting Urdu as an Islamic language would be sufficient to convince people of the necessity of one state language. But their calculations overlooked the incredible importance of language and culture for the middle class Bengali-- of whom, a large portion in 1952 were Muslims who had stayed on in Pakistan. 

The language riots served as the first indication of bubbles of discontent that were beginning to surface in East Pakistan. However, in their desire to present a smooth narrative of continuous Bengali resistance to central hegemony, Bengali historians stress that, since 1952, Bengalis have simply been more and more aware of their deprivation. leading logically to the events of 1971. In fact, my research revealed that, although there was immense anger at the time of the actual riots, once the state language ordinance was repealed, much of this hostility dissipated. 1952 was pivotal in two ways: firstly because a conflict based on issues of language helped Bengali Muslims to start differentiating themselves from the other Muslims who were fellow Pakistanis. Secondly, it gave Bengalis their first taste of street power, where demonstrations alone were enough to reverse an edict that was one of Jinnah's last wishes before dying. This feeling of empowerment was to have ominous impact on the military dictatorship of Ayub Khan in the future. 

*Martial Law*

Following a tumultuous decade of civilian rule, the military dictatorship of Ayub Khan took over in 1958. Army rule, with all its oppressive trappings, had significant impact on the situation in East Pakistan. Firstly, the Punjabi elite of the army displaced the mohajir from their lofty positions in the civil bureaucracy and the business community. This meant that, the already negligible Bengali share of the pie shrunk even further. In addition, the Punjabi military rulers took a very hostile approach to the Bengali middle class. To Ayub Khan and others like him, the Bengali middle class, with its pride in education and gentle manners, was the antithesis of the practical warrior code of life that the army was now bringing to Pakistan. Conflict was frequent in the ten years of Ayub's rule. Aminul Kawser Dipu tells this striking anecdote, which illuminates the air of distrust that prevailed on both sides; "I was in the train station, waiting for something. Now, at that time, I am a thin boy, very slight in build. There was a convoy getting on the train, and they were very smartly marching onto reserved carriages. Anyway, I soon lost interest in them and went over to the platform. I was doing something, don't remember, perhaps looking inside the carriages, when suddenly I feel something on my back. Next thing I know, I am lying on my back on the other side of the platform, staring as one convoy marches away. Apparently what happened was, I was in the way of one group marching along. So the company leader just picked me up and threw me to the side. I am so young, and yet I remember, right then and there, I developed pure hatred for these bloody Urduwallahs. Is this any way to treat a human being? I knew then, it was impossible to live with them."


----------



## Neo

*The Following Years​*
*The Ayub Years* 

Ayub ruled Pakistan almost absolutely for more than ten years, and his regime made some notable achievements, although it did not eliminate the basic problems of Pakistani society. A land reforms commission appointed by Ayub distributed some 900,000 hectares (about 2.2 million acres) of land among 150,000 tenants. The reforms, however, did not erase feudal relationships in the countryside; about 6000 landlords still retained an area three times larger than that given to the 150,000 tenants. Ayub's regime also increased developmental funds to East Pakistan more than threefold. This had a noticeable effect on the economy of the eastern part, but the disparity between the two sectors of Pakistan was not eliminated. 

Perhaps the most pervasive of Ayub's changes was his system of Basic Democracies. It created 80,000 basic democrats, or union councillors, who were rural influentials or leaders of urban areas around the country. They constituted the electoral college for presidential elections and for elections to the national and provincial legislatures created under the constitution promulgated by Ayub in 1962. The Basic Democratic System had four tiers of government from the national to the local level, and each tier was assigned certain responsibilities in administering the rural and urban areas, such as maintenance of elementary schools, public roads, and bridges. 

Ayub also promulgated an Islamic marriage and family laws ordinance in 1961, imposing restrictions on polygamy and divorce and reinforcing the inheritance rights of women and minors. 

For a long time Ayub maintained cordial relations with the United States, stimulating substantial economic and military aid to Pakistan. This relationship deteriorated, however, in 1965, when another war with India broke out over Kashmir. The United States then suspended military and economic aid to both countries, thus denying Pakistan badly needed weapons. The USSR intervened to mediate the conflict, inviting Ayub and Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri of India to Toshkent. By the terms of the so-called Toshkent Agreement of January 1966 the two countries withdrew their forces to prewar positions and restored diplomatic, economic, and trade relations. Exchange programs were initiated, and the flow of capital goods to Pakistan increased greatly. 

The Tashkent Agreement and the Kashmir war, however, generated frustration among the people and resentment against President Ayub. Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto resigned his position agitated against Ayub's dictatorship and the loss of Kashmir. Ayub tried unsuccessfully to make amends, and in March 1969 he resigned. Instead of transferring power to the speaker of the National Assembly, as the constitution dictated, he handed it over to the commander in chief of the army, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan. Yahya assumed the presidential office and declared martial law. 

*Civil War*

In an attempt to make his martial-law regime more acceptable, Yahya dismissed almost 300 senior civil servants and identified 30 families that were said to control about half of Pakistan's gross national product. To curb their power Yahya issued an ordinance against monopolies and restrictive trade practices in 1970. He also made commitments to transfer power to civilian authorities, but in the process of making this shift, his intended reforms broke down. 

The greatest challenge to Pakistan's unity, however, was presented by East Pakistan, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, leader of the Awami League, who insisted on a federation under which East Pakistan would be virtually independent. He envisaged a federal government that would deal with defense and foreign affairs only; even the currencies would be different, although freely convertible. His program had great appeal for many East Pakistanis, and in the election of December 1970 called by Yahya, Mujib, as he was generally called, won by a landslide in East Pakistan, capturing a clear majority in the National Assembly. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) emerged as the largest in West Pakistan. 

Suspecting Mujib of secessionist politics, Yahya in March 1971 postponed indefinitely the convening of the National Assembly. Mujib in return accused Yahya of collusion with Bhutto and established a virtually independent government in East Pakistan. Yahya opened negotiations with Mujib in Dhaka in mid-March, but the effort soon failed. Mujib was arrested and brought to West Pakistan to be tried for treason. Meanwhile Pakistan's army went into action against Mujib's civilian followers, who demanded that East Pakistan become independent as the nation of Bangladesh. 

There were a great many casualties during the ensuing military operations in East Pakistan, as the Pakistani army attacked the poorly armed population. India claimed that nearly 10 million Bengali refugees crossed its borders, and stories of West Pakistani atrocities abounded. The Awami League leaders took refuge in Calcutta and established a government in exile. India finally intervened on December 3, 1971, and the Pakistani army surrendered 13 days later. On December 20, Yahya relinquished power to Bhutto, and in January 1972 Bangladesh established an independent government. When the Commonwealth of Nations admitted Bangladesh later that year, Pakistan withdrew its membership, not to return until 1989. However, the Bhutto government gave diplomatic recognition to Bangladesh in 1974. 

*The Bhutto Government *

Under Bhutto's leadership a diminished Pakistan began to rearrange its national life. Bhutto nationalized the basic industries, insurance companies, domestically owned banks, and schools and colleges. He also instituted land reforms that benefited tenants and middle-class farmers. He removed the armed forces from the process of decision making, but to placate the generals he allocated about 6 percent of the gross national product to defense. In 1973 the National Assembly adopted the country's fifth constitution. Bhutto became prime minister, and Fazal Elahi Chaudry replaced him as president. 

Although discontented, the military remained silent for some time. Bhutto's nationalization programs and land reforms further earned him the enmity of the entrepreneurial and capitalist class, and the religious elements saw in his socialism an enemy of Islam. His decisive flaw, however, was his inability to deal constructively with the opposition. His rule grew heavy-handed. In general elections in March 1977 nine opposition parties united in the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) to run against Bhutto's PPP. Losing in three of the four provinces, the PNA alleged that Bhutto had rigged the vote. The PNA boycotted the provincial elections a few days later and organized demonstrations throughout the country that lasted for six weeks. 

*Zia Regime*

When the situation seemed to be deadlocked, the army chief of staff, General Muhammad Zia Ul-Haq, staged a coup on July 5, 1977, and imposed another martial-law regime. Bhutto was tried for political murder and found guilty; he was hanged on April 4, 1979. 

Zia formally assumed the presidency in 1978 and established the Sharia (Islamic law) as the law of the land. The constitution of 1973 was amended accordingly in 1979, and benches were constituted at the courts to exercise Islamic judicial review. Interest-free banking was initiated, and maximum penalties were provided for adultery, defamation, theft, and consumption of alcohol. 

On March 24, 1981, Zia issued an order for a provisional constitution, operative until the lifting of martial law in the future. It envisaged the appointment of two vice presidents and allowed political parties approved by the election commission before September 30, 1979 to function. All other parties, including the PPP, now led by Bhutto's widow and daughter, were dissolved. 

Pakistan was greatly affected by the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979; by 1984 some 3 million Afghan refugees were living along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, supported by the government and by international relief agencies. In September 1981 Zia accepted a six-year economic and military aid package (worth $3.2 billion) from the United States. After a referendum in December 1984 endorsed Zia's Islamic-law policies and the extension of his presidency until 1990, Zia permitted elections for parliament in February 1985. A civilian cabinet took office in April, and martial law ended in December. Zia was dissatisfied, however, and in May 1988 he dissolved the government and ordered new elections. Three months later he was killed in an airplane crash, and a caretaker regime took power.


----------



## Neo

*National Leaders​*
*Muhammad Ali Jinnah*

*Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah​**Early Life Political Career Demand for Pakistan 
Leader of a Free Nation*​
Father of the Nation Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's achievement as the founder of Pakistan, dominates everything else he did in his long and crowded public life spanning some 42 years. Yet, by any standard, his was an eventful life, his personality multidimensional and his achievements in other fields were many, if not equally great. Indeed, several were the roles he had played with distinction: at one time or another, he was one of the greatest legal luminaries India had produced during the first half of the century, an `ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, a great constitutionalist, a distinguished parliamentarian, a top-notch politician, an indefatigable freedom-fighter, a dynamic Muslim leader a political strategist, and, above all one of the great nation-builders of modern times. What, however, makes him so remarkable is the fact that while similar other leaders assumed the leadership of traditionally well-defined nations and espoused their cause, or led them to freedom, he created a nation out of an inchoate and down-trodeen minority and established a cultural and national home for it. And all that within a decase. For over three decades before the successful culmination in 1947, of the Muslim struggle for freedom in the South-Asian subcontinent, Jinnah had provided political leadership to the Indian Muslims: initially as one of the leaders, but later, since 1947, as the only prominent leader- the Quaid-i-Azam. For over thirty years, he had guided their affairs; he had given expression, coherence and direction to their ligitimate aspirations and cherished dreams; he had formulated these into concerete demands; and, above all, he had striven all the while to get them conceded by both the ruling British and the numerous Hindus the dominant segment of India's population. And for over thirty years he had fought, relentlessly and inexorably, for the inherent rights of the Muslims for an honourable existence in the subcontinent. Indeed, his life story constitutes, as it were, the story of the rebirth of the Muslims of the subcontinent and their spectacular rise to nationhood, phoenixlike. 

*Early Life *

Born on December 25, 1876, in a prominent mercantile family in Karachi and educated at the Sindh Madrassat-ul-Islam and the Christian Mission School at his birth place,Jinnah joined the Lincoln's Inn in 1893 to become the youngest Indian to be called to the Bar, three years later. Starting out in the legal profession withknothing to fall back upon except his native ability and determination, young Jinnah rose to prominence and became Bombay's most successful lawyer, as few did, within a few years. Once he was firmly established in the legal profession, Jinnah formally entered politics in 1905 from the platform of the Indian National Congress. He went to England in that year alongwith Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866-1915), as a member of a Congress delegation to plead the cause of Indian self-governemnt during the British elections. A year later, he served as Secretary to Dadabhai Noaroji(1825-1917), the then Indian National Congress President, which was considered a great honour for a budding politician. Here, at the Calcutta Congress session (December 1906), he also made his first political speech in support of the resolution on self-government. 

*Political Career *

Three years later, in January 1910, Jinnah was elected to the newly-constituted Imperial Legislative Council. All through his parliamentary career, which spanned some four decades, he was probably the most powerful voice in the cause of Indian freedom and Indian rights. Jinnah, who was also the first Indian to pilot a private member's Bill through the Council, soon became a leader of a group inside the legislature. Mr. Montagu (1879-1924), Secretary of State for India, at the close of the First World War, considered Jinnah "perfect mannered, impressive-looking, armed to the teeth with dialecties..."Jinnah, he felt, "is a very clever man, and it is, of course, an outrage that such a man should have no chance of running the affairs of his own country." 

For about three decades since his entry into politics in 1906, Jinnah passionately believed in and assiduously worked for Hindu-Muslim unity. Gokhale, the foremost Hindu leader before Gandhi, had once said of him, "He has the true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity: And, to be sure, he did become the architect of Hindu-Muslim Unity: he was responsible for the Congress-League Pact of 1916, known popularly as Lucknow Pact- the only pact ever signed between the two political organisations, the Congress and the All-India Muslim League, representing, as they did, the two major communities in the subcontinent. 

The Congress-League scheme embodied in this pact was to become the basis for the Montagu-Chemlsford Reforms, also known as the Act of 1919. In retrospect, the Lucknow Pact represented a milestone in the evolution of Indian politics. For one thing, it conceded Muslims the right to separate electorate, reservation of seats in the legislatures and weightage in representation both at the Centre and the minority provinces. Thus, their retention was ensured in the next phase of reforms. For another, it represented a tacit recognition of the All-India Muslim League as the representative organisation of the Muslims, thus strengthening the trend towards Muslim individuality in Indian politics. And to Jinnah goes the credit for all this. Thus, by 1917, Jinnah came to be recognised among both Hindus and Muslims as one of India's most outstanding political leaders. Not only was he prominent in the Congress and the Imperial Legislative Council, he was also the President of the All-India Muslim and that of lthe Bombay Branch of the Home Rule League. More important, because of his key-role in the Congress-League entente at Lucknow, he was hailed as the ambassador, as well as the embodiment, of Hindu-Muslim unity. 


*Constitutional Struggle *

In subsequent years, however, he felt dismayed at the injection of violence into politics. Since Jinnah stood for "ordered progress", moderation, gradualism and constitutionalism, he felt that political terrorism was not the pathway to national liberation but, the dark alley to disaster and destruction. Hence, the constitutionalist Jinnah could not possibly, countenance Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's novel methods of Satyagrah (civil disobedience) and the triple boycott of government-aided schools and colleges, courts and councils and British textiles. Earlier, in October 1920, when Gandhi, having been elected President of the Home Rule League, sought to change its constitution as well as its nomenclature, Jinnah had resigned from the Home Rule League, saying: "Your extreme programme has for the moment struck the imagination mostly of the inexperienced youth and the ignorant and the illiterate. All this means disorganisation and choas". Jinnah did not believe that ends justified the means. 

In the ever-growing frustration among the masses caused by colonial rule, there was ample cause for extremism. But, Gandhi's doctrine of non-cooperation, Jinnah felt, even as Rabindranath Tagore(1861-1941) did also feel, was at best one of negation and despair: it might lead to the building up of resentment, but nothing constructive. Hence, he opposed tooth and nail the tactics adopted by Gandhi to exploit the Khilafat and wrongful tactics in the Punjab in the early twenties. On the eve of its adoption of the Gandhian programme, Jinnah warned the Nagpur Congress Session (1920): "you are making a declaration (of Swaraj within a year) and committing the Indian National Congress to a programme, which you will not be able to carry out". He felt that there was no short-cut to independence and that Gandhi's extra-constitutional methods could only lead to political terrorism, lawlessness and chaos, without bringing India nearer to the threshold of freedom. 
The future course of events was not only to confirm Jinnah's worst fears, but also to prove him right. Although Jinnah left the Congress soon thereafter, he continued his efforts towards bringing about a Hindu-Muslim entente, which he rightly considered "the most vital condition of Swaraj". However, because of the deep distrust between the two communities as evidenced by the country-wide communal riots, and because the Hindus failed to meet the genuine demands of the Muslims, his efforts came to naught. One such effort was the formulation of the Delhi Muslim Proposals in March, 1927. In order to bridge Hindu-Muslim differences on the constitutional plan, these proposals even waived the Muslim right to separate electorate, the most basic Muslim demand since 1906, which though recognised by the congress in the Lucknow Pact, had again become a source of friction between the two communities. surprisingly though, the Nehru Report (1928), which represented the Congress-sponsored proposals for the future constitution of India, negated the minimum Muslim demands embodied in the Delhi Muslim Proposals. 

In vain did Jinnah argue at the National convention (1928): "What we want is that Hindus and Mussalmans should march together until our object is achieved...These two communities have got to be reconciled and united and made to feel that their interests are common". The Convention's blank refusal to accept Muslim demands represented the most devastating setback to Jinnah's life-long efforts to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity, it meant "the last straw" for the Muslims, and "the parting of the ways" for him, as he confessed to a Parsee friend at that time. Jinnah's disillusionment at the course of politics in the subcontinent prompted him to migrate and settle down in London in the early thirties. He was, however, to return to India in 1934, at the pleadings of his co-religionists, and assume their leadership. But, the Muslims presented a sad spectacle at that time. They were a mass of disgruntled and demoralised men and women, politically disorganised and destitute of a clear-cut political programme. 

*Muslim League Reorganised *

Thus, the task that awaited Jinnah was anything but easy. The Muslim League was dormant: primary branches it had none; even its provincial organisations were, for the most part, ineffective and only nominally under the control of the central organisation. Nor did the central body have any coherent policy of its own till the Bombay session (1936), which Jinnah organised. To make matters worse, the provincial scene presented a sort of a jigsaw puzzle: in the Punjab, Bengal, Sindh, the North West Frontier, Assam, Bihar and the United Provinces, various Muslim leaders had set up their own provincial parties to serve their personal ends. Extremely frustrating as the situation was, the only consulation Jinnah had at this juncture was in Allama Iqbal(1877-1938), the poet-philosopher, who stood steadfast by him and helped to charter the course of Indian politics from behind the scene. 

Undismayed by this bleak situation, Jinnah devoted himself with singleness of purpose to organising the Muslims on one platform. He embarked upon country-wide tours. He pleaded with provincial Muslim leaders to sink their differences and make common cause with the League. He exhorted the Muslim masses to organise themselves and join the League. He gave coherence and direction to Muslim sentiments on the Government of India Act, 1935. He advocated that the Federal Scheme should be scrapped as it was subversive of India's cherished goal of complete responsible Government, while the provincial scheme, which conceded provincial autonomy for the first time, should be worked for what it was worth, despite its certain objectionable features. He also formulated a viable League manifesto for the election scheduled for early 1937. He was, it seemed, struggling against time to make Muslim India a power to be reckoned with. 

Despite all the manifold odds stacked against it, the Muslim Leauge won some 108 (about 23 per cent) seats out of a total of 485 Muslim seats in the various legislature. Though not very impressive in itself, the League's partial success assumed added significance in view of the fact that the League won the largest number of Muslim seats and that it was the only all-India party of the Muslims in the country. Thus, the elections represented the first milestone on the long road to putting Muslim India on the map of the subcontinent. Congress in Power With the year 1937 opened the most mementous decade in modern Indian history. In that year came into force the provincial part of the Government of India Act, 1935, granting autonomy to Indians for the first time, in the provinces. 

The Congress, having become the dominant party in Indian politics, came to power in seven provinces exclusively, spurning the League's offer of cooperation, turning its back finally on the coalition idea and excluding Muslims as a kpolitical entity from the portals of power. In that year, also, the Muslim League, under Jinnah's dynamic leadership, was reorganised de novo, transformed into a mass organisation, and made the spokesman of Indian Muslims as never before. Above all, in that momentous lyear were initiated certain trends in Indian politics, lthe crystallisation of which in subsequent years made the partition of the subcontinent inevitable. The practical manifestation of the policy of the Congress which took office in July, 1937, in seven out of eleven provinces, convinced Muslims that, in the Congress scheme of things, they could live only on sufferance of Hindus and as "second class" citizens. The Congress provincial governments, it may be remembered, had embarked upon a policy and launched a programme in which Muslims felt that their religion, language and culture were not safe. This blatantly aggressive Congress policy was seized upon by Jinnah to awaken the Muslims to a new consciousness, organize them on all-India platoform, and make them a power to be reckoned with. He also gave coherence, direction and articulation to their innermost, lyet vague, urges and aspirations. Above all, the filled them with his indomitable will, his own unflinching faith in their destiny. 

*The New Awakening* 

As a result of Jinnah's ceaseless efforts, the Muslims awakened from what Professor Baker calls(their) "unreflective silence" (in which they had so complacently basked for long decades), and to "the spiritual essence of nationality" that had existed among them for a pretty long time. Roused by the imapct of successive Congress hammerings, the Muslims, as Ambedkar (principal author of independent India's Constitution) says, "searched their social consciousness in a desperate attempt to find coherent and meaningful articulation to their cherished yearnings. To their great relief, they discovered that their sentiments of nationality had flamed into nationalism". In addition, not only lhad they developed" the will to live as a "nation", had also endwoed them with a territory which they could occupy and make a State as well as a cultural home for the newly discovered nation. These two pre-requisites, as laid down by Renan, provided the Muslims with the intellectual justification for claiming a distinct nationalism (apart from Indian or Hindu nationalism) for themselves. So that when, after their long pause, the Muslims gave expression to their innermost yearnings, these turned out to be in favour of a separate Muslim nationhood and of a separate Muslim state. 

We are a nation", they claimed in the ever eloquent words of the Quaid-i-Azam- "We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calandar, history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law, we are a nation". 

*Demand for Pakistan *

The formulation of the Musim demand for Pakistan in 1940 had a tremendous impact on the nature and course of Indian politics. On the one hand, it shattered for ever the Hindu dreams of a pseudo-Indian, in fact, Hindu empire on British exit from India: on the other, it heralded an era of Islamic renaissance and creativity in which the Indian Muslims were to be active participants. The Hindu reaction was quick, bitter, malicious.Equally hostile were the British to the Muslim demand, their hostility having stemmed from their belief that the unity of India was their main achievement and their foremost contribution. The irony was that both the Hindus and the British had not anticipated the astonishingly tremendous response that the Pakistan demand had elicited from the Muslim masses. Above all, they faild to realize how a hundred million people had suddenly become supremely conscious of their distinct nationhood and their high destiny. In channelling the course of Muslim politics towards Pakistan, no less than in directing it towards its consummation in the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, non played a more decisive role than did Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. It was his powerful advocacy of the case of Pakistan and his remarkable strategy in the delicate negotiations, that followed the formulation of the Pakistan demand, particularly in the post-war period, that made Pakistan inevitable. 

*Cripps Scheme *

While the British reaction to the Pakistan demand came in the form of the Cripps offer of April, 1942, which conceded the principle of self-determination to provinces on a territorial basis, the Rajaji Formula (called after the eminent Congress leader C.Rajagopalacharia, which became the basis of prolonged Jinnah-Gandhi talks in September, 1944), represented the Congress alternative to Pakistan. The Cripps offer was rejected because it did not concede the Muslim demand the whole way, while the Rajaji Formula was found unacceptable since it offered a "moth-eaten, mutilated" Pakistan and the too appended with a plethora of pre-conditions which made its emergence in any shape remote, if not altogether impossible. Cabinet Mission The most delicate as well as the most tortuous negotiations, however, took place during 1946-47, after the elections which showed that the country was sharply and somewhat evenly divided between two parties- the Congress and the League- and that the central issue in Indian politics was Pakistan. 

These negotiations began with the arrival, in March 1946, of a three-member British Cabinet Mission. The crucial task with which the Cabinet Mission was entrusted was that of devising in consultation with the various political parties, a constitution-making machinery, and of setting up a popular interim government. But, because the Congress-League gulf could not be bridged, despite the Mission's (and the Viceroy's) prolonged efforts, the Mission had to make its own proposals in May, 1946. Known as the Cabinet Mission Plan, these proposals stipulated a limited centre, supreme only in foreign affairs, defence and communications and three autonomous groups of provinces. Two of these groups were to have Muslim majorities in the north-west and the north-east of the subcontinent, while the third one, comprising the Indian mainland, was to have a Hindu majority. A consummate statesman that he was, Jinnah saw his chance. He interpreted the clauses relating to a limited centre and the grouping as "the foundation of Pakistan", and induced the Muslim League Council to accept the Plan in June 1946; and this he did much against the calculations of the Congress and to its utter dismay. 

Tragically though, the League's acceptance was put down to its supposed weakness and the Congress put up a posture of defiance, designed to swamp the Leauge into submitting to its dictates and its interpretations of the plan. Faced thus, what alternative had Jinnah and the League but to rescind their earlier acceptance, reiterate and reaffirm their original stance, and decide to launch direct action (if need be) to wrest Pakistan. The way Jinnah manoeuvred to turn the tide of events at a time when all seemed lost indicated, above all, his masterly grasp of the situation and his adeptness at making strategic and tactical moves. Partition Plan By the close of 1946, the communal riots had flared up to murderous heights, engulfing almost the entire subcontinent. The two peoples, it seemed, were engaged in a fight to the finish. The time for a peaceful transfer of power was fast running out. Realising the gravity of the situation. His Majesty's Government sent down to India a new Viceroy- Lord Mountbatten. His protracted negotiations with the various political leaders resulted in 3 June.(1947) Plan by which the British decided to partition the subcontinent, and hand over power to two successor States on 15 August, 1947. The plan was duly accepted by the three Indian parties to the dispute- the Congress the League and the Akali Dal(representing the Sikhs). 

*Leader of a Free Nation *

The treasury was empty, India having denied Pakistan the major share of its cash balances.On top of all this, the still unorganized nation was called upon to feed some eight million refugees who had fled the insecurities and barbarities of the north Indian plains that long, hot summer. If all this was symptomatic of Pakistan's administrative and economic weakness, the Indian annexation, through military action in November 1947, of Junagadh (which had originally acceded to Pakistan) and the Kashmir war over the State's accession (October 1947-December 1948) exposed her military weakness. In the circumsances, therefore, it was nothing short of a miracle that Pakistan survived at all. That it survived and forged ahead was mainly due to one man-Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The nation desperately needed in the person of a charismatic leader at that critical juncture in the nation's history, and he fulfilled that need profoundly. After all, he was more than a mere Governor-General: he was the Quaid-i-Azam who had brought the State into being. 

In the ultimate analysis, his very presence at the helm of affairs was responsible for enabling the newly born nation to overcome the terrible crisis on the morrow of its cataclysmic birth. He mustered up the immense prestige and the unquestioning loyalty he commanded among the people to energize them, to raise their morale, land directed the profound feelings of patriotism that the freedom had generated, along constructive channels. Though tired and in poor health, Jinnah yet carried the heaviest part of the burden in that first crucial year. He laid down the policies of the new state, called attention to the immediate problems confronting the nation and told the members of the Constituent Assembly, the civil servants and the Armed Forces what to do and what the nation expected of them. He saw to it that law and order was maintained at all costs, despite the provocation that the large-scale riots in north India had provided. He moved from Karachi to Lahore for a while and supervised the immediate refugee problem in the Punjab. In a time of fierce excitement, he remained sober, cool and steady. He advised his excited audence in Lahore to concentrate on helping the refugees,to avoaid retaliation, exercise restraint and protect the minorities. He assured the minorities of a fair deal, assuaged their inured sentiments, and gave them hope and comfort. He toured the various provinces, attended to their particular problems and instilled in the people a sense ofbelonging. He reversed the British policy in the North-West Frontier and ordered the withdrawal of the troops from the tribal territory of Waziristan, thereby making the Pathans feel themselves an integral part of Pakistan's body-politics. He created a new Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, and assumed responsibility for ushering in a new era in Balochistan. He settled the controversial question of the states of Karachi, secured the accession of States, especially of Kalat which seemed problematical and carried on negotiations with Lord Mountbatten for the settlement of the Kashmir Issue. 

*The Quaid's last Message *

It was, therefore, with a sense of supreme satisfaction at the fulfilment of his mission that Jinnah told the nation in his last message on 14 August, 1948: "The foundations of your State have been laid and it is now for you to build and build as quickly and as well as you can". In accomplishing the task he had taken upon himself on the morrow of Pakistan's birth, Jinnah had worked himself to death, but he had, to quote richard Symons, "contributed more than any other man to Pakistan's survivial". He died on 11 September, 1948. How true was Lord Pethick Lawrence, the former Secretary of State for India, when he said, "Gandhi died by the hands of an assassin; Jinnah died by his devotion to Pakistan". 

A man such as Jinnah, who had fought for the inherent rights of his people all through his life and who had taken up the somewhat unconventional and the largely mininterpreted cause of Pakistan, was bound to generate violent opposition and excite implacable hostility and was likely to be largely misunderstood. But what is most remarkable about Jinnah is that he was the recepient of some of the greatest tributes paid to any one in modern times, some of them even from those who held a diametrically opposed viewpoint. 

The Aga Khan considered him "the greatest man he ever met", Beverley Nichols, the author of `Verdict on India', called him "the most important man in Asia", and Dr. Kailashnath Katju, the West Bengal Governor in 1948, thought of him as "an outstanding figure of this century not only in India, but in the whole world". While Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, called him "one of the greatest leaders in the Muslim world", the Grand Mufti of Palestine considered his death as a "great loss" to the entire world of Islam. It was, however, given to Surat Chandra Bose, leader of the Forward Bloc wing of the Indian National Congress, to sum up succinctly his personal and political achievements. "Mr Jinnah",he said on his death in 1948, "was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat, and greatestof all as a man of action, By Mr. Jinnah's passing away, the world has lost one of the greatst statesmen and Pakistan its life-giver, philosopher and guide". Such was Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the man and his mission, such the range of his accomplishments and achievements. 

*Allama Muhammad Iqbal *

*Allama Muhammad Iqbal *
(1877 - 1938)

Iqbal, Sir Muhammad (1873-1938), philosopher, poet, and political leader, was born in Sialkot. In 1927 he was elected to the Punjab provincial legislature and in 1930 became president of the Muslim League. Initially a supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity in a single Indian state, Iqbal later became an advocate of Pakistani independence. In addition to his political activism, Iqbal was considered the foremost Muslim thinker of his day. His poetry and philosophy, written in Urdu and Persian, stress the rebirth of Islamic and spiritual redemption through self-development, moral integrity, and individual freedom.His many works includeThe Secrets of the Self (1915), 23); a long poem; A Message from the East (19and The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (1934). 

Although Iqbal did not live to see the creation of an independent Pakistan in 1947, he is nevertheless regarded as the symbolic father of that nation 

Allama Muhammad Iqbal is generally known as a poet and philosopher, but he was also a jurist, a politician, a social reformer, and a great Islamic scholar. People even bestowed on him the title of "Shaere-Mashriq" (Poet of the East!). It may sound strange that Iqbal never considered himself a poet as is evidenced by his correspondence with Syed Sulaiman Nadvi [1885-1953]. 

"I have never considered myself a poet. Therefore, I am not a rival of anyone, and I do not consider anybody my rival. I have no interest in poetic artistry. But, yes, I have a special goal in mind for whose expression I use the medium of poetry considering the condition and the customs of this country." 

(translated from the original in Urdu; Maktoobat, Volume I, page195)
Iqbal's contribution to the Muslim world as one of the greatest thinkers of Islam remains unparalleled. In his writings, he addressed and exhorted people, particularly the youth, to stand up and boldly face life's challenges. The central theme and main source of his message was the Qur'an. 

Iqbal considered the Qur'an not only as a book of religion (in the traditional sense) but also a source of foundational principles upon which the infrastructure of an organization must be built as a coherent system of life. According to Iqbal, this system of life when implemented as a living force is ISLAM. Because it is based on permanent (absolute) values given in the Qur'an, this system provides perfect harmony, balance, and stability in the society from within and the source of security and a shield from without. It also provides freedom of choice and equal opportunity for the development of personality for everyone within the guidelines of Qur'an. Thus, in Iqbal's opinion, Islam is not a religion in which individuals strive for a private subjective relationship with God in the hope of personal salvation as it is done in secular systems. Iqbal firmly opposed theocracy and dictatorship and considered them against the free spirit of Islam. 

Humanity, as a whole, has never faced the challenge posed by the enormity and the complexity of human problems, such as it is facing today. The problems have taken on a global dimension now and transcend the barriers of race, color, language, geography, and social, political and religious ideologies. Most of the problems of mankind are universal in nature and, therefore, require a universal approach to the solution. Iqbal's universal message is an attempt to address this challenge faced by humanity. 

Through his travels and personal communications, Allama Iqbal found that the Muslims throughout the world had detached themselves from the Qur'an as a guiding principle and a living force. After the disaster following the Balkan War of 1912, the fall of the caliphate in Turkey, and many anti-Muslim incessant provocations and actions against Muslims in India (1924-27) and elsewhere by the intellectuals and so called secular minded leaders, Allama Iqbal suggested that a separate state should be given to the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent so that they can express the vitality of Islam to its fullest. In his 1930 Presidential speech delivered to the annual session of Muslim League at Allahabad, Allama Iqbal stated: 

"I, therefore, demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state in the best interests of India and Islam. For India, it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power; for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilize its laws, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times."
Iqbal's "Deeda-war" (visionary), is like Iqbal himself. He could foresee what others could not. Whereas others only have a short term view of things, a visionary sees the problems in a long term perspective and develops some sort of cosmic sense. A nation is indeed fortunate if it produces a few such individuals in centuries. Such individuals, although very rare, change the course of history forever, as indeed Iqbal did. Pakistan owes its existence to Allama Iqbal. Thus, the people of Pakistan owe a great deal of gratitude to this extraordinary visionary. 

Allama Iqbal's contributions are numerous and it is not possible to give even a glimpse of his work here. A brief outline of Allama Iqbal's life and achievements is presented below: 

1877 Born at Sialkot (present Pakistan) on Friday, November 9, 1877. Kashmiri origin. 
1893-95 High School and Intermediate - Scotch Mission College, Sialkot. 
1897 B. A. (Arabic and Philosophy) - Government College, Lahore. Awarded Jamaluddin Gold Medal for securing highest marks in Arabic, and another Gold Medal in English. 
1899 M.A. (Philosophy) - Government College, Lahore. Secured first rank in Punjab state and awarded Gold Medal. 
Reader in Arabic, Oriental College, Lahore. 
1900 Read his poem "Nala-e-Yateem," (Wails of an Orphan) at the annual function of Anjuman-e-Himayat-e-Islam at Lahore. 
1901 Poem 'Himala' published in Makhzan. 
Assistant Commissioner's Examination (didn't qualify due to medical reasons). 
1903 Assistant Professor, Government College, Lahore. Published his first book, "Ilmul-Iqtasad" (Study of Economics), Lahore. 
1905 Traveled to England for higher studies. 
1907 Ph.D., Munich University, Germany (Thesis: Development of Metaphysics in Persia). 
1907-08 Professor of Arabic, London University. 
1908 Bar-at-Law, London. Returned to India. 
Started law practice on October 22, 1908. 
Part-time Professor of Philosophy and English Literature. 
1911 Wrote and read famous poem "Shikwa" (Complaint) at Lahore. 
Professor of Philosophy, Government College, Lahore. 
1912 Wrote the epoch-making "Jawab-e-Shikwa" (Reply to Complaint). 
1913 Wrote "History of India" for middle school students, Lahore (now out of print). 
1915 Published a long Persian poem "Asrar-e-Khudi" (Secrets of Self). Resigned from professorship to spread the message of Islam. 
1918 In counterpart to "Asrar-e-Khudi", published "Rumuz-e-Bekhudi" (Mysteries of Selflessness) in Persian. 
1920 English translation of "Asrar-e-Khudi" by Prof. R.A. Nicholson of Cambridge University entitled "Secrets of Self." 
Visited Kashmir and presented his famous poem "Saqi Nama" at Srinagar. 
1923 Awarded knighthood "Sir" at Lahore on January 1, 1923. Published "Pay am-e-Mashriq" (The Message of the East) in Persian. It was written in response to Goethe's West-Ostlicher Divan. 
1924 Prepared an Urdu course material for Grade 6,7 students at Lahore. Published "Bang-e-Dara" (Call of the Caravan) in Urdu in March 1924. 
1926 Elected to Punjab Legislative Council, Lahore (1926-1929). 
1927 Published "Zaboor-e-A'jam" in Persian. 
1929 Delivered his famous six lectures at Madras, Osmania University at Hyderabad, and Aligarh. He made very thought provoking comments on the latest scientific and philosophical developments of the 1920s in the light of Islamic teachings. 
1930 President, All India Muslim League. Elaborated on the idea of an independent Muslim state in his presidential speech at Allahabad. [Refer to 1924-28 events in particular and 1912-29 in general in the Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent - V 1800 - 1950 CE]. 
1931 Published "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam," - a collection of six lectures, Lahore; it was also published by Oxford University. 
Participated in Mo'tamar-A'lam-e-Islami (World Muslim Conference) in Palestine. 
Participated in the Second Round Table Conference, London, September 7 - December 31, 1931. 
1932 Visited Paris and met French philosophers Bergson and Massignon. Bergson was astonished to hear his remark on the Islamic concept of time. 
Published "Javed Namah" in Persian. It was a reply to Dante's 'Divine Comedy'. 
Participated in the Third Round Table Conference, London, November 17 - December 24, 1932. 
1933 Allama Iqbal met Mussolini in Rome after Mussolini expressed his interest to meet him. 
Visited Qurtuba, Spain and wrote the poems "Dua" (Supplication) "Masjid-e-Qurtuba." (The Mosque of Cordoba). 
Served as Advisor to the Government of Afghanistan on higher education (October 1933). 
Awarded Honorary D. Litt degree by Punjab University on Dec. 4,1933. 
1934 Musafir (Traveler) in Persian. 
1935 Published "Bal-e-Jibril" in Urdu. 
1936 Published "Zarab-e-Kalim" in April 1936, "Pas Che Bayad Kard" in Persian, and "Payam-e-Mashriq" in September 1936. 
1937 Ulema from Al-Azhar University visited Allama Iqbal at Lahore. 
1938 Jawahar Lal Nehru visited Allama Iqbal at Lahore in January 1938. 
Allama Iqbal died at Lahore on April 21,1938. He was a versatile genius-poet, philosopher, lawyer, educationist, politician, and a reformer. "Armughan-e-Hijaz" published posthumously. It was a collection of Urdu and Persian poems. 

Allama Iqbal's other famous poems include 'Zubur-e-Ajam' in Persian, and 'Shama-o-Shaer' (The Candle and the Poet), 'Taswir-e-Dard' (The Picture of Agony), 'Naya Shiwala' (New Temple), 'Tuloo-e-Islam' (The Dawn of Islam), all in Urdu. The last three were written to unite his countrymen for the common good. 

*Translations *
English "Shikwa" (Complaint) and "Jawab-e-Shikwa" (Reply to Complaint) translated by Altaf Husain. 
Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam," - a collection of six lectures, translated by Prof Arberry, Oxford University. 
Arabic "Zarab-e-Kalim" and "Payam-e-Mashriq" translated by Dr. Abdul Wahab Azzam, Professor, Al-Azhar University, Cairo. 
Turkish "Payam-e-Mashriq" translated by Dr. Ali Ganjeli. 
German "Payam-e-Mashriq" translated by Professor Hell. 
French Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam," - a collection of six lectures, translated by Madame Eva Meyerovitch, Paris. 
Latin 'Javed Nama' translated under the title 'II Poema Celeste' by Professor Alessander Busani. 
Indonesian Asrar-e-Khudi translated by M. Burhan Rangkuti.


----------



## Neo

*Palaeolithic and Pleistocene of Pakistan: The First Pakistanis roamed the Valley of the Soan in Potohar, Punjab 100,000 years ago: ​*
January 16, 2008 
The First Pakistanis
By Moin Ansari 

Farming had not started. Most of the Subcontinent was covered in ice. Some of the first Pakistanis were hunter gatherers. Most societies and human beings have developed in and around rivers. So we discovered stone implements around the Soan River.

It seems some of Pakistans most valuable treasures are buried under the soil. It took many dedicated archeologists to discover the remains of tools used by the Pakistanis who lived in the riverina between the Soan and the Jhelum

The oldest evidence of life in the Subcontinent was found in the digs made in Soan river valley located in about 35 miles near Rawalpindi. Surface finds from Soan valley between the Indus and the JheIum and stone tools made of quartzite, pebbles, flint and flakes of the same time that were found in the Soan valley testify to the existence of hom-erectus human beings who fashioned stone implements.

A hunter-gatherer society is one whose primary subsistence method involves the direct procurement of edible plants and animals from the wild, foraging and hunting without significant recourse to the domestication of either. The demarcation between hunter-gatherers and other societies which rely more upon domestication (see agriculture and pastoralism and neolithic revolution) is not a clear cut one, as many contemporary societies use a combination of both strategies to obtain the foodstuffs required to sustain themselves.

Hunting and gathering was presumably the only subsistence strategy employed by human societies for more than two million years, until the end of the Mesolithic period. The transition into the subsequent Neolithic period is chiefly defined by the unprecedented development of nascent agricultural practices. Agriculture originated and spread in several different areas including the Middle East, Asia, Mesoamerica, and the Andes beginning as early as 12,000 years ago. Many groups continued their hunter-gatherer ways of life, although their numbers have perpetually declined partly as a result of pressure from growing agricultural and pastoral communities. Areas which were formerly unrestricted to hunter-gatherers were, and continue to be encroached upon by the settlements of agriculturalists. In the resulting competition for land use, hunter-gatherer societies either adopted these practices or moved to other areas. Jared Diamond has also blamed a decline in the availability of wild foods, particularly animal resources. In North and South America, for example, most large mammal species had been hunted to extinction by the end of the Pleistocene.[1]

As the number and size of many agricultural societies increased, they expanded into lands traditionally used by hunter-gatherers. This process of agriculture-driven expansion soon led to the development of complex forms of government in agricultural centers such as the Fertile Crescent, Ancient Pakistan, Ancient China, Olmec, and Norte Chico; and set in motion the impetus for further expansion through warfare and colonization.

As a result of the now near-universal human reliance upon agriculture, the few contemporary hunter-gatherer cultures usually live in areas seen as undesirable for agricultural use

*According to the Wikipedia:*

The Soanian is an archaeological culture of the Lower Paleolithic (ca. 500,000 to 1250,000 BP) in South Asia, contemporary to the Acheulian. It is named after the Soan Valley in the Sivalik Hills, Pakistan. The bearers of this culture were Homo erectus.

On Adiyala and Khasala about 16 km (10 miles) from Rawalpindi terrace on the bend of the river hundreds of edged pebble tools were discovered. At Chauntra hand axes and cleavers were found. No human skeletons of this age have yet been found. In the Soan River Gorge many fossil bearing rocks are exposed on the surface. The 14 million year old fossils of gazelle, rhinoceros, crocodile, giraffe and rodents have been found there. Some of these fossils are in display at the Natural History Museum of Islamabad.

The oldest evidence of human life (150,000 years ago) in Pakistan was found in the Soan River valley of Pothohar Plateau region of Punjab. This human activity, called Soan Culture, discovered in the form of pebble tools scattered long the river. 

*Robin Denell was one of the first ones to discover the sites.*

The British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan, under its Field Director Professor Robin Dennell, carried out research into the Palaeolithic of Pakistan in the 1980s and 1990s. The first part of this work (1981-85) was based in the Soan Valley, near Islamabad, and resulted in the revision (with his geological colleague, Prof. Helen Rendell) of the Pleistocene and Palaeolithic sequence established by de Terra and Paterson in the 1930s. This phase of fieldwork also involved the excavation of an open-air settlement ca. 45,000 years old, and the discovery of stone artefacts almost two million years old at Riwat. This research was published as a monograph Pleistocene and Palaeolithic Investigations in the Soan Valley, northern Pakistan (British Archaeological Reports S544).

The second part of this research involved six seasons (1986-90 and 1999) of field survey and excavation in the Pabbi Hills, which comprise a long sequence of river- and floodplain deposits between 2.5 and 0.5 million years old. This research resulted in the collection of over 40,000 fossil specimens from over 600 places, and these provide one of the best accounts of the fossil record of a riverine and flood-plain landscape, as well as the basis for a detailed biostratigraphy of the Early Pleistocene in southern Asia. Although no hominid remains were found, over 350 stone artefacts were found, many of which are believed to be derived from fossil-bearing deposits and may thus be up to two million years old.

This research is currently being prepared as a research monograph and a series of scientific papers, and no further fieldwork is being planned. Related publications are listed below

The Ice melted around 6000 BC. And the first agricultural settlements in the Subcontinent were in Mehergarh Baluchistan. We will be posting more details about Mehergarh, and pre-Harrpan findings in this site.
Publications relating to the Palaeolithic and Pleistocene of Pakistan and South Asia:

*Books:*

Rendell, H.R., Dennell, R.W. and Halim, M. (1989) Pleistocene and Palaeolithic Investigations in the Soan Valley, Northern Pakistan. British Archaeological Reports International Series 544. (364 pp., 110 figs). 
This covers the fieldwork in the Soan Valley, including the discovery and dating of the controversial artefact horizon at Riwat, dated to a minimum of ca. 1.9 Mya. The excavation of the much later open-air site (site 55) at Riwat, dated to ca. 45,000 b.p. is also described. The monograph also includes re-assessments of earlier research (notably by de Terra and Paterson in the 1930s), and critiques of our present understanding of the Pleistocene and Palaeolithic sequence in this part of the world. 
A second monograph is currently in preparation on the surveys and excavations in the Pabbi Hills between 1986 and 1991. 

*Articles:*

1983 Preliminary report on the early prehistoric occupation of the Potwar Plateau, northern Pakistan. In South Asian Archaeology (Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on asian Archaeology), ed. B. Allchin, 10-19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
1985 (with H. Rendell) Dated lower Palaeolithic artefacts from northern Pakistan. Current Anthropology 26 (3), 393. 
1987 (with H. Rendell) Asian axe 2 Million Years Old. Geographical Magazine 59 (6), 270-272. 
1987 (with H. Rendell) The dating of an upper pleistocene archaeological site at Riwat, northern Pakistan. Geoarchaeology 1, 6-12. 
1987 (with H. Rendell and E. Hailwood) Magnetic polarity stratigraphy of Upper Siwalik Sub-Group, Soan Valley, Pakistan: implications for early human occupance of Asia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 85: 488-496.41) 
1988 (with H. Rendell and E. Hailwood). Early tool-making in Asia : two-million year-old artefacts in Pakistan. Antiquity 62: 98-106. 
1988 (with H. Rendell and E. Hailwood) Late Pliocene artefacts in Pakistan. Current Anthropology 29 (3): 495-498. 
1988 (with B. Allchin) 1987 report of the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan palaeolithic project. South Asian Studies 10: 145-147. 
1989 (with H. Rendell and E. Hailwood) Artefacts du Pliocene tardif dans le nord du Pakistan. LAnthropologie 92 (3): 927-930. 
1989 Report of the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan 1980-89. Man and Environment 14 (1): 129-131. 
1989 Reply to Early artefacts from Pakistan? Some questions for the excavators by M. Hemingway and D. Stapert. Current Anthropology 30 (3): 318-322. 
1989 (with A. Jah, R. Jenkinson, H. Rendell and S. Sutherland) Upper Siwalik palaeoenvironments and palaeoecology in the Pabbi Hills, Northern Pakistan. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 33 (4):417-428. 
1990 Progressive gradualism, imperialism, and academic fashion: Lower Palaeolithic archaeology in the twentieth century. Antiquity 64: 549-558. 
1990: (with L. Hurcombe, H. Rendell and R.Jenkinson). Preliminary results of the Palaeolithic programme of the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan, 1983-1987. In South Asian Archaeology 1987. (Proceedings of the International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Venice, July 1987), ed. M. Taddei and P. Callieri, 17-29. 
Dennell, R.W. (1991) Report of the British Archaeological Missions Potwar Project for the year 1989-90. South Asian Studies 7: 161-165. 
Dennell, R.W. (1991) Pakistans Prehistory: A Glimpse at the First Two Million Years. British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan Series 3: Ancient India and Iran Trust, Cambridge. 44 pp. 
(with H. Rendell, M. Halim and E. Moth) (1991) Site 55, Riwat: a 42,000 yr.-bp. open-air palaeolithic site from northern Pakistan. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 17-33. 
(with H. Rendell) (1991) De Terra and Paterson, and the Soan flake industry: a perspective from the Soan Valley, Pakistan. Man and Environment 16 (2): 91-99. 
(with L.M. Hurcombe) Paterson, the British Clactonian and the Soan Flake Industry: a re-evaluation of the early palaeolithic of northern Pakistan. In South Asian Archaeology 1989. (Proceedings of the International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Paris, July 1989), ed. C. Jarrige: 69-72. 
(with L.M. Hurcombe) A Pre-Acheulean in the Pabbi Hills, northern Pakistan? In South Asian Archaeology 1989 (Proceedings of the International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Paris, July 1989), ed. C. Jarrige: 133-136. 
Dennell, R.W., Hurcombe, L.M., Coard, R., Beech, M., Anwar, M. and ul Haq, S. (1992) The 1990 field season of the British Archaeological Mission to Pakistan in the Baroth area of the Pabbi Hills, northern Pakistan. South Asian Archaeology 1991 (Proceedings of the Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Europe, Berlin, July 1991), 1-14. 
Dennell, R.W. (1993) Evidence on human origins: a rediscovered source in the Upper Siwaliks of northern Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 18 (4): 379-389. 
(with H.M. Rendell, L. Hurcombe and E.A. Hailwood) (1994) Archaeological evidence for hominids in northern Pakistan before one million years ago. Courier Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg 171: 151-155. 
(1995) Do human origins lie only in Africa? New evidence from northern Pakistan. Cranium 12 (1): 21-24. 
(1995) (Coard, R. and Dennell, R.W.) Taphonomy of some articulated skeletal remains: transport potential in an artificial environment.. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 441 - 448. 
(1995) The early stone age of Pakistan: a methodological review. Man and Environment: 20 (1): 21 - 28. 
(1995) (Dennell, R.W. and Hurcombe, L.M.) Comment on Pedra Furada. Antiquity 69: 604-5. 
Dennell, R.W. and Roebroeks, W. (1996) The earliest colonisation of Europe: the short chronology revisited. Antiquity 70: 535-542. 
(1997) Life at the sharp end: The worlds oldest spears. Nature 385: 767-768. 
(1997) Worlds oldest spears revolutionise theories on early man. Minerva 8 (3): 5-6. 
(1998) Grasslands, tool-making and the earliest colonization of south Asia: a reconsideration. In Early Human Behavior in Global Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record, 280-303, edited by M. Petraglia and R. Korisettar. London: Routledge. 
(1999) The TD6 horizon of Atapuerca and the earliest colonisation of Europe: an Asian perspective. In Los primeros pobladores de Europa/The First Europeans, ed. E. Carbonell, Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L. and Rodriguez, X.P. (1999). Burgos, Spain, 75-97. 
(1999) Hunter-gatherer societies. In The Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology Volume 2, ed. G. Barker. London and New York: Routledge, 797-838. 
(1999) The Palaeolithic and Pleistocene potential of the Indus drainage system: a review of recent work. In The Indus River: Biodiversity, Resources, Humankind, ed. A. and P. Meadows, 306-319. Linnaean Society, London/Karachi: Oxford University Press. 
(2001) From Sangiran to Olduvai, 1937-1960: the quest for centres of hominid origins in Asia and Africa. In Studying Human Origins: Disciplinary History and Epistemology, ed. R. Corbey and W. Roebroeks, 45-66. Amersterdam: Amsterdam University Press.


----------



## Neo

Ancient Pakistan History

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Neo

Indus valley civilization(mohenjo-daro

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

Harappa, The Lost World

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

The Indus river valley civilization...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

Indus valley civilization(mohenjo-daro)






Guys,

This is a very good 3D short animation of the "dead city" and gives you a little idea how life must have been there.
A must see!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilesTogo

I posted in other thread that claiming a share in IVC is a big trap for Pakistanis. I think they have started falling for it in a big way. Anyways, its a welcome change. Atleast Pakistanis have started to acknowledge their non-islamic history. Its a good beginning.


----------



## gromell

Neo said:


> *PART-7
> 
> Fortunately for India, at this opportune moment a man from Punjab, Chandragupta Maurya, was able to set up a strong government in the Gangetic Valley which extended its sway over most of northern India. *


*

Sorry but Chandragupta was from Punjab?! The majority of the neutral historians think he was from the region Magadha, modern day Bihar and Bengal.*


----------



## pollyanna03

HI First time to come here.Very glad.hope you all have good days.


----------



## RobbieS

gromell said:


> Sorry but Chandragupta was from Punjab?! The majority of the neutral historians think he was from the region Magadha, modern day Bihar and Bengal.



yup. He was from Magadh as was the Mauryan dynasty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanii

Pakistan has great history! but our politician, establishment and ourselves giving bad name to Pakistan. May Allah Forgive us and show us right path


----------



## dolphin

Hi all,

This I believe is a rather controversial area and has always been on my mind. I've been born and brought up in the UK and I always come across westerners and particularly Pakistani's themselves associating their cultural dogma (which is in fact of indian origins and since they are ignorant of their own Pakistani culture)like to associate themselves to Indians. They are tremendously ignorant!

Well when westerners approach me with such comments I always provide them with a brief history of Pakistan which goes back several hundred years. It just irritates me that many Pakistani's are not aware of Pakistan's true history and that many of us are infact of central asian, russian, european, persian or arabic descents believe it or not. Well if you don't believe me go for a DNA test and you'd discover your true lineage. 

Therefore, at this day and age when we have established our own internationally recognized state, why don't we practise our true culture such as considering the national language to be Persian (Farci)? Since more than half the population can understand Farci and are of persian descents? I don't personally have anything against Urdu but i'd like to understand why not farci? Even majority of the works of the great poet of Pakistan Allama Iqbal has his literature in Farci.

Another issue I do not understand is why do Pakistanis particualrly those from the Punjab regions still practise Indian traditions? Are they of Indian descents? I'm certain majority of them are not!

I apologise if my comments may seem ignorant to you but I wish to understand from other individuals perspectives rather than my own.

Share your thoughts!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

^^^^ Bud you need to speak to JinxeD Girl....Its a match made in heaven....

Anyways...I dont know the answers to the above...but I pointed you in the direction of one who would know.....


----------



## jinxeD_girl

dolphin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> This I believe is a rather controversial area and has always been on my mind. I've been born and brought up in the UK and I always come across westerners and particularly Pakistani's themselves associating their cultural dogma (which is in fact of indian origins and since they are ignorant of their own Pakistani culture)like to associate themselves to Indians. They are tremendously ignorant!
> 
> Well when westerners approach me with such comments I always provide them with a brief history of Pakistan which goes back several hundred years. It just irritates me that many Pakistani's are not aware of Pakistan's true history and that many of us are infact of central asian, russian, european, persian or arabic descents believe it or not. Well if you don't believe me go for a DNA test and you'd discover your true lineage.
> 
> Therefore, at this day and age when we have established our own internationally recognized state, why don't we practise our true culture such as considering the national language to be Persian (Farci)? Since more than half the population can understand Farci and are of persian descents? I don't personally have anything against Urdu but i'd like to understand why not farci? Even majority of the works of the great poet of Pakistan Allama Iqbal has his literature in Farci.
> 
> Another issue I do not understand is why do Pakistanis particualrly those from the Punjab regions still practise Indian traditions? Are they of Indian descents? I'm certain majority of them are not!
> 
> I apologise if my comments may seem ignorant to you but I wish to understand from other individuals perspectives rather than my own.
> 
> Share your thoughts!



Nice job Indian hiding behind a Pakistani ID and starting a sarcastic post and sticking some subtle insults in...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sparklingway

dolphin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> This I believe is a rather controversial area and has always been on my mind. I've been born and brought up in the UK and I always come across westerners and particularly Pakistani's themselves associating their cultural dogma (which is in fact of indian origins and since they are ignorant of their own Pakistani culture)like to associate themselves to Indians. They are tremendously ignorant!
> 
> Well when westerners approach me with such comments I always provide them with a brief history of Pakistan which goes back several hundred years. It just irritates me that many Pakistani's are not aware of Pakistan's true history and that many of us are infact of central asian, russian, european, persian or arabic descents believe it or not. Well if you don't believe me go for a DNA test and you'd discover your true lineage.


This topic has been beaten to death in these forums.



> Since more than half the population can understand Farci and are of persian descents


You serious or are you just joking? If you're serious, then your crazy to say the least. Urdu being highly influenced and sharing words and structure with Farsi is one thing and understanding is a completely different thing.

Farsi : Iranian language of the Indo Iranian branch of the Indo European languages

Urdu : Central Indo Aryan language language of the Indo Iranian branch of the Indo European languages





Before reading the next sentence, come out of any myopic and/or prejudiced mindset:-

*Standardized Hindi and Urdu are very much alike, so much that their differences are not enough for linguists to classify them as entirely different languages. They are considered dialects of a common language referred to as Hindustani language. Even when they are written in different scrips (Nastaliq as opposed to Devanagari), and have differences in phonetics, they are still considered dialects of a common language by linguists.*

Persian influenced Urdu poetry widely but Urdu and Persian are very much different and not considered dialects of a common language.

Gopi Chand Narang, awarded Iqbal Centennary Gold Medal by the GoP and Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri by GoI for his contributions to Urdu had the following to say:-

"Associating Urdu with the Muslims in India is part of a political conspiracy against this composite language which was born out of a cultural interaction between the Hindus and the Muslims. The communalization of Urdu is part of its politicization which has occurred in the last half century. In fact, it is part of the hangover of the two nation theory which stands discredited by historical events in the subcontinent.

"Nevertheless narrow minded politicians on both sides of the border unwittingly subscribe to it. Pakistan is a nascent nation. Naturally it needs a language and a cultural core which it may call its own. The bigger problem lies in India where presently Urdu's association with the Muslim minority is exploited as a vote bank. In India, I have yet to come across a leader of a political party, left or right, who does not praise Urdu for its charm and elegance, yet these leaders are indifferent to its linguistic rights". 

*The language dispute only went to show the lack of objectivity among the populations, both of whom sought to dominate each other at the fall of the Mughal Empire. If Canada can adopt French and English in parallel, the lack of such an agreement in British India only highlighted the irrationality of the population.*

The Urdu-Hindi struggle has forced our historians (read state historians who distort history for political purposes) to present Urdu as a symbol of Hindu-Muslim differences and somehow a factor contributing to demand for Independence. The controversy has been settled, in all practical purposes by the GoI and the widescale adoption and general understanding (read unfamiliarity with Persian/Nastaliq script) of Devanagari script has coerced Urdu scholars in India so much so, that they have adopted Devanagari for Urdu publications as well (some magazines are published this way).




> Another issue I do not understand is why do Pakistanis particualrly those from the Punjab regions still practise Indian traditions? Are they of Indian descents? I'm certain majority of them are not!



*You can have reservations on cultural practices that are in direct and utter conflict with Islamic values but any non religious tradition should have no objection. The way in which mullahs have grabbed and distorted history is visible by the fact that Basant is somehow presented to be a "Hindu" event and stories of o the origins of Basant are conjured from thin air. You can hear every tom, dick and harry telling that either Basant originated from massacre of Muslims in Andlusian Spain or Sikhs killing Muslims in Kashmir in the early 17th century. Across Africa, Muslims have not rejected traditional mythical practices and continue to live in relative peace and harmony with other religious communities. Somehow Hindus and Muslims did not fight bitterly for a long long period (small instances and exceptions do not count), but the fundo mullah of today in Pakistan has created a new intolerant brand of religion that advocates utter rejection of any existing cultural practices and animosity towards all other communities. If the Muslims living throughout the Indian subcontinent did not have any major objections in celebrating such practices throughout centuries, why should their be objections now? Were those muslims somehow inferior ones and today's muslims of Pakistan somehow the "real" muslims?
*
As I said, practices in direct violation of religious beliefs should be discourages (but practitioners not be termed "kafir" for god's sake) but other common traditions should have no objections.



> It just irritates me that many Pakistani's are not aware of Pakistan's true history and that many of us are infact of central asian, russian, european, persian or arabic descents believe it or not. Well if you don't believe me go for a DNA test and you'd discover your true lineage.


*Celebrating the diversity of our existence is somehow unacceptable to many people. There is no point in trying to identify ourselves as distinct people. We are diverse within the boundaries of pakistan as well. The Balochs have a distinct ancetry as compared to the Punjabis, Sindhis are different from Pathans, Sheedis are different from the Kalash people. Indian is one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse places on Earth. We are diverse people. We came from diverse backgrounds. Trying to force a cohesive religious-nationalistic ideology was the way the state found was neccessary to gather people against a common enemy. There is no need for identifying ourselves as distinct, for we know we are.*

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## sparklingway

jinxeD_girl said:


> Nice job Indian hiding behind a Pakistani ID and starting a sarcastic post and sticking some subtle insults in...



I did not consider that.


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

dolphin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> This I believe is a rather controversial area and has always been on my mind. I've been born and brought up in the UK and I always come across westerners and particularly Pakistani's themselves associating their cultural dogma (which is in fact of indian origins and since they are ignorant of their own Pakistani culture)like to associate themselves to Indians. They are tremendously ignorant!
> 
> Well when westerners approach me with such comments I always provide them with a brief history of Pakistan which goes back several hundred years. It just irritates me that many Pakistani's are not aware of Pakistan's true history and that many of us are infact of central asian, russian, european, persian or arabic descents believe it or not. Well if you don't believe me go for a DNA test and you'd discover your true lineage.
> 
> Therefore, at this day and age when we have established our own internationally recognized state, *why don't we practise our true culture such as considering the national language to be Persian (Farci)? Since more than half the population can understand Farci and are of persian descents?* I don't personally have anything against Urdu but i'd like to understand why not farci? Even majority of the works of the great poet of Pakistan Allama Iqbal has his literature in Farci.
> 
> Another issue I do not understand is why do Pakistanis particualrly those from the Punjab regions still practise Indian traditions? Are they of Indian descents? I'm certain majority of them are not!
> 
> I apologise if my comments may seem ignorant to you but I wish to understand from other individuals perspectives rather than my own.
> 
> Share your thoughts!


----------



## dolphin

jinxeD_girl said:


> Nice job Indian hiding behind a Pakistani ID and starting a sarcastic post and sticking some subtle insults in...




Thats pathetic of you to make such an ignorant comment. Wallaahi i'm pakistani not indian..........how could you possibly mistake me? Is it due to my criticisms towards Pak's? I'm not, i'm just pointing out simple facts actually!

Well i'm going to respond to everyone's posts tomorrow as its 4 am and i need to get some sleep


----------



## Omar1984

dolphin said:


> Thats pathetic of you to make such an ignorant comment. Wallaahi i'm pakistani not indian..........how could you possibly mistake me? Is it due to my criticisms towards Pak's? I'm not, i'm just pointing out simple facts actually!
> 
> Well i'm going to respond to everyone's posts tomorrow as its 4 am and i need to get some sleep



We'll be keeping a close eye on your posts. We had lots of indians pretending to be Pakistani behind the Pakistani flag before, it wouldn't be a surprise if you are a bharati pretending to be Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dolphin

When i suggested Farci, i was using it as en example as I am aware that Pakistan is from a diverse ethnic background if you bothered to read all my most regarding the lineages majority of Pakistanis have descended from.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

dolphin said:


> Thats pathetic of you to make such an ignorant comment. Wallaahi i'm pakistani not indian..........how could you possibly mistake me? Is it due to my criticisms towards Pak's? I'm not, i'm just pointing out simple facts actually!
> 
> Well i'm going to respond to everyone's posts tomorrow as its 4 am and i need to get some sleep



Anyone with a little common sense can tell that your post was a sarcastic pleasure to mock Pakistanis..


----------



## dolphin

Omar1984 said:


> We'll be keeping a close eye on your posts. We had lots of indians pretending to be Pakistani behind the Pakistani flag before, it wouldn't be a surprise if you are a bharati pretending to be Pakistani.



Well i will definitely respond more in-depth tomorrow regarding my thoughts and feelings on this issue. If you tried to understand my post, you may recognise that personally I am not content with Pakistani's following the trashy indian culture such as watching their movies and so forth as well as following their traditional dogmas as I seen in the UK (whom refer to it as the practises back home) which you may not be aware of greater than I am since I reside here. 

Also i'm ignorant to understanding the way of life (to some extent) in Pakistan and whether they have the similalr attitudes there. I've always accepted Pakistanis from Baloch, Sindh, Wazaristan, Punjab and the northern areas unfortunately the Pakistani government does not provide these areas with enough social/economic support which is why i'd like to raise the issue of why Punjabs are considered more important in relation with all the other ethnicities within Pakistan or is that since the government is corrupt? 

And is this the sole purpose as to why there is a rapid growth of tribal areas across Pakistan becoming anti-gov and thus anti-military as a result (whilst being brainwashed by the influx of Taliban and fundamentalists arriving into the NWF and westerns regions)???? I'm referring here to the tribal regions that have developed fundamental ideas at present.


----------



## dolphin

jinxeD_girl said:


> Anyone with a little common sense can tell that your post was a sarcastic pleasure to mock Pakistanis..



Yes thats since your ignorant and narrow-minded if you were aware of the current affairs and bothered reading some lierature about Pakistan you would understand what i'm discussing! RATHER THAN YOU CONTINUOUSLY LABELLING ME AS INDIAN AND NOT EVEN BOTHERING TO PARTAKE IN THE DISCUSSION

Read Three cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson....thats was a cool read indeed! It doesn't have anything strongly associated with current affairs in Pak but you may understand some of the issues covered within this book and within the press at the moment. Go read some newspapers too whilst your at it!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ajpirzada

apparently we are culturally similar but u will notice a big difference if you live with these two communities. 
to tell you wat i mean let me say it again. visiting pakistan and visiting india is almost the same thing in cultural aspect but living in pakistan and living in india is completely different again in every aspect. 

though i havent lived in india, but where i live here in UK i have more (not many) indians around me than pakistanis and i can feel the difference.

about the language well ......... hahahahaha. when did farci became our language. Urdu is mostly the language of muslims of indian sub continent. and from wat i remember it was indian sub continent which was divided into two states now called india and pakistan. also majority of pakistanis are not of any persian haritage. pashtuns, punjabis, balochis, shindhis, and others have been here since centuries. ull find people with arab and other linage but they have also been here for more than 500 yrs and are now very much people of indian sub continent.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jinxeD_girl

> Pakistan's true history and that many of us are infact of central asian, russian, european, persian or arabic descents believe it or not. Well if you don't believe me go for a DNA test and you'd discover your true lineage.



Can you tell me which Pakistanis are of Russian and European descents?  Are you talking of Kalashas (Chitralis) ? They do have Greek admixture but they only range somewhere between 5,000-6,000.



> Since more than half the population can understand Farci and are of persian descents? I don't personally have anything against Urdu but i'd like to understand why not farci? Even majority of the works of the great poet of Pakistan Allama Iqbal has his literature in Farci.




Any Pakistani whether living abroad or in Pakistan knows that *more than half of the population of Pakistan DON'T understand Farsi*. Indigenous Pakistani Tajiks or Farsiwans who speak Farsi are a small minority. It is true that *Iranic* languages (Pashto, Balochi etc) are spoken by 35-40&#37; Pakistanis.. but Farsi itself isnt spoken by majority..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jinxeD_girl

ajpirzada said:


> apparently we are culturally similar but u will notice a big difference if you live with these two communities.
> to tell you wat i mean let me say it again. visiting pakistan and visiting india is almost the same thing in cultural aspect but living in pakistan and living in india is completely different again in every aspect.
> 
> though i havent lived in india, but where i live here in UK i have more (not many) indians around me than pakistanis and i can feel the difference.
> 
> about the language well ......... hahahahaha. when did farci became our language. Urdu is mostly the language of muslims of indian sub continent. and from wat i remember it was indian sub continent which was divided into two states now called india and pakistan. also majority of pakistanis are not of any persian haritage. pashtuns, punjabis, balochis, shindhis, and others have been here since centuries. ull find people with arab and other linage but they have also been here for more than 500 yrs and are now very much people of indian sub continent.



pashtuns, balochis and tajiks are iranic peeople related to Persians..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

*Wallaahi i'm pakistani not indian..........*

I still doubt that you are Pakistani.. Even if you are NOT indian.. you are something else..

*Wallaahi* is a word commonly used by Arabs.. not so much by Pakistanis..


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

dolphin said:


> Well i will definitely respond more in-depth tomorrow regarding my thoughts and feelings on this issue. If you tried to understand my post, you may recognise that personally I am not content with Pakistani's following the trashy indian culture such as watching their movies and so forth as well as following their traditional dogmas as I seen in the UK (whom refer to it as the practises back home) which you may not be aware of greater than I am since I reside here.



You have reached my inner child. 



dolphin said:


> Also i'm ignorant to understanding the way of life (to some extent) in Pakistan and whether they have the similalr attitudes there. I've always accepted Pakistanis from Baloch, Sindh, Wazaristan, Punjab and the northern areas unfortunately the Pakistani government does not provide these areas with enough social/economic support which is why i'd like to raise the issue of why Punjabs are considered more important in relation with all the other ethnicities within Pakistan or is that since the government is corrupt?



Government is corrupt. 



dolphin said:


> And is this the sole purpose as to why there is a rapid growth of tribal areas across Pakistan becoming anti-gov and thus anti-military as a result (whilst being brainwashed by the influx of Taliban and fundamentalists arriving into the NWF and westerns regions)???? I'm referring here to the tribal regions that have developed fundamental ideas at present.



Don't extrapolate.


----------



## ajpirzada

jinxeD_girl said:


> pashtuns, balochis and tajiks are iranic peeople related to Persians..



but havent they been living in this same place for centuries??? 
also how are they iranic? i dont know much about all this


----------



## jinxeD_girl

ajpirzada said:


> but havent they been living in this same place for centuries???
> also how are they iranic? i dont know much about all this



Yes they are living in their lands for centuries... but the language culture e.t.c of Pashtuns, Balochis etc is considered "Iranic". They belong to "Iranian tribes" which includes Persians, Kurds, Balochs, Lurs, Tajiks, Pashtuns etc... and that includes modern day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Kurdistan and Western Pakistan (pashtun and balochi areas)..

Here is the language map... (kurdish, balochi, pashto are classified as Iranian languages, not Indian)

http://img200.imageshack.us/i/iesatem1.png/

and here is the extent of Iranian tribes

http://img44.imageshack.us/i/iranski.jpg/

Also you might want to check this article about Iranian peoples :-


Iranian peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ajpirzada

so basically its only punjabis, sindhis, and urdu speaking who are indic.... rest all are iranic which include baluch, pashtun, kashmiri & baltistani. so this thread starter guy wasnt completely wrong. isnt it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jinxeD_girl

ajpirzada said:


> so basically its only punjabis, sindhis, and urdu speaking who are indic.... rest all are iranic which include baluch, pashtun, kashmiri & baltistani. so this thread starter guy wasnt completely wrong. isnt it?



yes he wasn't wrong, but I think he was being sarcastic when he said "Pakistanis being descendants of Arabs, Europeans and Russians" or maybe he was just being ignorant?

As far as Punjabis are concerned, their language culture etc is classified as Indic but recent genetic tests have shown that 40% Punjabis also carry West and Central Asian genetic markers (That does make sense because Punjab being the first Indic state and surrounded by Kashmiris, Central Asians, West Asians etc) because throughout its history Punjab has been invaded again and again leaving high amount of genetic foot prints from Central and West Asia. 

So as a WHOLE, Pakistanis are quite different from Indians. Actually Urdu was NOT one of the dominant languages spoken in present day Pakistan before partition... it is still the mother tongue of ONLY 8% Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ajpirzada

jinxeD_girl said:


> yes he wasn't wrong, but I think he was being sarcastic when he said "Pakistanis being descendants of Arabs, Europeans and Russians" or maybe he was just being ignorant?
> 
> As far as Punjabis are concerned, their language culture etc is classified as Indic but recent genetic tests have shown that *40&#37; Punjabis also carry West and Central Asian genetic markers* (That does make sense because Punjab being the first Indic state and surrounded by Kashmiris, Central Asians, West Asians etc) because throughout its history Punjab has been invaded again and again leaving high amount of genetic foot prints from Central and West Asia.
> 
> So as a WHOLE, Pakistanis are quite different from Indians. Actually Urdu was NOT one of the dominant languages spoken in present day Pakistan before partition... it is still the mother tongue of ONLY 8% Pakistanis.



that is quite interesting.
so can i say i am pakistani arabian punjabi 

urdu was mainly chosen because it represented sub continent muslims. otherwise neither in bangal nor in the then western pakistan had urdu as their mother language.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

ajpirzada said:


> urdu was mainly chosen because it represented sub continent muslims. otherwise neither in bangal nor in the then western pakistan had urdu as their mother language.



yeah I know .. I don't want Farsi to be our national language either, those were the views of the thread starter  quoting him here :-

"Therefore, at this day and age when we have established our own internationally recognized state, why don't we practise our true culture such as considering the national language to be Persian (Farci) "


----------



## RobbieS

Jinxy, about the Iranic people map. Does it show Kashmiris as Iranic people as well? If it does, its the first time I have seen that.


----------



## niaz

Whatever roots of the language or the ethnicity of the genes; the fact remains that Urdu was the most widely understood language in the united India. Even today an Urdu speaker doesnt need any interpreter any where in the Northern and Central India. Similarly a Hindi speaker wouldnt have any problem in conversing in any Pakistani city.

Try that with Persian and you would know the difference. Pakistani universal language is Urdu and would remain so.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jinxeD_girl

RobbieS said:


> Jinxy, about the Iranic people map. Does it show Kashmiris as Iranic people as well? If it does, its the first time I have seen that.



Kashmiris are Dardic people, not Iranic.

Where did I say Kashmiris are Iranic?  and Kashmiris like *Mirpuri* etc are Indic people..


----------



## jinxeD_girl

But Northern parts of Kashmir (Gilgit - Baltistan etc) are occupied by Pamiri Tajiks which are Iranic

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmad

jinxeD_girl said:


> Kashmiris are Dardic people, not Iranic.
> 
> Where did I say Kashmiris are Iranic?  and Kashmiris like *Mirpuri* etc are Indic people..



could you tell us more about Dardic people?


----------



## Spring Onion

dolphin said:


> Thats pathetic of you to make such an ignorant comment. Wallaahi i'm pakistani not indian..........how could you possibly mistake me? Is it due to my criticisms towards *Pak's*? I'm not, i'm just pointing out simple facts actually!
> 
> Well i'm going to respond to everyone's posts tomorrow as its 4 am and i need to get some sleep



 just check the highlighted word in red. We have already banned many of Bharatiyas who were having same problem of using the word and we have no doubt you are hiding behind Our lovely flag.


And as far as the fact bwahahahha You Know what even if you make me Queen of England i would not like to claim myself to be of Indian origion in exchange for that.


So get a life man Pakistanis dont like to be called themselves Hindustani origion

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RobbieS

jinxeD_girl said:


> Kashmiris are Dardic people, not Iranic.
> 
> Where did I say Kashmiris are Iranic?  and Kashmiris like *Mirpuri* etc are Indic people..



Right. It wasn't you. I guess Aj mentioned that.


> so basically its only punjabis, sindhis, and urdu speaking who are indic.... rest all are iranic which include baluch, pashtun, kashmiri & baltistani. so this thread starter guy wasnt completely wrong. isnt it?


----------



## Spring Onion

sparklingway said:


> I did not consider that.



And you are thanking most of the Indians so we consider you one of them

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Jana said:


> And you are thanking most of the Indians so we consider you one of them



He probably didn't know you were keeping a track, Jana!


----------



## Spring Onion

jinxeD_girl said:


> pashtuns, balochis and tajiks are iranic peeople related to Persians..



yar Pashtuns are not iranic


----------



## RobbieS

Jana said:


> yar Pashtuns are not iranic



I too read somewhere that Pashtuns are the easternmost branch of the Iranian genetic group. 

Though you'd disagree, I guess the Israeli sponsored study may bring out some interesting facts. 
Pashtun clue to lost tribes of Israel | World news | The Observer


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Jana said:


> yar Pashtuns are not iranic



You can disagree.. but there is a world wide consensus (both linguistical and genetical) that Pashtuns are Iranic people..

What do you think they are? Semitic? I don't think so! Neither they are Indic!


----------



## UnitedPak

There are a spectrum of cultures and languages across the Asian landscape. But certain people (mostly Indians and sometimes the odd Pakistani) tend to make exceptions for Pakistani cultures, and associate everything that belongs to our people as either Iranian or Indian. Its a flawed view and usually an agenda driven one.
There is no such thing as "Indian culture" in the first place. Southern India is mostly Tamil, Eastern India has heavy Tibetan influence, and northern/central India has a Gangetic Hindu influence which has never had a presence in Pakistan/Indus valley.
Pakistani cultures of course have similarities to north western Indian cultures like Punjab due to proximity but you will find that every neighbouring region in the world has such similarities.

Pakistan aka the Indus Valley has always had a unique identity and if certain people are blinded by Pakistani nation being relatively new, you can always study the historical importance of major cities and regions like Lahore, Peshawar, Multan, Karachi, Quetta, Taxila, Swat etc. These regions have always belonged to our ancestors and have formed our Indus identity and culture.

Besides, Pakistan represents the majority of Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baluchis and Kashmiris in the world, this alone portrays the uniqueness of modern Pakistan.

*So, basically, nothing in Pakistan is 'Indic' or 'Iranic'*. These terms are flawed and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Asian cultures shouldn't be promoting them.

Regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmad

jinxeD_girl said:


> You can disagree.. but there is a world wide consensus (both linguistical and genetical) that Pashtuns are Iranic people..
> 
> What do you think they are? Semitic? I don't think so! Neither they are Indic!



Some Pashtoons of Pakistan consider themselves as semitic. But it seems like different tribes might have different backgrounds. I have seen in quite a few places that the Ghilzai Pashtoons is thought to have Turkic background, the Durani ones having Iranic , the Karlanis which are mostly in Pakistan especially the Afridis having Semitic blood.


----------



## Spring Onion

RobbieS said:


> I too read somewhere that Pashtuns are the easternmost branch of the Iranian genetic group.
> 
> Though you'd disagree, I guess the Israeli sponsored study may bring out some interesting facts.
> Pashtun clue to lost tribes of Israel | World news | The Observer



The Isreali funded study with an Indian assigned to work on it is a BS  and a failed attempt to prove Indians are Aryans and to prove that Pashtuns the lost Jewish tribe. Though this theory is altready proven wrong so i dont trust this Israeli BS much.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mjnaushad

Jana said:


> The Isreali funded study with an Indian assigned to work on it is a BS  and a failed attempt to prove Indians are Aryans and to prove that *Pashtuns the lost Jewish tribe*. Though this theory is altready proven wrong so i dont trust this Israeli BS much.




If this is true (which i highly doubt that it aint) i am glad we got lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

Jana said:


> The Isreali funded study with an Indian assigned to work on it is a BS  and a failed attempt to prove Indians are Aryans and to prove that Pashtuns the lost Jewish tribe. Though this theory is altready proven wrong so i dont trust this Israeli BS much.



I think the study is still on and the genetics results aren't out yet.

Btw, Aryan blood or not is another discussion in itself. AFAIK, Arya was just a social status for a group of people possible related to a language as well. And the Vedas and Puranas which are the earliest known Aryan texts researched by Muller, Hill etc. they don't mention any physical characteristic unique to Aryans. Its not certain at all who they were.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

RobbieS said:


> I think the study is still on and the genetics results aren't out yet.
> 
> Btw, Aryan blood or not is another discussion in itself. AFAIK, Arya was just a social status for a group of people possible related to a language as well. And the Vedas and Puranas which are the earliest known Aryan texts researched by Muller, Hill etc. they don't mention any physical characteristic unique to Aryans. Its not certain at all who they were.



I am from North India so I am Aryan. The South Indians are Dravidians. The Pakistanis are a mixed race of Russian, Persian, Greek, Chinese, Afghanistani,Arab and African peoples having been invaded by many nations hosting armies which consisted of those nationalities. So the true pure states are actually north and south India. Pakistan was always those state's buffer zone during the days of invasion. Perhaps that is the reason why Pakistani's hate the rest of India to the extent that they do. Then again as an Aryan, my duty is to understand their anger at us


----------



## Ahmad

PlanetWarrior said:


> I am from North India so I am Aryan. The South Indians are Dravidians. The Pakistanis are a mixed race of Russian, Persian, Greek, Chinese, Afghanistani,Arab and African peoples having been invaded by many nations hosting armies which consisted of those nationalities. So the true pure states are actually north and south India. Pakistan was always those state's buffer zone during the days of invasion. Perhaps that is the reason why Pakistani's hate the rest of India to the extent that they do. Then again as an Aryan, my duty is to understand their anger at us



I can understand persian, arab, afghanistani etc. But russian, chineese, greek? where does that come from?


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Ahmad said:


> I can understand persian, arab, afghanistani etc. But russian, chineese, greek? where does that come from?



Nuristanis of Afghanistan and Kalasha of Pakistan have some greek admixture..

Chinese?  I think he is talking about Hazaras and Baltis and Mongol invasions...

Russians? God knows where that connection came from..


----------



## PlanetWarrior

Ahmad said:


> I can understand persian, arab, afghanistani etc. But russian, chineese, greek? where does that come from?



Neighboring nations infiltration of Pakistan over the past thousand years or so. Alexander the Greek invaded Pakistan when it was still a Hindu territory and Porus a Pakistani Hindu king fought back but was defeated by Alex. When Alex's army was told to confront the Aryan Hindus, the Greek army turned tail and fled leaving a small army to occupy Pakistan. The reason why the Aryans in north India were able to muster a large army was due to the fact that the Pakistanis were fighting the Greeks and gave us time to muster our forces. In a stupid kind of way that similarity maybe drawn to the current Taliban/Pakistan Army war. The Taliban keeps the Pakistan Army occupied while India musters its forces in the north


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Perhaps that is the reason why Pakistani's hate the rest of India to the extent that they do.



No hatred - we are only reciprocating Indian hostility and non-acceptance of the Pakistani State.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmad

jinxeD_girl said:


> Nuristanis of Afghanistan and Kalasha of Pakistan have some greek admixture..
> 
> Chinese?  I think he is talking about Hazaras and Baltis and Mongol invasions...
> 
> Russians? God knows where that connection came from..



Yes, with the Greek flavour you can understand that there are some theories as you mentioned the Nooristanis. But russian is the most puzzling one. the chinees? god knows.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

jinxeD_girl said:


> Nuristanis of Afghanistan and Kalasha of Pakistan have some greek admixture..
> 
> Chinese?  I think he is talking about Hazaras and Baltis and Mongol invasions...
> 
> Russians? God knows where that connection came from..



Oops . I forgot that the Russians stopped in Afghanistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmad

PlanetWarrior said:


> Neighboring nations infiltration of Pakistan over the past thousand years or so. Alexander the Greek invaded Pakistan when it was still a Hindu territory and Porus a Pakistani Hindu king fought back but was defeated by Alex. When Alex's army was told to confront the Aryan Hindus, the Greek army turned tail and fled leaving a small army to occupy Pakistan. The reason why the Aryans in north India were able to muster a large army was due to the fact that the Pakistanis were fighting the Greeks and gave us time to muster our forces. In a stupid kind of way that similarity maybe drawn to the current Taliban/Pakistan Army war. The Taliban keeps the Pakistan Army occupied while India musters in forces in the north



As i said before, the persians/Tajiks, Afghanistnais, arabs and even greek you mentioned. but the chineese and russians? i cant figure that out.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> No hatred - we are only reciprocating Indian hostility and non-acceptance of the Pakistani State.



Most Indians accept the Pakistani state. Heck I will even proudly sing my neighbor's national anthem and stand in salutation to your flag when relationships normalise. What we can't accept is your quarterly gifts of sick misfits being sent across our borders to us with gifts of mayhem and destruction. Now before some Pakistanis start ranting about Indian involvement with the Taliban, please let me know the name of any Indian national who was arrested in Pakistan for terrorism. Do I really need to list the names of Pakistanis who are linked to terrorism in India. That is where the hostility emanates from.


----------



## Choppers

Wait for some more time and pakistanis will claim to be european,american and what not.


----------



## RobbieS

Ahmad said:


> As i said before, the persians/Tajiks, Afghanistnais, arabs and even greek you mentioned. but the chineese and russians? i cant figure that out.



Ahmad you're taking him too seriously. PW is showing his humorous side as usual.

PW - You better add a couple of smileys when you slip in your humor into ur post my friend. Those who don't know your posts might take it too seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pakdefender

UnitedPak said:


> There are a spectrum of cultures and languages across the Asian landscape. But certain people (mostly Indians and sometimes the odd Pakistani) tend to make exceptions for Pakistani cultures, and associate everything that belongs to our people as either Iranian or Indian. Its a flawed view and usually an agenda driven one.
> There is no such thing as "Indian culture" in the first place. Southern India is mostly Tamil, Eastern India has heavy Tibetan influence, and northern/central India has a Gangetic Hindu influence which has never had a presence in Pakistan/Indus valley.
> Pakistani cultures of course have similarities to north western Indian cultures like Punjab due to proximity but you will find that every neighbouring region in the world has such similarities.
> 
> Pakistan aka the Indus Valley has always had a unique identity and if certain people are blinded by Pakistani nation being relatively new, you can always study the historical importance of major cities and regions like Lahore, Peshawar, Multan, Karachi, Quetta, Taxila, Swat etc. These regions have always belonged to our ancestors and have formed our Indus identity and culture.
> 
> Besides, Pakistan represents the majority of Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baluchis and Kashmiris in the world, this alone portrays the uniqueness of modern Pakistan.
> 
> *So, basically, nothing in Pakistan is 'Indic' or 'Iranic'*. These terms are flawed and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Asian cultures shouldn't be promoting them.
> 
> Regards.




very well said


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Choppers said:


> Wait for some more time and pakistanis will claim to be european,american and what not.



No wait... It should be Indians (not Pakistanis) who should claim european ancestry... It has been long known that before the advent of Suez Canal, British Government used to encourage British soldiers to marry local Indian women from lower classes.. that is where you got your Anglo-Indians from.. 

and many Goans have Portugese ancestry.. and then you have Indo-French and Indo-Dutch people too... All those people invaded India from Southern and Eastern side I think...


----------



## niaz

Ahmad said:


> I can understand persian, arab, afghanistani etc. But russian, chineese, greek? where does that come from?



For the record; Indo Greek Kings ruled the area what is now Punjab, NWFP and Afghanistan from 180 BC to 10BC. Kushans (Chinese call them Yuchis) from Central Asia ruled all of Pakistan and North India from about early first Century AD to 250 AD (remember Kanishka)

Sasanians ruled modern Pakistani Baluchistan, Sindh down to Indian Gujarat until around 650 AD.

Arabs invaded Sindh in 711. Arab state survived in one form or the other in Multan, having been taken over by the Isamailis. Isamailis were there until Mahmud Ghaznavi invaded India and captured Multan in 1040. These people then fled north and are found today in the Hunza valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Desert Fox

jinxeD_girl said:


> *
> 
> Wallaahi is a word commonly used by Arabs.. not so much by Pakistanis..*


*


Wallaahi in Arabic means "By Allah", so now your saying that he isn't Pakistani because he said "By Allah i'm a Pakistani"?

So does that mean if i say Alhamdulillah that means i'm not Pakistani? I know many Pakistanis who know many phrases in Arabic, so does that mean they are not Pakistani? So your point is that anything related to Islam and Arabic is not a part of Pakistan? If that's so then i pity you, your here embracing indians and their ****** culture, but anything that has to do with Islam or Arabic according to you is not Pakistani?

Your here calling people indian (personal attacks), you yourself called indians "our beloved neighbors to the east"? Show's your hypocrisy.

how could you love a country that broke our Pakistan in 2 pieces? They are responsible for cutting off our water supply which in return is starving our countrymen and livestock!

i doubt your a Pakistani.

*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

PlanetWarrior said:


> Then again as an Aryan, my duty is to understand their anger at us




Aryans never invaded india, so take that smile off

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PlanetWarrior

SilentNinja said:


> *Wallaahi* in Arabic means *"By Allah"*, so now your saying that he isn't Pakistani because he said "By Allah i'm a Pakistani"?
> 
> So does that mean if i say Alhamdulillah that means i'm not Pakistani? I know many Pakistanis who know many phrases in Arabic, so does that mean they are not Pakistani? So your point is that anything related to Islam and Arabic is not a part of Pakistan? If that's so then i pity you, your here embracing indians and their ****** culture, but anything that has to do with Islam or Arabic according to you is not Pakistani?
> 
> Your here calling people indian (personal attacks), you yourself called indians "our beloved neighbors to the east"? Show's your hypocrisy.
> 
> *how could you love a country that broke our Pakistan in 2 pieces? They are responsible for cutting off our water supply which in return is starving our countrymen and livestock!*
> i doubt your a Pakistani.



The highlighted portion of this post is just emotional jargon. If an Indian had to reply to this jargon they could be forgiven for example saying that "we were just returning the favour in 1971 for what you did to India during partition" but that would sound just as ridiculous as the statement contained above


----------



## Spring Onion

Choppers said:


> Wait for some more time and pakistanis will claim to be european,american and what not.



Just like recently out of complex , Indians are claiming that Mughals are Indians

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PlanetWarrior

Jana said:


> Just like recently out of complex , Indians are claiming that Mughals are Indians



Well as a matter of fact , we gave them Indian citizenship after they invaded India. They were here for so long, we decided to certify them Indians


----------



## biplob

ajpirzada said:


> so basically its only punjabis, sindhis, and urdu speaking who are indic.... rest all are iranic which include baluch, pashtun, kashmiri & baltistani. so this thread starter guy wasnt completely wrong. isnt it?



Kashmirs are iranic ppl true...

Let me tell u one interesting thing.
I can give u pictures of some Indian Brahmins in fact many who can easily pass off for Bloch, Kashmir or say an Iranian .Well Kashmir Muslims are basically descendants of Kashmir pundits.not so sure about Pashtuns.

But the Punjabi Muslims of Pakistan or jatts of Punjab ,Hariyana .Rajastan look so different from much bigger head , rough and bony facial features from any inidan Hindu Brahman leaving aside skin complexion.They even look different from Punjabi brahmins.

Hindu brahmins and Iranic counted here ppl say Baloch, ,kashmiri even pashtun tend to soft facial features and smaller heads.


----------



## Peshwa

Jana said:


> Just like recently out of complex , Indians are claiming that Mughals are Indians



Uhh....If Indus Valley civilization is claimed to be Pakistani because Mohenjodaro and Harappa are in PRESENT DAY PAKISTAN.....
Then Mughals are 100% Indo's since their capital, base of operations and what they called home.....is in PRESENT DAY INDIA....

Why cant we all just share our history + cutlure pre 1947 and any culture developed post partition can be attributed to the individual nation....
eg. Bollywood is purely part of post partition Indian culture.....Sorry...dont have an example of current Pakistan...but you get the drift


----------



## Speaker

jinxeD_girl said:


> Nice job Indian hiding behind a Pakistani ID and starting a sarcastic post and sticking some subtle insults in...



I don't understand this. I feel he has a valid point and was actually voicing the concerns of a true ABCD (apologies dolphin). There are more Indians than Pakistanis in UK, US and most other countries. We have more cultural gatherings and the popular Bollywood culture seems to appeal to most expatriates of these two countries. Pakistan might have a different culture, but I see a lot of your countrymen flock to the theaters in the US. Anyway, point is, your skepticism was not entirely well placed. To the point that he is being asked to trash Indian culture to "please" you guys.

To Dolphin: There are many Indians who understand Farsi and Urdu. Urdu is ranked high in poetry and culture of north India. Some official documents still have farsi words in them. I think you feel Farsi is "pure" while Urdu has the mix of "Hindi" in it. If that is the case, then it is not helpful since no country speaks any pure language. In India, we have no single language capable of capturing the diversity. In Pakistan, I think Urdu is spoken by the majority. So it makes sense for you to have it as the national language.



jinxeD_girl said:


> *Wallaahi i'm pakistani not indian..........*
> 
> I still doubt that you are Pakistani.. Even if you are NOT indian.. you are something else..
> 
> *Wallaahi* is a word commonly used by Arabs.. not so much by Pakistanis..



Perspective: Urdu has words from Persian and Arabic. He, or any Indian Muslim for that matter is entitled to use that exclamation. Does saying "Jeez!" make you a Christian or "westerner"?



Jana said:


> just check the highlighted word in red. We have already banned many of Bharatiyas who were having same problem of using the word and we have no doubt you are hiding behind Our lovely flag.
> 
> 
> And as far as the fact bwahahahha You Know what even if you make me Queen of England i would not like to claim myself to be of Indian origion in exchange for that.
> So get a life man Pakistanis dont like to be called themselves Hindustani origion



I feel bad for you. The fact that we decided to retain the name India (and not adopt Hindustan as Jinnah had expected) has really made you guys hate your ancestors. Why do you associate the words "Indic" or ancient "India" with the present day India? Do you for example not feel proud that "India" discovered zero, had the first surgeon, had such vibrant culture, has an ocean named after it, was considered one of the leading nations of the world, was on a popular trade route, and allowed peaceful co-existence of different religions for the most part? Do you believe that none of your ancestors could have been the reason for all this before/after converting to Islam? But if you want to, it is your loss. You may have other blood in you, but many Pakistanis sure would fit into my description above.



UnitedPak said:


> There are a spectrum of cultures and languages across the Asian landscape. But certain people (mostly Indians and sometimes the odd Pakistani) tend to make exceptions for Pakistani cultures, and associate everything that belongs to our people as either Iranian or Indian. Its a flawed view and usually an agenda driven one.
> There is no such thing as "Indian culture" in the first place. Southern India is mostly Tamil, Eastern India has heavy Tibetan influence, and northern/central India has a Gangetic Hindu influence which has never had a presence in Pakistan/Indus valley.
> Pakistani cultures of course have similarities to north western Indian cultures like Punjab due to proximity but you will find that every neighbouring region in the world has such similarities.
> 
> Pakistan aka the Indus Valley has always had a unique identity and if certain people are blinded by Pakistani nation being relatively new, you can always study the historical importance of major cities and regions like Lahore, Peshawar, Multan, Karachi, Quetta, Taxila, Swat etc. These regions have always belonged to our ancestors and have formed our Indus identity and culture.
> 
> Besides, Pakistan represents the majority of Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baluchis and Kashmiris in the world, this alone portrays the uniqueness of modern Pakistan.
> 
> *So, basically, nothing in Pakistan is 'Indic' or 'Iranic'*. These terms are flawed and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Asian cultures shouldn't be promoting them.
> 
> Regards.



Without contradicting you: I feel we should understand that people of one race may speak the language of another. I know of many people in Indian Hyderabad who had last names similar to my Iranian friends. They certainly belonged to a different race (they looked very different from any Indian Muslim), they spoke a different language (not urdu or dakkani or telugu). But their language did sound like these. Coorgis in India are believed to have Greek ancestry but their language sounds south Indian. Point is, over time, people can completely forget the language of their "tribe" if the elders don't make efforts to retain the culture. Like Indians and Chinese in the US, who may not understand their mother tongue but still belong to the race. I am sure migration happened in those days too. Movement and transformation might have been slower than it is today, but it cannot be ruled out.



PlanetWarrior said:


> I am from North India so I am Aryan. The South Indians are Dravidians. The Pakistanis are a mixed race of Russian, Persian, Greek, Chinese, Afghanistani,Arab and African peoples having been invaded by many nations hosting armies which consisted of those nationalities. So the true pure states are actually north and south India. Pakistan was always those state's buffer zone during the days of invasion. Perhaps that is the reason why Pakistani's hate the rest of India to the extent that they do. Then again as an Aryan, my duty is to understand their anger at us



If you are serious, I would like to disagree. The Dravidians have their ancestry from African tribes (check out a program on Nat Geo where they matched the DNA of a bushman and a tea-stall owner in Tamil Nadu) but they can be traced to the mountainous tribes across India and Pakistan. The Brahmins are supposed to be Aryans and you can find them in every state of India. So there is no clear cut classification of race above and below the Vindhyas. 



jinxeD_girl said:


> No wait... It should be Indians (not Pakistanis) who should claim european ancestry... It has been long known that before the advent of Suez Canal, British Government used to encourage British soldiers to marry local Indian women from lower classes.. that is where you got your Anglo-Indians from..
> 
> and many Goans have Portugese ancestry.. and then you have Indo-French and Indo-Dutch people too... All those people invaded India from Southern and Eastern side I think...



The bashing aside, no religion or race invaded India except from the North West. In the southern part, they were adopted peacefully as a result of trade and even now everyone coexists well enough. And you know that when you mention Anglo Indians, you are including people from your country as well since the British may have not known back then to classify you as such.



Jana said:


> Just like recently out of complex , Indians are claiming that Mughals are Indians



Mughals are the descendants of Mongols. And why does Mughal become Indian or Pakistani? They existed before Pakistan was declared a sovereign state so there is nothing wrong in anyone saying it. Would you like it if someone said you should give us the Harappa/Mohenjodaro artifacts since you have no cultural similarity with it?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

PlanetWarrior said:


> Neighboring nations infiltration of Pakistan over the past thousand years or so. Alexander the Greek invaded Pakistan when it was still a Hindu territory and Porus a Pakistani Hindu king fought back but was defeated by Alex. When Alex's army was told to confront the Aryan Hindus, the Greek army turned tail and fled leaving a small army to occupy Pakistan. The reason why the Aryans in north India were able to muster a large army was due to the fact that the Pakistanis were fighting the Greeks and gave us time to muster our forces. In a stupid kind of way that similarity maybe drawn to the current Taliban/Pakistan Army war. The Taliban keeps the Pakistan Army occupied while India musters its forces in the north



"Hindu and Hinduism" is a term created by the British. I hope you realize this. You won't find it in Wikipedia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

PlanetWarrior said:


> I am from North India so I am Aryan. The South Indians are Dravidians. The Pakistanis are a mixed race of Russian, Persian, Greek, Chinese, Afghanistani,Arab and African peoples having been invaded by many nations hosting armies which consisted of those nationalities. So the true pure states are actually north and south India. Pakistan was always those state's buffer zone during the days of invasion. Perhaps that is the reason why Pakistani's hate the rest of India to the extent that they do. Then again as an Aryan, my duty is to understand their anger at us



Why do all you Indians use Wikipedia as you source of knowledge? Then you brag about being all smart and knowledgeable. Never heard of using scholarly articles? Do you know Wikipedia is a peer edited encyclopedia and half of the information is incorrect. You need to verify everything that is written in Wikipedia through its citations, and yet the citiations used in Wikipedia are rogue.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## biplob

UnitedPak said:


> There is no such thing as "Indian culture" in the first place. Southern India is mostly Tamil, Eastern India has heavy Tibetan influence, and northern/central India has a Gangetic Hindu influence which has never had a presence in Pakistan/Indus valley.
> Pakistani cultures of course have similarities to north western Indian cultures like Punjab due to proximity but you will find that every neighbouring region in the world has such similarities.
> 
> 
> .




Southern India is mostly Tamil,???

No,u'll make Telegu of AP , kannada of Karnaka and Kerela ppl very angry.

Eastern India has heavy Tibetan influence???

U must mean north eastern or Sikim,Bhutan like that.

As most Bihari,Bengali or Oriya ppl saw a Tibetan when Tibetan refugees can down in 1953.

BTW Chadra Gupta Mourya dynasty had ruled pakistani ares from Patna in Bihar for 200yr.


----------



## biplob

TheEnrichedOne said:


> "Hindu and Hinduism" is a term created by the British. I hope you realize this. You won't find it in Wikipedia.



Hindu is very old word.

Even moghul emperor used to call himself as Shehenshah of "Hindustan".


----------



## PlanetWarrior

TheEnrichedOne said:


> Why do all you Indians use Wikipedia as you source of knowledge? Then you brag about being all smart and knowledgeable. Never heard of using scholarly articles? Do you know Wikipedia is a peer edited encyclopedia and half of the information is incorrect. You need to verify everything that is written in Wikipedia through its citations, and yet the citiations used in Wikipedia are rogue.



Huh ???? You used wiki as a reference. So much for your scholarly abilities


----------



## PlanetWarrior

biplob said:


> Hindu is very old word.
> 
> Even moghul emperor used to call himself as Shehenshah of "Hindustan".



Ssssh he used his "scholarly abilities" to come up with that submission


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

biplob said:


> Southern India is mostly Tamil,???
> 
> No,u'll make Telegu of AP , kannada of Karnaka and Kerela ppl very angry.
> 
> Eastern India has heavy Tibetan influence???
> 
> U must mean north eastern or Sikim,Bhutan like that.
> 
> As most Bihari,Bengali or Oriya ppl saw a Tibetan when Tibetan refugees can down in 1953.
> 
> *BTW Chadra Gupta Mourya dynasty had ruled pakistani ares from Patna in Bihar for 200yr.*



No he didn't. Its not proven. Stop spreading your propaganda.


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

PlanetWarrior said:


> Huh ???? You used wiki as a reference. So much for your scholarly abilities



You cut and pasted everything you wrote from wikipedia and re-wrote it. I'm on to you Indians.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

TheEnrichedOne said:


> No he didn't. Its not proven. Stop spreading your propaganda.



It's proven. Check wikipedia. It's there


----------



## PlanetWarrior

TheEnrichedOne said:


> You cut and pasted everything you wrote from wikipedia and re-wrote it. I'm on to you Indians.



When ? I made all that stuff up myself. I swear


----------



## PlanetWarrior

TheEnrichedOne said:


> You cut and pasted everything you wrote from wikipedia and re-wrote it. *I'm on to you Indians*.



Damn we are busted now. There goes our theory of the origins of Pakistan. Busted we are fellow Indians and by TheEnrichedOne too. We may as well resign our memberships of PDF. The EnrichedOne is onto us

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

biplob said:


> Hindu is very old word.
> 
> Even moghul emperor used to call himself as Shehenshah of "Hindustan".



Impossible... Don't you Indians get sick of your propagandas?


----------



## UnitedPak

PlanetWarrior said:


> When ? I made all that stuff up myself. I swear



Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You might find this interesting too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheEnrichedOne

PlanetWarrior said:


> Damn we are busted now. There goes our theory of the origins of Pakistan. Busted we are fellow Indians and by TheEnrichedOne too. We may as well resign our memberships of PDF. The EnrichedOne is onto us



Its ok. It must suck to lack intelligence, and then look like a bigger fool by presenting misguided information.


----------



## RobbieS

TheEnrichedOne said:


> No he didn't. Its not proven. Stop spreading your propaganda.



Clearly, you need more enrichment. Who constructed the Viharas in Taxila? How come stupas inscribed in Pali and bearing Asoka's names were found in that area?


----------



## biplob

TheEnrichedOne said:


> Impossible... Don't you Indians get sick of your propagandas?



yes, we do get sick of your propagandas .


----------



## Frankenstein

dolphin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> This I believe is a rather controversial area and has always been on my mind. I've been born and brought up in the UK and I always come across westerners and particularly Pakistani's themselves associating their cultural dogma (which is in fact of indian origins and since they are ignorant of their own Pakistani culture)like to associate themselves to Indians. They are tremendously ignorant!
> 
> Well when westerners approach me with such comments I always provide them with a brief history of Pakistan which goes back several hundred years. It just irritates me that many Pakistani's are not aware of Pakistan's true history and that many of us are infact of central asian, russian, european, persian or arabic descents believe it or not. Well if you don't believe me go for a DNA test and you'd discover your true lineage.
> 
> Therefore, at this day and age when we have established our own internationally recognized state, why don't we practise our true culture such as considering the national language to be Persian (Farci)? Since more than half the population can understand Farci and are of persian descents? I don't personally have anything against Urdu but i'd like to understand why not farci? Even majority of the works of the great poet of Pakistan Allama Iqbal has his literature in Farci.
> 
> Another issue I do not understand is why do Pakistanis particualrly those from the Punjab regions still practise Indian traditions? Are they of Indian descents? I'm certain majority of them are not!
> 
> I apologise if my comments may seem ignorant to you but I wish to understand from other individuals perspectives rather than my own.
> 
> Share your thoughts!



You might have seen such Pakistanis in UK, but in Canada there is no such thing


----------



## sensenreason

Jana said:


> just check the highlighted word in red. We have already banned many of *Bharatiyas* who were having same problem of using the word and we have no doubt you are hiding behind Our lovely flag.
> 
> And as far as the fact bwahahahha You Know what even if you make me Queen of England i would not like to claim myself to be of Indian origion in exchange for that.
> 
> So get a life man *Pakistanis dont like to be called themselves Hindustani *origion



Indians dont like being called Bharatiyas or whatevr version of the word you use repeatedly.So just like you dont want him to use Hindustani to describe Pakistani's...you stop using Bhartiya etc for Indians. Understood?

By the way, one way or the other everyone can trace their lineage to Africa as has been well documented; so we are all Africans whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice but its the fact.


----------



## Frankenstein

maybe those hand full of Pakistanis enjoyed bollywood so much that they decided to change their identities once in a while


----------



## RobbieS

TheEnrichedOne said:


> You cut and pasted everything you wrote from wikipedia and re-wrote it. I'm on to you Indians.



And here is a quote from a non-Indian source. With links of course.


> The Edicts of King Ashoka were carved onto pillars of stone 40 to 50 feet high, and set up all around the edges of the Mauryan Empire as well as in the heart of Ashoka's realm. Dozens of these pillars dot the landscapes of India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Ashoka the Great Biography


----------



## Frankenstein

sensenreason said:


> Indians dont like being called Bharatiyas or whatevr version of the word you use repeatedly.So just like you dont want him to use Hindustani to describe Pakistani's...you stop using Bhartiya etc for Indians. Understood?
> 
> By the way, one way or the other everyone can trace their lineage to Africa as has been well documented; so we are all Africans whether you choose to believe it or not is your choice but its the fact.


U dont lyk that han, tell me what kind of words do members of Baharat rakshak use for us??


----------



## Desert Fox

PlanetWarrior said:


> The highlighted portion of this post is just emotional jargon. If an Indian had to reply to this jargon they could be forgiven for example saying that "we were just returning the favour in 1971 for what you did to India during partition" but that would sound just as ridiculous as the statement contained above



lol, i'm emotional? wait till you visit this link and see how emotional you indians are:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/52316-sania-mirza-marry-shoaib-malik-25.html


----------



## sensenreason

Frankenstein said:


> U dont lyk that han, tell me what kind of words do members of Baharat rakshak use for us??



What does lyk that han mean?...Whats Baharat?


----------



## Jade

sparklingway said:


> This topic has been beaten to death in these forums.
> 
> 
> You serious or are you just joking? If you're serious, then your crazy to say the least. Urdu being highly influenced and sharing words and structure with Farsi is one thing and understanding is a completely different thing.
> 
> Farsi : Iranian language of the Indo Iranian branch of the Indo European languages
> 
> Urdu : Central Indo Aryan language language of the Indo Iranian branch of the Indo European languages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before reading the next sentence, come out of any myopic and/or prejudiced mindset:-
> 
> *Standardized Hindi and Urdu are very much alike, so much that their differences are not enough for linguists to classify them as entirely different languages. They are considered dialects of a common language referred to as Hindustani language. Even when they are written in different scrips (Nastaliq as opposed to Devanagari), and have differences in phonetics, they are still considered dialects of a common language by linguists.*
> 
> Persian influenced Urdu poetry widely but Urdu and Persian are very much different and not considered dialects of a common language.
> 
> Gopi Chand Narang, awarded Iqbal Centennary Gold Medal by the GoP and Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri by GoI for his contributions to Urdu had the following to say:-
> 
> "Associating Urdu with the Muslims in India is part of a political conspiracy against this composite language which was born out of a cultural interaction between the Hindus and the Muslims. The communalization of Urdu is part of its politicization which has occurred in the last half century. In fact, it is part of the hangover of the two nation theory which stands discredited by historical events in the subcontinent.
> 
> "Nevertheless narrow minded politicians on both sides of the border unwittingly subscribe to it. Pakistan is a nascent nation. Naturally it needs a language and a cultural core which it may call its own. The bigger problem lies in India where presently Urdu's association with the Muslim minority is exploited as a vote bank. In India, I have yet to come across a leader of a political party, left or right, who does not praise Urdu for its charm and elegance, yet these leaders are indifferent to its linguistic rights".
> 
> *The language dispute only went to show the lack of objectivity among the populations, both of whom sought to dominate each other at the fall of the Mughal Empire. If Canada can adopt French and English in parallel, the lack of such an agreement in British India only highlighted the irrationality of the population.*
> 
> The Urdu-Hindi struggle has forced our historians (read state historians who distort history for political purposes) to present Urdu as a symbol of Hindu-Muslim differences and somehow a factor contributing to demand for Independence. The controversy has been settled, in all practical purposes by the GoI and the widescale adoption and general understanding (read unfamiliarity with Persian/Nastaliq script) of Devanagari script has coerced Urdu scholars in India so much so, that they have adopted Devanagari for Urdu publications as well (some magazines are published this way).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You can have reservations on cultural practices that are in direct and utter conflict with Islamic values but any non religious tradition should have no objection. The way in which mullahs have grabbed and distorted history is visible by the fact that Basant is somehow presented to be a "Hindu" event and stories of o the origins of Basant are conjured from thin air. You can hear every tom, dick and harry telling that either Basant originated from massacre of Muslims in Andlusian Spain or Sikhs killing Muslims in Kashmir in the early 17th century. Across Africa, Muslims have not rejected traditional mythical practices and continue to live in relative peace and harmony with other religious communities. Somehow Hindus and Muslims did not fight bitterly for a long long period (small instances and exceptions do not count), but the fundo mullah of today in Pakistan has created a new intolerant brand of religion that advocates utter rejection of any existing cultural practices and animosity towards all other communities. If the Muslims living throughout the Indian subcontinent did not have any major objections in celebrating such practices throughout centuries, why should their be objections now? Were those muslims somehow inferior ones and today's muslims of Pakistan somehow the "real" muslims?
> *
> As I said, practices in direct violation of religious beliefs should be discourages (but practitioners not be termed "kafir" for god's sake) but other common traditions should have no objections.
> 
> 
> *Celebrating the diversity of our existence is somehow unacceptable to many people. There is no point in trying to identify ourselves as distinct people. We are diverse within the boundaries of pakistan as well. The Balochs have a distinct ancetry as compared to the Punjabis, Sindhis are different from Pathans, Sheedis are different from the Kalash people. Indian is one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse places on Earth. We are diverse people. We came from diverse backgrounds. Trying to force a cohesive religious-nationalistic ideology was the way the state found was neccessary to gather people against a common enemy. There is no need for identifying ourselves as distinct, for we know we are.*




One of the best postings on PDF: analytically sound and deeply thought. Thanks sparklingway

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sensenreason

Speaker said:


> Please elaborate. There is nothing derogatory about comparing anyone to Africans (I assume you mean the African-Americans). But I would still like to know what you mean. If you do not wish to respond, please delete your post.



You better elaborate why Indians are like Africans...you clearly meant it in a racist manner. You have disgraced all Pakistani members and insulted Indians and Africans. You should apologise to all or get banned...Moderators??? anyone???

Fort the record there is NOTHING wrong in being African but its you who meant it in racist and derogatory manner of discrimination by skin color.


----------



## Jade

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> No hatred - we are only reciprocating Indian hostility and non-acceptance of the Pakistani State.



Hostility is reciprocal. Nowhere did I ever heard that India didnt accept Pakistani State.


----------



## Frankenstein

*Yo, What in the name of .... Is going on, Stop this craps at one, Mods plz close the thread, *


----------



## nightcrawler

If cultural diffrences are not that common & well defined as is suggested by majority replies then why Pakistan came into being!!
I mean when you read standard textbooks you came to know that Pakistan was a neccesity because of religious diffrences
When you get to read professional historical works e.g Ayesha Jalal which clealry reflects the secular nature of Quaid & that Pakistan was an outcome of cultural values the same point being somewhat shared in Smoker's Corner by Paracha Sb. who totally negate this kind off religious ideology
Tell me what is the true answer behind all this fuss


----------



## Peshwa

PS: Above is my last post to the nonsense....People can take the last swing....count me out....Being racist is not in me...it was a reaction to a post


----------



## Desert Fox

Peshwa said:


> I dunno what kinda girls you've been meeting bro....
> 
> But like someone else mentioned....quite a few BD girls look Indian.....Maybe some of them are trying to reintegrate....You know go back to their roots....



no no no, 

they were indian alright


----------



## Desert Fox

sensenreason said:


> or some Pakistani girls trying to pass of as Indian girls....as it helps them in many ways...



lol, why would any Pakistani girl want to be indian? first time i'm hearing this.......

PS Pakistani girls look very different from indian girls, they also wear hijab so i don't know why they would have any reason to "pass of as indian girls"?


----------



## sensenreason

TheEnrichedOne said:


> Never once has this happened.



If they are hiding their identity..you are NOT supposed to know.


----------



## sensenreason

SilentNinja said:


> lol, why would any Pakistani girl want to be indian? first time i'm hearing this.......
> 
> PS Pakistani girls look very different from indian girls, they also wear hijab so i don't know why they would have any reason to "pass of as indian girls"?



So that they dont need to wear Hijab, for instance.


----------



## TaimiKhan

*Well to the Indian members, if you see a derogatory remark, just report it, replying to it with idiotic and stupid comments will make you earn the ban also. 

No need to reply to the trolls, just report, next time those who reply will also go out. *


----------



## Desert Fox

sensenreason said:


> So that they dont need to wear Hijab, for instance.



Even if they didn't have Hijab on they still look different from indian girls, trust me i've been to a school where Pakistanis, Afghans, Bengalis, and indians went and it wouldn't take an expert to tell the difference between a Pakistani and an indian!


----------



## Desert Fox

ADT said:


> Indian members are too quick to hit the report button.



lol, but you shouldn't give them the chance to press the report button! Try not to troll.

Anyways, Pakistan and india *somewhat* do share a common culture, but we are not the same people and since partition we have changed in many ways and this has contributed in making us even more different from each other!


----------



## ADT

SilentNinja said:


> lol, but you shouldn't give them the chance to press the report button! Try not to troll.
> 
> Anyways, Pakistan and india *somewhat* do share a common culture, but we are not the same people and since partition we have changed in many ways and this has contributed in making us even more different from each other!



Pakistan didn't seperate on the basis of religion alone after all India has a larger population of Muslims than Pakistan. 

We are very different people. If we were "the same" as some Indians like to say we would not have wanted a seperate country.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speaker

nightcrawler said:


> If cultural diffrences are not that common & well defined as is suggested by majority replies then why Pakistan came into being!!
> I mean when you read standard textbooks you came to know that Pakistan was a neccesity because of religious diffrences
> When you get to read professional historical works e.g Ayesha Jalal which clealry reflects the secular nature of Quaid & that Pakistan was an outcome of cultural values the same point being somewhat shared in Smoker's Corner by Paracha Sb. who totally negate this kind off religious ideology
> Tell me what is the true answer behind all this fuss



You may be right, but Pakistan's origin is more in politics rather than in religion. In "Mountbatten and the partition of India", Mountbatten states that even Liaqat Ali Khan was against the creation of a separate nation and finally agreed to Jinnah's political pitch. If Nehru had agreed to Jinnah becoming the PM, the partition may have never occurred. If your point of view is true, why is it that more Muslims chose to stay back rather than migrate, even from regions close to the border?. Like an Indian Muslim activist said something like "Yahaan ke Allah aur Wahaan ke Allah mein koi farq nahin"...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

jade1982 said:


> Hostility is reciprocal. Nowhere did I ever heard that India didn&#8217;t accept Pakistani State.



You just be blind then, since comments by Indians to that effect are all over the internet.

In addition, as discussed in a thread on Indira Gandhi, her views of the Pakistani State as it exists currently were not exactly supportive of Pakistan's territorial integrity (and I am speaking of Baluchistan and NWFP).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Speaker said:


> You may be right, but Pakistan's origin is more in politics rather than in religion. In "Mountbatten and the partition of India", Mountbatten states that even Liaqat Ali Khan was against the creation of a separate nation and finally agreed to Jinnah's political pitch. If Nehru had agreed to Jinnah becoming the PM, the partition may have never occurred. If your point of view is true, why is it that more Muslims chose to stay back rather than migrate, even from regions close to the border?. Like an Indian Muslim activist said something like "Yahaan ke Allah aur Wahaan ke Allah mein koi farq nahin"...



The problem lies, as someone else commented, in trying to pigeonhole Pakistan, its ideology, people and culture, into one specific category.

Our culture, our people, our identity and the ideology of the State are in reality a confluence of various influences and factors, and to understand Pakistan is to understand that it is akin to a tapestry rich in color, and not some monochrome print.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

By the way, part of this discussion is going down a route already traveled on the following threads:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...tions-behind-selecting-name-india-1947-a.html 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/7650-ancient-history-not-appreciated-pakistanis.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/8108-historical-background-pakistan-its-people.html

I think this thread is probably more along the lines of that last link, and I am merging it with it.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Actually, before I merge it I'll leave it open to suggestions on whether it should be left to run as is, but then I need to know what direction it will take.


----------



## ADT

This article from this thread (http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/50411-genetic-journey-pakistani.html) is a great article and it sums it up

*Pakistanis ignorance to their roots*

It is common for Pakistanis to look back to their history starting in the 7th century AD when their ancestors were first exposed to Islam during Muhammed Bin Qasim's temporary presence in Sindh. Instead of looking back even further to their roots -which predate Islam- they identify with the invading nations and rulers who were mostly Islamic.

They (Pakistanis) go even further and fall under the delusion to believe these rulers as their "ancestors" (though there was minor race mixing with invading Arabs, Persians, Turko-Mongols and the local population, the majority still remain the same).
According to many Pakistanis, these supposed "ancestors" of theirs "brought civilization" to present-day Pakistan and the rest of Southern Asia. Before that there was no civilization there, at least from what they think.

Even those such as Zaid Hamid continue to carry the typical false slogan that Pakistanis have carried for generations that "we 'Muslims' ruled over the Indians for a thousands years and gave them civilization."
To really know who these 'Muslims' were (almost as if the word has a racial or tribal meaning) it is important to look into the history of these 'Muslims' who did indeed rule Pakistan and the rest of South Asia and if they really did bring civilization.

The first Muslims who stepped foot into Pakistan were the Arabs led by Muhammed Bin-Qasim, though it is believed they were not able to establish a firm control over the natives and were later driven out. Looking at Arab history, culture, ethnicity, linguistics it should be obvious to most people that Arabs are certainly not the ancestors of present-day Pakistanis. It does not take an anthropologist or a historian to point this out, but common sense. If one is still not convinced, then he/she is free to research Arab history, culture, genetics, linguistics. After all in the modern age of technology there are so many free resources out there to be used anytime whenever desired.

The second Muslim rulers of Pakistan were the Ghaznaviods. The general historic consensus is that they were a Persian-ruled dynasty but with an army consisted of Turko-Mongols. The Persians originate in the Fars province (Persia) of present day Iran while their army of Turko-Mongols were mostly of Altaic origins in present-day Mongolia and Siberia. Like the Arabs, the Ghaznavids's background can be further researched and from what is known, and they surely did not share a common origin with present-day Pakistanis.

Next came the Ghurids, another Persian-led force. What is known about their linguistics is that they were an Iranic-speaking people like the Persians (search Iranic languages to fully understand the meaning of the term) just like most of Pakistan's western populations the Baloch, the Pakhtuns. But, linguistics does not necessary coincide with genetics!
Take the Iranic-speaking Hazaara in Afghanistan. Just by looking at them, their Altaic/Turanoid origins become very obvious. Even recent genetic findings suggests that Pakhtuns and Baloch, though Iranic speaking share common genes with the Dardic speaking Kashmiris.
Coming back to the Ghurids, the theories are that most of them originated along the Afghanistan-Tajikistan areas. These areas are not part of present day Pakistan, nor are their current inhabitants Pakistanis.

After that came the Mughals (a corruption of the word "Mongol"), another empire like the Ghaznavids ruled mainly by Persians, but with a mainly Turko-Mongol army. It is common for Pakistanis to claim to be of Mughal descent. Unless they're willing to call the present-day Turko-Mongoloid peoples of the former USSR and Mongolia their 'cousins' despite their different Mongoloid skull structure -as opposed to the Caucasoid skulls of most Pakistanis - or their Altaic languages -as opposed to the majority Indo-European languages of Pakistanis, then they should stop calling the Mughals or any other foreign Muslim empires their "ancestors."
Instead Pakistanis should wake up and learn more about the history of their country and their people!

Given the basic insight to these invading empires, they certainly were not the ancestors of Pakistanis. In fact the British who were the last invading empire also shared something in common with Pakistanis as well!
1) They were Cuacasianoid by skull type like most Pakistanis.
2) They too spoke an Indo-European language (English.)
Based on this should Pakistanis start claiming British ancestry now!?! Or that the British Raj was somehow a 'Pakistani Empire'?? Also note there have been many intermarriages between Brits and Pakistanis and continues even today as there is a huge Pakistani community in Britain. This does not make the majority of Pakistanis of British descent, just a small handful. Likewise the same can be said for other invading empires.

Another common trend for Pakistanis is to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as "Indian" or "South Asian" or "desi."
Many brainwashed, Indianized Pakistanis, like the Islamists, always like to always associate with the other. Pakistanis who have a Pan-South Asian mindset wish for their pre-Islamic history which spread mostly and were based in Pakistan to be known as "Indian" or "South Asian". The truth is most ancient civilizations based in Pakistan did NOT spread over South Asia!

"Desi" is a term popular amongst Pan-South Asians. It is used to refer to Dravidian, Dardic, and Indo-Aryan speakers. But strangely enough it does not apply to Iranic speakers (ie. Balochis, Pakhtuns) despite Iranic speakers in Pakistan sharing common linguistics, genetics with Indo-Aryan and Dardic speakers. (Search Indo-Iranic languages).
The word "desi" has no scientific acceptance in modern-day anthropology or linguistics. A Dardic-speaking Kashmiri has no linguistic relation to a Dravidian speaking Tamil. Dravidian languages belong to a completely different and un-related language family than Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages. Dardic and Indo-Aryan along with Iranic are part of the Indo-Iranic family of languages.
What's more is that genetically the Dravidians lack R1A genetic markers that are least found in Southern India (though some sources state Tamils have a significant R1A contribution than other Dravidian speakers; suggesting genetic contributors in their gene pool coming from more northwards) while Dardic and Iranic-speakers in Pakistan have it the most.
So clearly "Desis" are no more than a people of an imagination based on ignorance, pseudoscience and false political propaganda.

Pakistan's new generation face an identity tug of war between Islamic Mid-Easternization and Indianization. The problem is that Indian propaganda has reached even western historians; who are often manipulated & used to promote false historic propaganda created for political agendas. But today some are starting to question Indian pseudo-history. Such as the terms "partition of India" or the "ancientness" of so-called "Hinduism."
Many are even coming to the realization that these ideas were merely invented by the British. "India" and "Hinduism" did not exist prior to the 18th century. If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Bhuddist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian or any other would have mentioned this phenomenon.

Contrary to popular myth the history of "India" and "Hinduism" are works of fiction! Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as "hinduism" instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of "hinduism!"
The republic of "India" was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the Peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (mainly Hyderabad, Goa, Junagara and then later on Kashmir, which triggered war with Pakistan) were invaded by military force.

Pakistani people on the other hand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC.
The maps showing the Indus Civilization -one of the oldest in the world- spread all over Pakistan. Most of the IVC's map coincides with that of Pakistan's present day map. It's main cities Harrappa, Mohinjadarro are also situated deep within Pakistan in various provinces.

Many Indian propagandists and Pan-'South Asian' Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was "one nation" as strictly defined, modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today.
Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as "proof" of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilizations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations.

Most Muslim countries/nations are proud of their pre-Islamic history and don't use their religion as a substitute for their identity. Not even the stateless Palestinians!
Egyptians are proud of their pre-Islamic and pre-Arab civilizations. Even the Catholic Italians are proud of Roman civilization, despite that it was not a Christian civilization till much after. Despite that the modern-day Italian state was established only in the 18th century. It's time Pakistanis do the same!

Before 1947 Pakistan did not have it's present-day name. But neither did India before the 1800s or Italy before the 1800s, neither did Afghanistan before 1747. But now that these are the current names of the lands and the people, they are used to apply to the same land and people in prehistoric times. The same logic can be applied for Pakistan. It is time the new generation of Pakistanis not make the mistake of their forefathers and learn about their roots which predate Islam by thousands of years. It should be passed on forever by each generation instead of being given away for free to history thieves eager to steal it.

Here are some basic facts on Pakistanis:
-They are mostly Caucasoid by skull type.

-They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo-Iranic language around the second milliniea BC.
Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic or even Indo-European, however it's speakers are not that genetically distinct from the rest of Pakistanis.

-They are geographically located around the Indus river.

-They formed a single civilization/nation from the days of the Indus Civilization from 3000BC till today.

-They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry.
Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected!

Even the non- Indo-European speaking populations - mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically.
A brief analysis of a study at an American university on Pakistani genetics:
Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan 
Posted by Pakistani 


History of Pakistan: Pakistanis ignorence to their roots


----------



## Hammy007

i am really sick of this jinxed girl, of posting dozens of greater iranian pictures every day

for gods sake, make this forum pakiran forum just for sake of this user.

what iran has got to do every time with pakistani matters. its an alien country to most of pakistan anyway so why bother to include it in every thread, greater iran maps.


----------



## Speaker

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The problem lies, as someone else commented, in trying to pigeonhole Pakistan, its ideology, people and culture, into one specific category.
> 
> Our culture, our people, our identity and the ideology of the State are in reality a confluence of various influences and factors, and to understand Pakistan is to understand that it is akin to a tapestry rich in color, and not some monochrome print.



Correct, and that is true of every country in the world, although to different degrees. That could not have been such a compelling reason, if you look at it in terms of diversity. India already has more races, religions, languages and cultures that any country in the world. Even some Iran and Afghan races are present in certain parts of India. So when your heterogeneity is a subset of India's, there is no reason to feel we had a partition based on race or religion. If that be the case, there should be no Muslim living in Indian Punjab or Gujarat. 

So when India has almost as many Muslims as Pakistan, and more races and cultures, we should have had more partitions. By all means, please take pride in your sovereignty and nation-hood. But we are not sure if the reasons for its existence are the same as the reasons quoted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

Hammy007 said:


> i am really sick of this jinxed girl, of posting dozens of greater iranian pictures every day
> 
> for gods sake, make this forum pakiran forum just for sake of this user.



really? i never noticed that! To me she seems to like india more than Iran!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Speaker said:


> Correct, and that is true of every country in the world, although to different degrees. That could not have been such a compelling reason, if you look at it in terms of diversity. India already has more races, religions, languages and cultures that any country in the world. Even some Iran and Afghan races are present in certain parts of India. *So when your heterogeneity is a subset of India's,* there is no reason to feel we had a partition based on race or religion. If that be the case, there should be no Muslim living in Indian Punjab or Gujarat.
> 
> So when India has almost as many Muslims as Pakistan, and more races and cultures, we should have had more partitions. By all means, please take pride in your sovereignty and nation-hood. But we are not sure if the reasons for its existence are the same as the reasons quoted.


Why make Pakistan's heterogeneity a 'subset' of India's? I would argue that a better way to put it is that the heterogeneity seen in Pakistan can also be seen in parts (North Western primarily) of India due to geographical proximity and the flow of culture and peoples over political boundaries over generations.

On partition I would argue that religion was a large factor though not the only one. Obviously the fact that there was a certain geographical contiguity to the peoples of West Pakistan and East Pakistan played a role as well. Were Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Baluchistan dispersed all over South Asia it is unlikely that there would have been as strong a demand for an independent State.


----------



## Ahmad

I think JGirl is a pakistani. She has always taken part in hot debates with the indians in defence of pakistan. she might like the persians, but that does not make her any less pakistani. i think she is a respectable lady.


----------



## Hammy007

jinxeD_girl said:


> But Northern parts of Kashmir (Gilgit - Baltistan etc) are occupied by Pamiri Tajiks which are Iranic



yeah whole pakistan is iranic in some way or another, are you ok now...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Hammy007 said:


> yeah whole pakistan is iranic in some way or another, are you ok now...



No need to get ornery with her - if you disagree then make your own case logically and rationally.


----------



## Ahmad

Hammy007 said:


> yeah whole pakistan is iranic in some way or another, are you ok now...



She is right. Pakistan has minority tajik population and tajiks are aryans. you should know that the tajiks and persians are the same people.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Threads merged. Do read the posts in the old thread as well to avoid repeating arguments.*


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

I wonder if the following thread should be merged with this one as well?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/50411-genetic-journey-pakistani.html


----------



## Speaker

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Why make Pakistan's heterogeneity a 'subset' of India's? I would argue that a better way to put it is that the heterogeneity seen in Pakistan can also be seen in parts (North Western primarily) of India due to geographical proximity and the flow of culture and peoples over political boundaries over generations.
> 
> On partition I would argue that religion was a large factor though not the only one. Obviously the fact that there was a certain geographical contiguity to the peoples of West Pakistan and East Pakistan played a role as well. Were Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Baluchistan dispersed all over South Asia it is unlikely that there would have been as strong a demand for an independent State.



I did not mean it in a condescending sense. All I am saying is that you can find most race/religions present in Pakistan in India, though the reverse is not true. And some of the "Kabuliwallahs" came due to business, but they settled down in various parts of India (not just the north-west). The fact is that the difference between "us" was "shown" to the people, for political reasons. Even Jinnah would have preferred to not have the partition if he had been made the prime-minister. That was good old politics between Nehru and Jinnah which was given the tinge of religion. Again, we have had so many Muslims in India (even in the NW states) of different races who feel home in India. They might have migrated, or asked for another partition if racial/religious homogeneity was the concern.


----------



## Ahmad

Hammy007 said:


> she likes and praise iranians, but this is a pakistani forum, pakistani is not related to iran anyway, we like many countries like china, turkey, some like arabian countries etc etc but even then nobody comes with the rethoric of their loved country country every time. i think she has some racial inferior complex, as can be seen in her racist views. she doesnt talk abt defence but just her regular racial iranian rhetoric of iranic tribes and baloch and pathans and kashmiris are northern iranic tribes rethoric etc completely off topic.



It is a pakistani forum, but we all talk about other countries all the time. If there is always talk about pakistan then nobody else but pakistanis would be coming to the forum. This is one of the good forums i have seen, and the reason is because it has attracted other poeple too. She might not like to talk about the arabs or others, it is her choice. And i dont think she has inferiiority feelings, she has alwyas presented herself as a proud paskistani and panjabi girl and she has always talked about other paksitanis too. but anyways, i shouldnt jump to defend her, she is capable of defending herself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Desert Fox

Well i wouldn't mind if anyone on this forums praises Iran or any other country (except for india)!

As long as they don't praise india then i'm good!


----------



## Peshwa

SilentNinja said:


> Well i wouldn't mind if anyone on this forums praises Iran or any other country (except for india)!
> 
> As long as they don't praise india then i'm good!



Cmon Mr.Ninja...why the sour puss?

Praise is due where required.....is there nothing about India that you admire?...Surely the Taj Mahal at least?

If Indians can see beauty in Pakistan, why cant you reciprocate?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Speaker said:


> Even Jinnah would have preferred to not have the partition if he had been made the prime-minister.



The issue wasn't primarily one of becoming Prime Minister, but of fair treatment of the Muslim minority and of Muslim rights, which manifested itself in the degree of autonomy for the Muslim majority provinces. The issue of who became Prime Minster was a further manifestation of the concerns over the rights of the Muslim majority areas, in that the election of Jinnah as the first Prime Minister would have put the authority to run the new country in the hands of someone who had campaigned for Muslim rights and therefore would protect them.

To boil a complex situation down to 'clash over who became Prime Minister', an argument that comes across more as a selfish power struggle, is incorrect and unfair to some of the actors involved.

Anyway, back to topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Ahmad said:


> could you tell us more about Dardic people?



Dardic people are Kohistanis, Kashmiris, Kalasha, Shinas etc etc.. These people mostly live in Northern Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan. I have read somewhere that their origins are shrouded in mystery.. and there is a controversy even on how to classify their languages :-

The Dardic group has traditionally been defined as a sub-group of the Indo-Aryan languages which experienced strong influence from the Nuristani and East Iranian languages. Nuristani, a group of languages spoken in northeast Afghanistan, has sometimes been included in Dardic, but is today generally regarded as an independent group, as one of the three sub-groups of Indo-Iranian, following the studies of Georg Morgenstierne in 1973 to 1975 CE.

There is still some dispute regarding the ultimate classification of the Dardic languages. The very existence of the family has been called into question by some, though the Dardic languages share common features different from Indo-Aryan, such as the so-called Dardic metathesis (karma => krama).

*Except for Kashmiri, all of the Dardic languages are small minority languages which have not been sufficiently studied. In many cases they are spoken in areas difficult to access due to mountainous terrain and/or armed conflicts in the region. All of the languages (including Kashmiri) have been historically influenced by more prominent (non-Dardic) neighboring languages.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ADT

jinxeD_girl said:


> Dardic people are Kohistanis, Kashmiris, Kalasha, Shinas etc etc.. These people mostly live in Northern Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan. I have read somewhere that their origins are shrouded in mystery.. and there is a controversy even on how to classify their languages :-
> 
> *The Dardic group has traditionally been defined as a sub-group of the Indo-Aryan languages which experienced strong influence from the Nuristani and East Iranian languages. Nuristani, a group of languages spoken in northeast Afghanistan, has sometimes been included in Dardic, but is today generally regarded as an independent group, as one of the three sub-groups of Indo-Iranian, following the studies of Georg Morgenstierne in 1973 to 1975 CE.
> 
> There is still some dispute regarding the ultimate classification of the Dardic languages. The very existence of the family has been called into question by some, though the Dardic languages share common features different from Indo-Aryan, such as the so-called Dardic metathesis (karma => krama).
> 
> Except for Kashmiri, all of the Dardic languages are small minority languages which have not been sufficiently studied. In many cases they are spoken in areas difficult to access due to mountainous terrain and/or armed conflicts in the region. All of the languages (including Kashmiri) have been historically influenced by more prominent (non-Dardic) neighboring languages.*



Interesting.......

First 3 paragraphs in Wikipedia

Dardic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Curiously, these three paragraphs have no source linked to these statements.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rangbaaz

now who's after jinxeD_girl this time  

poor girl


----------



## jinxeD_girl

http://img121.imageshack.us/i/330201053121pm.png/

PHEW!! much much better!!  Sometimes you really have to use the ignore button!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

jinxeD_girl said:


> http://img121.imageshack.us/i/330201053121pm.png/
> 
> PHEW!! much much better!!  Sometimes you really have to use the ignore button!!



I am glad you FINALLY figured that out instead of letting people bait you into responding. And the best thing is, there is no limit on how many people you can put on that list, so just keep adding, instead of responding.


----------



## ADT

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am glad you FINALLY figured that out instead of letting people bait you into responding. And the best thing is, there is no limit on how many people you can put on that list, so just keep adding, instead of responding.



This is great and all but perhaps you should stop deleting my posts if you do not want to spread misinformation around and members of this board should be aware of what they are reading.

Unless of course you want believe everything you read/hear and want to run with the crowd and clout the mind of the members of this board.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am glad you FINALLY figured that out instead of letting people bait you into responding. And the best thing is, there is no limit on how many people you can put on that list, so just keep adding, instead of responding.



Yeah I know, it was Zaki who showed me how.. and thanks for allowing this feature.. I didn't even know it exist!!

Coming back to Dardic people ..

Kohistanis

http://img32.imageshack.us/i/kohistanis.jpg/


Kalasha

http://img232.imageshack.us/i/kalashaladywithherbabie.jpg/

Nuristanis who are sometimes classified as Dard people

http://img32.imageshack.us/i/nuristanis.jpg/


----------



## jinxeD_girl

If someone is more interested in Dard people please read this Book ... I don't have time to Scan and OCR pages from this book ...  

Amazon.com: Dard people: Afghanistan, Jammu and Kashmir, Gilgit- Baltistan, North- West Frontier Province, Herodotus, Demographics of Pakistan, Indo- Iranians, Indo- Aryan peoples, Iranian peoples (9786130225254): Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ADT said:


> This is great and all but perhaps you should stop deleting my posts if you do not want to spread misinformation around and members of this board should be aware of what they are reading.
> 
> Unless of course you want believe everything you read/hear and want to run with the crowd and clout the mind of the members of this board.



I have no problem with you pointing out that the quotes were from WIKI, but you did that once, and there was no reason to provide an entire essay on why Wiki is unreliable.

Beyond that I have been deleting your and others posts because they are essentially bickering and personal attacks instead of discussions on any particular topic.

If you disagree with a comment, provide the opposite view, with sources and links you consider to validate it, instead of insulting the individual and dragging in extraneous issues such as posts from another thread to justify your opinion about the mindset of a particular poster.

The member is not the subject of discussion, so stop focusing on the members.


----------



## dolphin

Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer.
*
The Persian Language: (The following is a reference from the book Modern Persian by Narguess Farzad)*_

Until recent centuries, Persian was culturally and historically one of the most prominent languages of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Persian is the second language of Islam and was instrumental in the spread of the faith during the reign of the Moguls in the Indian subcontinent. For example, it was an important language during the reign of Moguls in India, where knowledge of Persian was cultivated and held in high esteem. To a lesser extent it was instrumental in bringing the Arabic script, known as Jawi, to Malaysia. Jawi is less commonly used and a Romanized Malay writing script has gained more of an official status. However Jawi is written in the Perso-Arabic script. The use of Persian in the courts of Mogul rulers ended in 1837 when it was banned by officials of the East India Company, but not before the development of a Persian-Indian vernacular. Persian poetry is still a significant part of the literature if the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent. 

Very close links between Persian and Urdu, and the presence of numerous Persian words in Turkish, offer a high degree of mutual intelligibility to speaker of these languages and the study of the Ottoman Turkish literature without knowledge of Persian would be meaningless. Malay also contains countless Persian words and for scholars of Malay literature a classical Persian dictionary of often among their most used reference books.

If you are interested in learning other modern Iranian languages, such as Baluchi or Kurdish, knowledge of Persian and the Perso-Arabic script helps. For example, all the languages in the following list are written in this script or were written in it until very recently:

*Assyrian, Southern Azeri spoken by 20 million people in Iran, Hausa (gradually superseded by Romanized script), Kashmiri, Punjabi of Pakistan, Pashtu, Sindhi and Uyghur.*
_[/LEFT][/RIGHT][/LEFT][/LEFT]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dolphin

I love you all for responding and don't have any grudges against any members- let's all be kind people!


----------



## KeenGuy

dolphin said:


> Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer.



Farci is not an important language of Pakistan, (although I would like to learn so I can talk to their hot girls ) Urdu is. And if we are to learn any language besides Urdu and English it should be Arabic. 

Because:

1.) It is what Prophet Muhammad was spoken to and what he spoke.
2.) Qur'an is written in it
3.) When Arabs talk crap to us we know what they are saying and we can kick *** 

The importance of Farci is just as important as Hindi is Pakistan...hehe.


----------



## dolphin

KeenGuy said:


> Farci is not an important language of Pakistan, (although I would like to learn so I can talk to their hot girls ) Urdu is. And if we are to learn any language besides Urdu and English it should be Arabic.
> 
> Because:
> 
> 1.) It is what Prophet Muhammad was spoken to and what he spoke.
> 2.) Qur'an is written in it
> 3.) When Arabs talk crap to us we know what they are saying and we can kick ***
> 
> The importance of Farci is just as important as Hindi is Pakistan...hehe.



In terms of Islamic knowledge it would be better to gain an adequate understanding of classical Farci considering the Islamic Renaissance period began in Persia, and thereof many classical renowned Islamic scholars were either from Persia, some of whom eventually travelled to North Africa and Turkey to spread Islamic teachings and across other part of neighbouring Persia. In fact, much of Islamic literature written by such scholars are in Farci (as well as arabic) and many have yet to be translated and studied in-depth, there are also many treatises which are yet to be understood- the twelve famous scholars are:

- Jaber Ibn Haiyan (Geber)
-Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari - Medicine, Mathematics, Calligraphy - (838-870)
-Al-Razi (Rhazes) - Medicine, Ophthalmology, Smallpox , Chemistry, Astronomy - (864-930)
-Al-Farabi (Al Pharabius) - Sociology, Logic, Philosophy, Political Science, Music -(870-950)
-Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahravi (Albucasis) - Surgery, Medicine - (936-1013)
-Muhammad Al-Buzjani - Mathematics, Astronomy - (940-997)
-Ibn Al-Haitham (Alhazen) - Physics,Optics, Mathematics - (965-1040)
-Abu Raihan Al-Biruni - Astronomy, Mathematics, determined Earth's circumference - (973-1048)
-Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - Medicine, Philosophy, Mathematics, Astronomy - (986-1037)
-Omar Al-Khayyam - Mathematics, Poetry - (1044-1123)
-Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi - Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry - (1201-1274)
-Ibn Al-Nafis Damishqui - Medicine - (1213-1288)

And ofcourse Classical arabic is a vital language for us muslims!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jinxeD_girl

dolphin said:


> I love you all for responding and don't have any grudges against any members- let's all be kind people!



yeah it was just a misunderstanding.. I hope it is all over!!


----------



## Jade

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> You just be blind then, since comments by Indians to that effect are all over the internet.
> 
> In addition, as discussed in a thread on Indira Gandhi, her views of the Pakistani State as it exists currently were not exactly supportive of Pakistan's territorial integrity (and I am speaking of Baluchistan and NWFP).




Comments by Indians on internet are not the official position of the State of India. What should matter to you is the position of the government of India. According to the government of India Baluchistan and NWFP are part of Pakistan.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

jade1982 said:


> Comments by Indians on internet are not the official position of the State of India. What should matter to you is the position of the government of India. According to the government of India Baluchistan and NWFP are part of Pakistan.



They do reflect a mindset amongst the people however, and governments are from the people, and Indira Gandhi's views about Pakistan suggest that that particular mindset did indeed creep into Indian leadership.

In any case, move on with the topic please.


----------



## Jade

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> They do reflect a mindset amongst the people however, and governments are from the people, and Indira Gandhi's views about Pakistan suggest that that particular mindset did indeed creep into Indian leadership.
> 
> In any case, move on with the topic please.



Yes I agree that governments are from the people, but represent collective mindset and diverse interests and needs. Believe me, today a common Indian is more concerned about his family, job, security etc... than about Pakistan, and 99% of Indians dont know what Baluchistan is. I think that can also be said of a common Pakistani


----------



## PlanetWarrior

SilentNinja said:


> Well i wouldn't mind if anyone on this forums praises Iran or any other country (except for india)!
> 
> As long as they don't praise india then i'm good!



You sound so much more intelligent when you remain silent

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jinxeD_girl

KeenGuy said:


> Farci is not an important language of Pakistan, (although I would like to learn so I can talk to their hot girls ) Urdu is. And if we are to learn any language besides Urdu and English it should be Arabic.
> 
> Because:
> 
> 1.) It is what Prophet Muhammad was spoken to and what he spoke.
> 2.) Qur'an is written in it
> 3.) When Arabs talk crap to us we know what they are saying and we can kick ***
> 
> The importance of Farci is just as important as Hindi is Pakistan...hehe.



Emotions aside.. I don't think Pakistanis should learn Arabic as a *compulsory* language.. (it should be optional) If anything, besides Urdu and English, Pakistan should promote regional languages.. I think Pakistan is one of the ONLY few countries of the world where regional languages don't have any official status. 

Arabic belong to Semitic Languages and is not related to Urdu in anyway.. Even English is closer to Urdu as compared to Arabic as both Urdu and English are Indo-European languages and are distant cousins... and Farsi and Urdu are closer cousins.. but Urdu is closer to Sansikrit.

http://img15.imageshack.us/i/semiticlanguagetree.jpg/

http://img338.imageshack.us/i/indoeurotree.jpg/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dolphin

jinxeD_girl said:


> but Urdu is closer to Sansikrit.



Yes thats true Urdu is associated with Sansikrit (thats why PERSONALLY i'd rather choose to speak Farci with family since many of my grandparents spoke Farci and my parents have always urged the importance of this language particularly since i'm a muslim, and thus its considerably valuable to understand Farci (as well as classical farci) since there is a great deal of islamic literature written in Farci. I'm a sunni muslim that practises sufism (the mystical and spiritual side of Islam) which is another reason why its important to me. Many fundamental muslims suggest its bid'ah yeah right!!! spiritualism never existed in Islam! They even disregard the great Islamic renaissance period.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/101relationship.pdf
This is an interesting paper regarding the relationships among Farci, Urdu and Sansikrit


Incase you didn't notice one of my posts earlier:

Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer.

The Persian Language: (The following is a reference from the book Modern Persian by Narguess Farzad)
_
Until recent centuries, Persian was culturally and historically one of the most prominent languages of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Persian is the second language of Islam and was instrumental in the spread of the faith during the reign of the Moguls in the Indian subcontinent. For example, it was an important language during the reign of Moguls in India, where knowledge of Persian was cultivated and held in high esteem. To a lesser extent it was instrumental in bringing the Arabic script, known as Jawi, to Malaysia. Jawi is less commonly used and a Romanized Malay writing script has gained more of an official status. However Jawi is written in the Perso-Arabic script. The use of Persian in the courts of Mogul rulers ended in 1837 when it was banned by officials of the East India Company, but not before the development of a Persian-Indian vernacular. Persian poetry is still a significant part of the literature in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent.

Very close links between Persian and Urdu, and the presence of numerous Persian words in Turkish, offer a high degree of mutual intelligibility to speaker of these languages and the study of the Ottoman Turkish literature without knowledge of Persian would be meaningless. Malay also contains countless Persian words and for scholars of Malay literature a classical Persian dictionary is often among their most used reference books.

If you are interested in learning other modern Iranian languages, such as Baluchi or Kurdish, knowledge of Persian and the Perso-Arabic script helps. For example, all the languages in the following list are written in this script or were written in it until very recently:

*Assyrian, Southern Azeri spoken by 20 million people in Iran, Hausa (gradually superseded by Romanized script), Kashmiri, Punjabi of Pakistan, Pashtu, Sindhi and Uyghur.*_



*P.S- I FORGOT TO MENTION EARLIER I'M A GIRL- NOT A GUY! You referred to me as a guy earlier eeeww....*


----------



## nightcrawler

Cant get my answer & I dont want to start a new thread!!!
I am more confused simple was the question why Pakistan came into being when neither of great leaders wanted but where is the answer 
I dont like flowery language out of untutored emotional jargon just be simple plz


----------



## dolphin

Read the earlier posts to this thread you may find your answer. This thread was merged with another..


----------



## EjazR

The interesting thing about India is it does actually refer to more than just a sovereign country as of today. Its equivalent is Europe where the Europe consists of different races but are united in the their unique European culture and history where they have borrowed from each other extensively as well as good dollops of foreign influence in terms of knowledge and culture for example by the Arabs and Turks.

What is ironic is that probably present day Pakistan is more deserving to be called India than say other parts like the South or NE which are no where near the river Indus. The word is corruption the British used originating from the river Indus and the term used then Hindiya/Al-Hind by the Arab explorers. The Persians referred to anyone living around that region as Hindus/Hindis. So did the Arabs. Now please note that Hindus was a religion neutral term, it was strictly associated with geographical terms of people living east of the river Sindhu/Indus. Similarly the Arabs referred these people as Hindis regardless of whether they followed Islam, Buddhism e.t.c

It was only under the British rule that Hindus became associated with a religious term. I remember some lecture in which Zakir Naik himself that as long as the term Hindu is taken as the geographical context, then "I am a Hindu". 

Of course the communal affects of the British rule and the partition later on have created such an affect that Hindu has been reduced to a religious term. I guess people in Balochistan or other areas of Pakistan that are far away from the Indus valley could be ambiguous, but the Punjab and Sindh that cradle the Indus river would ironically be definitely have been referred to as Hindu/Hindi regardless of WHO ruled over them. Just as for example when the Arabs ruled of the Persians, they automatically didn't become Arabs.


Here is an interesting read on this:
*The Meaning and Origin of the word Hindu*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speaker

EjazR said:


> The interesting thing about India is it does actually refer to more than just a sovereign country as of today. Its equivalent is Europe where the Europe consists of different races but are united in the their unique European culture and history where they have borrowed from each other extensively as well as good dollops of foreign influence in terms of knowledge and culture for example by the Arabs and Turks.
> 
> What is ironic is that probably present day Pakistan is more deserving to be called India than say other parts like the South or NE which are no where near the river Indus. The word is corruption the British used originating from the river Indus and the term used then Hindiya/Al-Hind by the Arab explorers. The Persians referred to anyone living around that region as Hindus/Hindis. So did the Arabs. Now please note that Hindus was a religion neutral term, it was strictly associated with geographical terms of people living east of the river Sindhu/Indus. Similarly the Arabs referred these people as Hindis regardless of whether they followed Islam, Buddhism e.t.c
> 
> It was only under the British rule that Hindus became associated with a religious term. I remember some lecture in which Zakir Naik himself that as long as the term Hindu is taken as the geographical context, then "I am a Hindu".
> 
> Of course the communal affects of the British rule and the partition later on have created such an affect that Hindu has been reduced to a religious term. I guess people in Balochistan or other areas of Pakistan that are far away from the Indus valley could be ambiguous, but the Punjab and Sindh that cradle the Indus river would ironically be definitely have been referred to as Hindu/Hindi regardless of WHO ruled over them. Just as for example when the Arabs ruled of the Persians, they automatically didn't become Arabs.
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting read on this:
> *The Meaning and Origin of the word Hindu*



I guess this validates the point that Hindustan is the land of the Hindus, Hindus here meaning the people who live on the eastern side of the Indus (or Sindhu). It also makes sense that Hinduism does not have a mention or name. Being the oldest organized religion, it never needed to have a "branding", since whoever was born around that time probably belonged to the religion of the day, whatever they chose to call it. And since it is not associated with a champion or prophet, there was no scope for fixing a name.


----------



## EjazR

*Being the oldest organized religion.....*

You misread my post, go through the link. Historically, hindus referred to people living in this area. Its equivalent is Arabs, Europeans e.t.c., you could have an ethnic Arab who is a Christian or an ethnic European being a muslim.

It was only in the recent history that it has been associated specifically with religion. But yes, Hindustan referred to people living in this area, and that includes present day Pakistanis who lived along the banks of the river Indus. Regardless of the religion they followed


----------



## ADT

EjazR said:


> The interesting thing about India is it does actually refer to more than just a sovereign country as of today. Its equivalent is Europe where the Europe consists of different races but are united in the their unique European culture and history where they have borrowed from each other extensively as well as good dollops of foreign influence in terms of knowledge and culture for example by the Arabs and Turks.
> 
> *What is ironic is that probably present day Pakistan is more deserving to be called India than say other parts like the South or NE which are no where near the river Indus.* The word is corruption the British used originating from the river Indus and the term used then Hindiya/Al-Hind by the Arab explorers. The Persians referred to anyone living around that region as Hindus/Hindis. So did the Arabs. Now please note that Hindus was a religion neutral term, it was strictly associated with geographical terms of people living east of the river Sindhu/Indus. Similarly the Arabs referred these people as Hindis regardless of whether they followed Islam, Buddhism e.t.c
> 
> It was only under the British rule that Hindus became associated with a religious term. I remember some lecture in which Zakir Naik himself that as long as the term Hindu is taken as the geographical context, then "I am a Hindu".
> 
> Of course the communal affects of the British rule and the partition later on have created such an affect that Hindu has been reduced to a religious term. I guess people in Balochistan or other areas of Pakistan that are far away from the Indus valley could be ambiguous, but the Punjab and Sindh that cradle the Indus river would ironically be definitely have been referred to as Hindu/Hindi regardless of WHO ruled over them. Just as for example when the Arabs ruled of the Persians, they automatically didn't become Arabs.
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting read on this:
> *The Meaning and Origin of the word Hindu*



God Forbid  

And

I would never ever want India to be called Pakistan (except Indian held Kashmir territory.)


----------



## Speaker

No, I did not mean to contradict what you said. I was referring to some people who misunderstand the name to be associated with Hindus in the religious sense, especially on this forum. Basically being Hindu is a geographic affiliation and not a religious one. I knew that this was a corruption of the term Indus or Sindhu, just not sure who did it - Arabs, Persians or British as you stated.

I did not mean that its antiquity is of any relevance, just to make a point to people that why the term Hindu could have no reference to the religion.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

dolphin said:


> Yes thats true Urdu is associated with Sansikrit (thats why PERSONALLY i'd rather choose to speak Farci with family since many of my grandparents spoke Farci and my parents have always urged the importance of this language particularly since i'm a muslim, and thus its considerably valuable to understand Farci (as well as classical farci) since there is a great deal of islamic literature written in Farci. I'm a sunni muslim that practises sufism (the mystical and spiritual side of Islam) which is another reason why its important to me. Many fundamental muslims suggest its bid'ah yeah right!!! spiritualism never existed in Islam! They even disregard the great Islamic renaissance period.
> 
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/101relationship.pdf
> This is an interesting paper regarding the relationships among Farci, Urdu and Sansikrit
> 
> 
> Incase you didn't notice one of my posts earlier:
> 
> Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer.
> 
> The Persian Language: (The following is a reference from the book Modern Persian by Narguess Farzad)
> _
> Until recent centuries, Persian was culturally and historically one of the most prominent languages of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Persian is the second language of Islam and was instrumental in the spread of the faith during the reign of the Moguls in the Indian subcontinent. For example, it was an important language during the reign of Moguls in India, where knowledge of Persian was cultivated and held in high esteem. To a lesser extent it was instrumental in bringing the Arabic script, known as Jawi, to Malaysia. Jawi is less commonly used and a Romanized Malay writing script has gained more of an official status. However Jawi is written in the Perso-Arabic script. The use of Persian in the courts of Mogul rulers ended in 1837 when it was banned by officials of the East India Company, but not before the development of a Persian-Indian vernacular. Persian poetry is still a significant part of the literature in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent.
> 
> Very close links between Persian and Urdu, and the presence of numerous Persian words in Turkish, offer a high degree of mutual intelligibility to speaker of these languages and the study of the Ottoman Turkish literature without knowledge of Persian would be meaningless. Malay also contains countless Persian words and for scholars of Malay literature a classical Persian dictionary is often among their most used reference books.
> 
> If you are interested in learning other modern Iranian languages, such as Baluchi or Kurdish, knowledge of Persian and the Perso-Arabic script helps. For example, all the languages in the following list are written in this script or were written in it until very recently:
> 
> *Assyrian, Southern Azeri spoken by 20 million people in Iran, Hausa (gradually superseded by Romanized script), Kashmiri, Punjabi of Pakistan, Pashtu, Sindhi and Uyghur.*_
> 
> 
> 
> *P.S- I FORGOT TO MENTION EARLIER I'M A GIRL- NOT A GUY! You referred to me as a guy earlier eeeww....*



I think you misunderstood me.. I was only making a case against Arabic being chosen as our language.. as far as Farsi is concerned I don't have any objections to it .. 

I mentioned one of your points below in some other thread too and I completely agree 
*
"Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer." *


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Speaker said:


> *I guess this validates the point that Hindustan is the land of the Hindus.*



yeah that also explains why many Hyderabadi Muslim women wear Mangal Sutra.. as they live in the land of the hindus

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EjazR

Speaker said:


> No, I did not mean to contradict what you said. I was referring to some people who misunderstand the name to be associated with Hindus in the religious sense, especially on this forum. Basically being Hindu is a geographic affiliation and not a religious one. I knew that this was a corruption of the term Indus or Sindhu, just not sure who did it - Arabs, Persians or British as you stated.
> 
> I did not mean that its antiquity is of any relevance, just to make a point to people that why the term Hindu could have no reference to the religion.



Well the variants are apparently since the time of the early Persian/Aryan contacts. The early Arabs would have used what they would have learned from the Persians. The British obviously learnt the same terminology.

The ting with the British rule was the differentiation between Hindus as a religious group rather than a geographical group. The first census they did was in 1961 using these terms under religious affiliations. Prior to that no one knew the exact religious compositions of different areas.

Infact, many Hindu scholars also prefer to use the word Vedantists or Sanatan Dharmi to describe their faith rather than Hinduism. And Vedas are of course one of the oldest that according to many people fall into the category of revealed books


----------



## EjazR

jinxeD_girl said:


> yeah that also explains why many Hyderabadi Muslim women wear Mangal Sutra.. as they live in the land of the hindus



You are just jealous that you don't get to wear fancy jewelry like that.



But anyways, Hyderabad is quite far from the river Indus which is where Hindustan derives its name from.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

EjazR said:


> You are just jealous that you don't get to wear fancy jewelry like that.



jealous of what? mangal sutra? I can buy them anytime from Hyderabadi Shops.. but it is more of a hindu symbol.. both sindoor and mangal sutra..  Hindu being the dominant majority of India.. and minorities like Muslims have assimilated well with them.. I would say too well!! Carrying many hindu customs like wearing Mangal Sutra, Sindoor, Bindiya etc 



> But anyways, Hyderabad is quite far from the river Indus which is where Hindustan derives its name from.



and yet in present day it is You guyz who are called Indians and Hindustanis. (last time I checked Hyderabad is in India and Hindustan.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

SilentNinja said:


> Even if they didn't have Hijab on they still look different from indian girls, trust me i've been to a school where Pakistanis, Afghans, Bengalis, and indians went and it wouldn't take an expert to tell the difference between a Pakistani and an indian!



That is true! No Pakistani girl in his right mind would claim that she is "Indian".. Why would we do that ?  And I don't know about you guyz... but as far as Pakistani girlz are concerned .. in 99&#37; cases I can tell the difference between Indian and Pakistani girlz.. It is not just the way they look, it is also the way they carry themselves, and many other cultural cues!! I can even tell the subtle differences between indian and pakistani girlz... Indian girlz wear Pajama type Shalwar.. their Shalwar Kameez is kinda different from our Shalwar Kameez

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## secularguy

"Pajama type Shalwar"  is called "Churidar" in India.


----------



## Bang Galore

ADT said:


> *Pakistan didn't seperate on the basis of religion alone after all India has a larger population of Muslims than Pakistan.
> *
> We are very different people. If we were "the same" as some Indians like to say we would not have wanted a seperate country.



I personally have no problem in accepting that Pakistanis are different whatever that is supposed to mean but people cannot be allowed to distort history.

Jinnah was Gujarati, was he not? How does he fit in with your theory?
What about east Pakistan? What about all the "mohajir's". Are they not Pakistani?

Was not the demand for Pakistan based on the premise that it would be a homeland for the Muslims of India? I have heard some Pakistanis claim that since India never existed as an entity, there was no "Batwaara". This is clearly disproved by the actual premise for Pakistan as stated above. How can Pakistan be a homeland for India's Muslims if India did not exist as an entity in people's minds. If religion was the sole factor and geography was not a consideration then why not allow Afghans, Iranians and any other Muslim populace into Pakistan?

You are entitled to call and think of yourselves as being different from Indians if that makes you happy. I have no issue with that whatsoever and moreover being from Bangalore claim no similarity either cultural or linguistic with any Pakistani. In any case, i believe that post 1947, India and Pakistan have moved away rapidly from each other and continue to do so today. However many Pakistanis seem to portray India as being culturally homogeneous which is not the case. There is no one Indian culture that you can be different from or indeed be similar to. We are a mix of many individual cultures retaining their own identities and some can claim similarities with the cultures of all our neighbouring countries, not just with Pakistan.



dolphin said:


> Yes thats true Urdu is associated with Sansikrit (thats why PERSONALLY i'd rather choose to speak Farci



Of all the reasons to learn Farsi, that's probably the most narrow minded. If you are looking for a language without connections to Sanskrit you would be better off with something else, though i don't know why that should be an issue for liking or disliking a language. Iran shares a strong linguistic and cultural bond with the people of the sub continent and a study of ancient Iranian history and pre Islamic religions will clearly point that out to you.

You seem to have a strong affinity for Farsi and I wish you would appreciate the beauty of the language for what it is and not try and limit its greatness by defining it for what you think it is not.
Thanks


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

hey bang we dont say we are arab or anything.
But we are different then indians ethnically
Yes it was a part of india but mostly the present day Pakistan has its own unique identity coz it was mostly part of greek,iranian,ghaznavid and other empires and so we share little cultural similarities just like our ethnicities.
Jinnah was a rajput and we are proud of him.
And yes there are many people who are of rajput or jatt ancestory and very proud of it but the thing is tht the conversion mostly took place centuries ago hence it shaped our culture and stuff.
If u talk ethnically yes sir india shares no more then3 &#37; ethnic similarities with Pakistanis.
Hope clears ur misconceptions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speaker

jinxeD_girl said:


> yeah that also explains why many Hyderabadi Muslim women wear Mangal Sutra.. as they live in the land of the hindus



I don't know about that, never saw a case in the 3 years I was there. But it is a fact that people of any religion begin assimilating some aspects of the culture of the land they live in. Why go far - look at how Hindus, Muslims and people of other religion behave in the US.

And I am assuming you were sarcastic, but the second part of my post explained why it is that Hindustan is the land of the Hindus.


----------



## ADT

Bang Galore said:


> I personally have no problem in accepting that Pakistanis are different whatever that is supposed to mean but people cannot be allowed to distort history.
> 
> Jinnah was Gujarati, was he not? How does he fit in with your theory?
> What about east Pakistan? What about all the "mohajir's". Are they not Pakistani?
> 
> Was not the demand for Pakistan based on the premise that it would be a homeland for the Muslims of India? I have heard some Pakistanis claim that since India never existed as an entity, there was no "Batwaara". This is clearly disproved by the actual premise for Pakistan as stated above. How can Pakistan be a homeland for India's Muslims if India did not exist as an entity in people's minds. If religion was the sole factor and geography was not a consideration then why not allow Afghans, Iranians and any other Muslim populace into Pakistan?
> 
> You are entitled to call and think of yourselves as being different from Indians if that makes you happy. I have no issue with that whatsoever and moreover being from Bangalore claim no similarity either cultural or linguistic with any Pakistani. In any case, i believe that post 1947, India and Pakistan have moved away rapidly from each other and continue to do so today. However many Pakistanis seem to portray India as being culturally homogeneous which is not the case. There is no one Indian culture that you can be different from or indeed be similar to. We are a mix of many individual cultures retaining their own identities and some can claim similarities with the cultures of all our neighbouring countries, not just with Pakistan.



Dude get the 89 years of British Raj out of your head and think farther back because that is always the main point of every Indians argument. Its so so silly. 

We have an rich history that consists of Pakistanis that have lived in present day Pakistan territory. Mind you not in the India territory.

Indian Muslims are Indian they are *not* Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

ADT said:


> Dude get the 89 years of British Raj out of your head and think farther back because that is always the main point of every Indians argument. Its so so silly.
> 
> We have an rich history that consists of Pakistanis that have lived in present day Pakistan territory. Mind you not in the India territory.
> 
> Indian Muslims are Indian they are *not* Pakistani.



 you sounded kind of harsh, but you spoke the truth!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

Peshwa said:


> Cmon Mr.Ninja...why the sour puss?
> 
> Praise is due where required.....is there nothing about India that you admire?...Surely the Taj Mahal at least?
> 
> If Indians can see beauty in Pakistan, why cant you reciprocate?



Well, its a Pashtun thing, we never forgive our enemies, and neither do we forget them!

Since i'm a Pashtun i will live up to the promise!


----------



## Jade

ADT said:


> Dude get the 89 years of British Raj out of your head and think farther back because that is always the main point of every Indians argument. Its so so silly.
> 
> We have an rich history that consists of Pakistanis that have lived in present day Pakistan territory. Mind you not in the India territory.
> 
> Indian Muslims are Indian they are *not* Pakistani.



We got 89 years of British Raj out of our headthen what. I dont think it is a good idea to distort the history for ones convenience. If the Pakistan was not there before 1947, then where is the question of Pakistanis?

As Bang Galore said, at least I dont have any problem in accepting that Pakistanis are different in whatever way Pakistanis think they are different. After all everybody is entitled to their own opinion


----------



## Jade

SilentNinja said:


> Well, its a Pashtun thing, we never forgive our enemies, and neither do we forget them!
> 
> Since i'm a Pashtun i will live up to the promise!




We give a damn whether you never forgive your enemies or neither do you forget them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ADT

jade1982 said:


> We got 89 years of British Raj out of our headthen what. I dont think it is a good idea to distort the history for ones convenience. If the Pakistan was not there before 1947, then where is the question of Pakistanis?
> 
> As Bang Galore said, at least I dont have any problem in accepting that Pakistanis are different in whatever way Pakistanis think they are different. After all everybody is entitled to their own opinion



Clever remark buddy, but still try to accept that fact you are not like us genetically or otherwise. Its been proven. You people lack R1A genetic markers.

Going into more detail Indians can't be compared to Pakistanis, maybe minutely but as you are implying with your Indian propganda and whatever else you learned in India. 

Saying so is utterly stupid, try to convince the Americans they have British roots. 


Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

ADT said:


> Clever remark buddy, but still try to accept that fact you are not like us genetically or otherwise. Its been proven. You people lack R1A genetic markers.
> 
> Going into more detail Indians can't be compared to Pakistanis, maybe minutely but as you are implying with your Indian propganda and whatever else you learned in India.
> 
> Saying so is utterly stupid, try to convince the Americans they have British roots.
> 
> 
> Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan




As posted in previous post, I dont have any problem in accepting that Pakistanis are different whether genetically or in whatever way Pakistanis think they are different. However, it is a not a good idea to distort the history for ones convenience.


----------



## ADT

jade1982 said:


> As posted in previous post, I dont have any problem in accepting that Pakistanis are different whether genetically or in whatever way Pakistanis think they are different. However, it is a not a good idea to distort the history for ones convenience.



No, no dude you people distort history for your own convenience and greatly exaggerate it with no independent proof (non-indian). Bye bye.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PlanetWarrior

When I was a kid I was told that by a friend Pakistanis came from Afghanistan and were in effect in occupation of Indian land. Historically that is not true. But if I was to be a brainwashed kid who could be sold anything, I would today be under that mistaken apprehension. It is so easy to distort history and to mislead the ignorant minds of people.


----------



## Speaker

ADT said:


> Its been proven. You people lack R1A genetic markers.



The link you provided proves that you have these markers but does not prove Indians do not. I know people don't consider Wikipedia as reliable, but I did a quick check and the argument doesn't seem to be valid. I was kind of intrigued since I had never heard of any theory linking genetic identity to nationality. It may have been partly true in the days of Kings and Kingdoms, but it is almost impossible now. More so between India and Pakistan which has seen migrations across the border in millions.



ADT said:


> Saying so is utterly stupid, try to convince the Americans they have British roots.



Again, nations are not linked to races, least of all the USA. I don't know which part of America you live in, but all Americans I have met take pride in their country of origin. If they have British blood in them, they are pretty happy about it, and some of them even maintain links with families they seem to have traced back. They acknowledge that the founding fathers had "British" blood, but that is different from saying they are British. No one is saying Pakistanis are Indian as a nationality (that statement sounded stupid when I ran it in my head!), but more in terms of genetic linkage.


----------



## democracyspeaks

EjazR said:


> The interesting thing about India is it does actually refer to more than just a sovereign country as of today. Its equivalent is Europe where the Europe consists of different races but are united in the their unique European culture and history where they have borrowed from each other extensively as well as good dollops of foreign influence in terms of knowledge and culture for example by the Arabs and Turks.
> 
> What is ironic is that probably present day Pakistan is more deserving to be called India than say other parts like the South or NE which are no where near the river Indus. The word is corruption the British used originating from the river Indus and the term used then Hindiya/Al-Hind by the Arab explorers. The Persians referred to anyone living around that region as Hindus/Hindis. So did the Arabs. Now please note that Hindus was a religion neutral term, it was strictly associated with geographical terms of people living east of the river Sindhu/Indus. Similarly the Arabs referred these people as Hindis regardless of whether they followed Islam, Buddhism e.t.c
> 
> It was only under the British rule that Hindus became associated with a religious term. I remember some lecture in which Zakir Naik himself that as long as the term Hindu is taken as the geographical context, then "I am a Hindu".
> 
> Of course the communal affects of the British rule and the partition later on have created such an affect that Hindu has been reduced to a religious term. I guess people in Balochistan or other areas of Pakistan that are far away from the Indus valley could be ambiguous, but the Punjab and Sindh that cradle the Indus river would ironically be definitely have been referred to as Hindu/Hindi regardless of WHO ruled over them. Just as for example when the Arabs ruled of the Persians, they automatically didn't become Arabs.
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting read on this:
> *The Meaning and Origin of the word Hindu*



@EjazR -> my link says a bit different about the origin of word hindu, plz go through it.

Untitled Document


----------



## ADT

Speaker said:


> The link you provided proves that you have these markers but does not prove Indians do not. I know people don't consider Wikipedia as reliable, but I did a quick check and the argument doesn't seem to be valid. I was kind of intrigued since I had never heard of any theory linking genetic identity to nationality. It may have been partly true in the days of Kings and Kingdoms, but it is almost impossible now. More so between India and Pakistan which has seen migrations across the border in millions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nations are not linked to races, least of all the USA. I don't know which part of America you live in, but all Americans I have met take pride in their country of origin. If they have British blood in them, they are pretty happy about it, and some of them even maintain links with families they seem to have traced back. They acknowledge that the founding fathers had "British" blood, but that is different from saying they are British. No one is saying Pakistanis are Indian as a nationality (that statement sounded stupid when I ran it in my head!), but more in terms of genetic linkage.



There is another article couple pages back in this forum and on another thread that says something about the limited genetic linkage. 

But really you people extrapolate too much on such a short history of being under combined rule. Thats what really irritates me, and what really irritates me is you people are the first ones to keep bringing up this propganda of distorted on-sided history. No Indian I've met in real life has ever said stupid **** like this to me even when we talk about past history or politics. 

But its safe to say this on the internet, but in real life things will get unfriendly fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

jade1982 said:


> We give a damn whether you never forgive your enemies or neither do you forget them.



I was replying to your buddy Fateh so yeah in a way you do give a damn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

jade1982 said:


> We got 89 years of British Raj out of our headthen what. I dont think it is a good idea to distort the history for ones convenience. If the Pakistan was not there before 1947, then where is the question of Pakistanis?
> 
> As Bang Galore said, at least I dont have any problem in accepting that Pakistanis are different in whatever way Pakistanis think they are different. After all everybody is entitled to their own opinion



Pakistan is defined by the people of Pakistan, who have existed long before 1947. i.e Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baluchis, Kashmiris etc. The culture and history of these people are part of Pakistan regardless of the political definitions you are obsessing about.
If you want to play the political game, then India came into existence after Pakistan...etc etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KeenGuy

Pakistan needs to build a wall on Pakistani and Indian broder like the Berlin wall. Then we will get rid of this problem for once and for all.


----------



## KeenGuy

jade1982 said:


> We give a damn &#8220;whether you never forgive your enemies or neither do you forget them&#8221;.



you will when pakistan kicks your door down.


----------



## Speaker

ADT said:


> There is another article couple pages back in this forum and on another thread that says something about the limited genetic linkage.



Sure, this sentence makes more sense as opposed to your previous assertion of no linkage. All I am saying is there is nothing "genetic" about nationality, barring maybe closed or genocidal societies.



ADT said:


> But really you people extrapolate too much on such a short history of being under combined rule. Thats what really irritates me, and what really irritates me is you people are the first ones to keep bringing up this propganda of distorted on-sided history. No Indian I've met in real life has ever said stupid **** like this to me even when we talk about past history or politics.
> But its safe to say this on the internet, but in real life things will get unfriendly fast.



I don't know why this would be propaganda of any kind. Pakistan is not a genetic concept, it was born due to religious and political differences with India. I know of Muslims who migrated from Madras to Karachi and I am sure they are not genetically the same as you. And there are many Indians who are closer genetically/racially to Pakistanis than they are with other Indians itself. I always assumed this is general knowledge but your genetic theory was interesting to read.


----------



## Jade

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistan is defined by the people of Pakistan, who have existed long before 1947. i.e Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baluchis, Kashmiris etc. The culture and history of these people are part of Pakistan regardless of the political definitions you are obsessing about.
> If you want to play the political game, then India came into existence after Pakistan...etc etc




I think you seem to forget Bengalis in the long list of people you mentioned who existed in those areas of pre 1947 India which was called pre 1971 Pakistan. 

Pakistan&#8217;s existence came into being not because of different culture and history of the people residing there before 1947, but because of ideological divide between the Muslims and the Hindus of pre 1947 India. At least that was Jinnah&#8217;s reason. 

Please refer to the links below for further information 

The Partition of India 
Story of Pakistan: Timeline Prehistoric-1205
Pakistan: History, Geography, Government, and Culture &mdash; Infoplease.com
History of Pakistan


----------



## Bang Galore

KeenGuy said:


> Pakistan needs to build a wall on Pakistani and Indian broder like the Berlin wall. Then we will get rid of this problem for once and for all.



Great! The sooner the better ! You won't get any complaints from us. Come to think of it, we may even help with the funding.



KeenGuy said:


> you will when pakistan kicks your door down.



Make up your mind. Do you want to build a wall or kick the door in ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jade

KeenGuy said:


> you will when pakistan kicks your door down.



We give a damn even if Pakistan kicks our door down. We know the result.


----------



## KeenGuy

every thread i go you indians are trying to prove your history to us. you don't need to, we know its all lies and you are wasting your time.


----------



## KeenGuy

jade1982 said:


> We give a damn even if Pakistan kicks our door down. We know the result.



oh right, got it....india does this

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

^^^^^^


----------



## civilarmy

jade1982 said:


> We give a damn even if Pakistan kicks our door down. We know the result.



lol ur counry only need 10 talibans they will make ur country into somalia lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ThunderCat

jinxeD_girl said:


> Can you tell me which Pakistanis are of Russian and European descents?  Are you talking of Kalashas (Chitralis) ? They do have Greek admixture but they only range somewhere between 5,000-6,000.



That's not exactly correct. The Kalash have been there just about as long as other populations the main difference is their ancestors did not absorb as much indigenous genes; hence their features are whiter.

As for their religion this is also another thing that gets them mixed up with Greeks. What they practice is another remaining sect of Indo-European religions. The Kalash language is Indo-Aryan, Dardic not Greek. 

Pakistanis don't "descend" from Europeans, but rather share common ancestors with them especially eastern European Slavs along Y-Chromosome lines. 

Modern Pakistanis are a result of ancient white proto-Europeans mixing with local dark-skinned populations in the Indus Valley and surrounding regions. 




> Any Pakistani whether living abroad or in Pakistan knows that *more than half of the population of Pakistan DON'T understand Farsi*. Indigenous Pakistani Tajiks or Farsiwans who speak Farsi are a small minority. It is true that *Iranic* languages (Pashto, Balochi etc) are spoken by 35-40&#37; Pakistanis.. but Farsi itself isnt spoken by majority..



No dispute there. 100% agreed. I personally am proud of our Urdu language and think it sounds much sweeter than Farsi or Arabic. I could not bear the idea of a language like Farsi becoming the state language.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GentlemanObserver

Facedesk. Some Indian posters are trying to teach us our own history.. LOL.

Thanks buddy but i got 92% in Pak Studies. So KK Thanks but NO Thanks!


----------



## LadyGaga

I don't know whether i should accept your theory or look at this genetic marker material which clearly shows the opposite.It shows most of india and pakistan in the same gene pool.How do you support your theory?
Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




jinxeD_girl said:


> yes he wasn't wrong, but I think he was being sarcastic when he said "Pakistanis being descendants of Arabs, Europeans and Russians" or maybe he was just being ignorant?
> 
> As far as Punjabis are concerned, their language culture etc is classified as Indic but recent genetic tests have shown that 40% Punjabis also carry West and Central Asian genetic markers (That does make sense because Punjab being the first Indic state and surrounded by Kashmiris, Central Asians, West Asians etc) because throughout its history Punjab has been invaded again and again leaving high amount of genetic foot prints from Central and West Asia.
> 
> So as a WHOLE, Pakistanis are quite different from Indians. Actually Urdu was NOT one of the dominant languages spoken in present day Pakistan before partition... it is still the mother tongue of ONLY 8% Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subramanian

I dont know about NWFP,Baloch and the northern areas.But punjab and sindh,east or west of the indus is all hindu territory.Muslims came there much later and it doesn't matter what the poluation was recently.

Jinnah is a baniya/bora muslim from gujrat.He is not rajput.

Ghaznavid stuff happened 800 years thats like one week in history,thats all.

BTW,i have R1-A1 dna haplogroup and i am tamil brahmin from kanyakumari.My ancestors ran away from muslim oppresion of alauddin khilji and settled in the south of india since 1400 AD.big deal,man.


----------



## Kambojaric

Subramanian said:


> I dont know about NWFP,Baloch and the northern areas.But punjab and *sindh*,east or west of the indus is all hindu territory.*Muslims came there much later and it doesn't matter what the poluation was recently.
> *
> Jinnah is a baniya/bora muslim from gujrat.He is not rajput.
> 
> Ghaznavid stuff happened 800 years thats like one week in history,thats all.
> 
> BTW,i have R1-A1 dna haplogroup and i am tamil brahmin from kanyakumari.My ancestors ran away from muslim oppresion of alauddin khilji and settled in the south of india since 1400 AD.big deal,man.



Actually Sindh was the first province to fall to muslim rule. Muhammad Bin Qasim?

also btw its not NWFP anymore, its kyhber pakhtunkhwa or just kp.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Subramanian

Hamza Iqbal said:


> Actually Sindh was the first province to fall to muslim rule. Muhammad Bin Qasim?
> 
> also btw its not NWFP anymore, its kyhber pakhtunkhwa or just kp.



Dude

Before prophet muhammad,even saudi arabia and afghanistan were pagan(hindu?).but the muslims wiped them off or converted them.Right or wrong,that solves a lot of problems.

Muhammad bin qasim may have conquered sindh but that was very recent and even after conquering he couldn't deal with it effectively like other warriors did in afghanistan or saudi arabia.That is the problem.

If they did so,then the partition would have been easy and bloodless.


----------



## Spring Onion

Subramanian said:


> Dude
> 
> Before prophet muhammad,even saudi arabia and afghanistan were pagan(hindu?).but the muslims wiped them off or converted them.Right or wrong,that solves a lot of problems.
> 
> Muhammad bin qasim may have conquered sindh but that was very recent and even after conquering he couldn't deal with it effectively like other warriors did in afghanistan or saudi arabia.That is the problem.
> 
> If they did so,then the partition would have been easy and bloodless.




Pagans does not mean Hindus or does it?

If does it then we are right when we say Hindus were used to bury their daughters alive as they born in pre-Islamic Arab era ?

And please do not link Afghanistan/Pukhtuns to Hindus kindly we werent Hindu by any mean

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

Jana said:


> Pagans does not mean Hindus or does it?
> 
> If does it then we are right when we say Hindus were used to bury their daughters alive as they born in pre-Islamic Arab era ?
> 
> And please do not link Afghanistan/Pukhtuns to Hindus kindly we werent Hindu by any mean



Sorry to burst your bubble.....

Anyways.....no one can stop you from selectively blocking history....Its fast becoming a trend for your kind...



> Gandh&#257;ra (Sanskrit: &#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] is 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]
> 
> *The Kingdom of Gandhara lasted from early 1st millennium BC to the 11th century AD. *It attained its height from the 1st century to the 5th century under the Buddhist Kushan Kings. *The Hindu Shahi, a term used by history writer Al-Biruni[4] to refer to the ruling Hindu dynasty[5] that took over from the Turki Shahi and ruled the region during the period prior to Muslim conquests of the tenth and eleventh centuries.* After it was conquered by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1021 CE, the name Gandhara disappeared. During the Muslim period the area was administered from Lahore or from Kabul. During Mughal times the area was part of Kabul province.


----------



## Subramanian

Jana said:


> Pagans does not mean Hindus or does it?
> 
> If does it then we are right when we say Hindus were used to bury their daughters alive as they born in pre-Islamic Arab era ?
> 
> And please do not link Afghanistan/Pukhtuns to Hindus kindly we werent Hindu by any mean



Pagan does mean hindu bro.They may have done so.Buried their daughters alive and there could be reasons for that.It is a different society and different time for me to judge.

There are lots and lots of frontierwale(Pakhtun) who are hindu.Dont sell this bullshit to me.

You were all Hindu by all means and you got converted.If you did not,then you came from turkey and Arabia,slaughtered those daughter burying pagans and sat in their homes.

PS: and if u see the map of greater punjab(west+east+haryana+himachal) and KPK,they are not far at all.It is very easy for hindus to have lived there.

I mean there were Bamian Buddhas in Afghanistan,from where did they come from and Iran had abolutely no muslims before the invasion.What religion were they following before?Zoroastranism and it was a country with extremely strong cultural links to India.

Moreover the rig veda speaks of soma( a drink for cleansing the wounded and in the war and for recuperation).That is nothing but the opium that the Taliban is smuggling around today.

In fact the whole religion started there,without the KPK and Afghanistan,there would be no hinduism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

> ,then you came from turkey



Most of the Turks that came to India didn't even come from Anatolia, but central Asia. They are mutts. Turk or Turkic is linguistic term.







This is what the early invading Islamic Turkics or Mughals would have looked like.


----------



## Subramanian

A turk need not necessarily be from anatolia,even a kazhak,uzbek or Tajik would be turkic.


----------



## Spring Onion

Subramanian said:


> Pagan does mean hindu bro.



I am Girl so dont call me bro.

Secondly you you called Arabs before Islam as Hindus (Pagans) 




> They may have done so.Buried their daughters alive and there could be reasons for that.It is a different society and different time for me to judge.



The point to bring that point was that whenever someone mentions that pre-Islamic practice in Arab world, The Indians jump in and say They were pagans that does not mean those arbas were Hindus.

Since you said Pagan arabs were hindus so i was just testing what was your stance on that point then.




> There are lots and lots of frontierwale(Pakhtun) who are hindu.Dont sell this bullshit to me.



Dont try to sell you Indian bullshit to me as being Pukhtun i know what does a Pukhtun mean and NO Hindu is Pukhtun. Its a bloodline that makes you a Pukhtun or otherwise. Just by living in Frontier or Kabul does NOT change Bloodline or genes of Hindus into Pukhtun Bloodline or genes.





> You were all Hindu by all means and you got converted.If you did not,then you came from turkey and Arabia,slaughtered those daughter burying pagans and sat in their homes.




 another Indian with some Complex to prove everyone Hindu.

Sorry my Ancestors being Pukhtuns were NEVER having any kind of Hindu roots. 




And no one was slaughtered forces of our Prophet (PBUH) when Islam was started. It was very much a peaceful invitation but turned into battles and wars for survival when those might pagans started atrocities against those who adopted a new religion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Spring Onion

Varghese said:


> Most of the Turks that came to India didn't even come from Anatolia, but central Asia. They are mutts. Turk or Turkic is linguistic term.
> 
> 
> This is what the early Mughals would have looked like.



Those came from CARs are by NO Means Hindus or having Hindu roots.


This is interesting that Indians for so long had been trying to prove themselves anything other than Dravidian

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## secularguy

Historically, Buddhism(and Hinduism too) prevailed in Afghan region. a 1000 year islamic tradition cannot erase the History to the tunes of inflated tribal ego and chest thumping.who gave a ***'s *** for such claims?eh?

ps:non hindu posted this.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Jana said:


> *Those came from CARs are by NO Means Hindus or having Hindu roots.*
> 
> 
> This is interesting that Indians for so long had been trying to prove themselves anything other than Dravidian



Never said those people are linked with Indians at all. But there is a misconception of the word Turk. There are many "Turks".

The genetic views on race differ in their classification of Dravidians. According to population geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, based on work done in the 1980s, Indians are genetically Caucasian, but Lewontin rejects the label Caucasian. Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians. Dr. Eduardas Valaitis, in 2006, found that India is genetically closest to East and Southeast Asians with about 15&#37; more genetic similarity than to Europeans; he also found that India could be considered very distinct from other regions. Genetic anthropologist Stanley Marion Garn considered in the 1960s that the entirety of the Indian Subcontinent to be a "race" genetically distinct from other populations. Others, such as Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, claim South Indians are genetic intermediaries between Europeans and East Asians.

A number of earlier anthropologists held the view that the Dravidian peoples together were a distinct race. Comprehensive genetic studies have proven that this is not the case. The genetic studies also indicated that the origin of both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers is the Indian subcontinent.(The situation is similar to Western Europe, where the Basques are racially similar to the surrounding Romance language speakers.) Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,microsatellite DNA,and mitochondrial DNA in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biologically identifiable "Dravidian race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. The only distinct ethnic groups present in South Asia, according to genetic analysis, are the Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Pathan and Sindhi peoples, the vast majority of whom are found in today's Pakistan.


*In a 2009 study of 132 individuals, 560,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 25 different Indian groups were analyzed, providing strong evidence in support of the notion that modern Indians are a hybrid population descending from two pre-historic, genetically divergent populations, one of which, referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians', aged 40.000 years and the other, called the 'Ancestral South Indians', aged 60.000 years. The intermingling of ANI's and ASI's happened in the same period as the ANI's first appeared, 40.000 years ago.* The study also holds, that the caste system grew out of tribal-like organizations of the Indian society. In another study of 2009 conducted among 10 Asian countries, Dravidian peoples showed similarities with north Indians as well as peoples of Malaysia, Singapore and China.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

*In a 2009 study of 132 individuals, 560,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 25 different Indian groups were analyzed, providing strong evidence in support of the notion that modern Indians are a hybrid population descending from two pre-historic, genetically divergent populations, one of which, referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians', aged 40.000 years and the other, called the 'Ancestral South Indians', aged 60.000 years. The intermingling of ANI's and ASI's happened in the same period as the ANI's first appeared, 40.000 years ago.*

Most Indians are mixed of two pre historic waves that came to India. One that came 60,000 years ago and the biggest wave that came 40,000 years ago.


----------



## Spring Onion

secularguy said:


> Historically, Buddhism(and Hinduism too) prevailed in Afghan region. a 1000 year islamic tradition cannot erase the History to the tunes of inflated tribal ego and chest thumping.who gave a ***'s *** for such claims?eh?
> 
> ps:non hindu posted this.



 why getting frustrated. We have being tribals or whatever you call Yes we have an ego and rightly have unlike those who are trying to change their bloodline just to prove themselves that Dravidian are Pukhtuns

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## secularguy

Jana said:


> why getting frustrated. We have being tribals or whatever you call Yes we have an ego and rightly have unlike those who are trying to change their bloodline just to prove themselves that Dravidian are Pukhtuns


it is a wrong notion that someone wants to be "pasthon".JFYI, most of India does not even know of such a group.I was Telling You, that the Current Afghan region definitely had a History Which was Linked to Bharat as Buddhism prevailed there for centuries, if not 1000s of years before islam.
that's it  don't get enraged.we don't know tribalism and never care for such things here.
Thank You.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Jana said:


> why getting frustrated. We have being tribals or whatever you call Yes we have an ego and rightly have unlike those who are trying to change their bloodline just to prove themselves that *Dravidian are Pukhtuns*



No one wants to be a Pashton, no one said that. He said Indian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism was practiced by those people. Just like Iranian religions like Zoroastrianism was also practiced by your people. Before Islam Central Asians used to practiced many religions like Buddhism. Doesn't mean their Indian.


----------



## Spring Onion

secularguy said:


> it is a wrong notion that someone wants to be "pasthon".JFYI, most of India does not even know of such a group.I was Telling You, that the Current Afghan region definitely had a History Which was Linked to Bharat as Buddhism prevailed there for centuries, if not 1000s of years before islam.
> that's it  don't get enraged.we don't know tribalism and never care for such things here.
> Thank You.



Well thank you very much Nobody said Budhism was not there in the region. I gave you reasons for Flourishing of Bhudhism in friendly postures which are now part of current day Pakistan and Afghanistan.


As far as Tribalism is concerned we often hear excuses by Indians putting blame on tribalism for many ills in Hinduism like cast system.

BTW there is one part of my province KP called hazara division which was under Sikhs and Hindus also were found there much before partition. There are many words of Sanskrit which are part of local language we speak there in that region.


----------



## Spring Onion

Varghese said:


> No one wants to be a Pashton, no one said that. He said Indian religions like Hinduism and Buddhism was practiced by those people. Just like Iranian religions like Zoroastrianism was also practiced by your people. Before Islam Central Asians used to practiced many religions like Buddhism. Doesn't mean they Indian.



The person was arguing something else. My argument was about bloodline when Indians come here and claim that everyone of us have hindu roots .

That claim is just a boasting bruised ego practice by such people who do it in every forum. even if we for a second agree to their claim even then Being A Muslim means YOU are different than Hindus simple as that. It also means those Hindu elders or forefathers of the converted Muslims were on a path which the Muslims considered wrong thats why we are Muslims today when there is no compulsion on us to remain Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Jana said:


> The person was arguing something else. My argument was about* bloodline when Indians come here a claim that everyone of us have hindu roots .*
> 
> That claim is just a boasting bruised ego practice by such people who do it in every forum. even if we for a second agree to their claim even then Being A Muslim means YOU are different than Hindus simple as that. It also means those Hindu elders or forefathers of the converted Muslims were on a path which the Muslims considered wrong thats why we are Muslims today when there is no compulsion on us to remain Muslims.



What does bloodline have to do with religion? Reality is every single one of us have roots or a "bloodline" coming from eastern Africa. So an African man to a Chinese man are not that different.


----------



## Kambojaric

Subramanian said:


> A turk need not necessarily be from anatolia,even a kazhak,uzbek or Tajik would be turkic.



another wrong, tajiks arent turkic. They fall under the "persian" peoples of central asia. 

"Tajik (Persian: &#1578;&#1575;&#1580;&#1610;&#1705; T&#257;j&#299;k; Tajik: &#1058;&#1086;&#1207;&#1080;&#1082 is a general designation for a wide range of Persian-speaking peoples of Iranian origin,[14] with traditional homelands in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan. Smaller numbers also live in Iran and Pakistan; they are mostly refugees from Afghanistan.[15]"

The previous are turkic nevertheless. Just thought id correct this error

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Subramanian said:


> I dont know about NWFP,Baloch and the northern areas.But punjab and sindh,east or west of the indus is all hindu territory.Muslims came there much later and it doesn't matter what the poluation was recently.
> 
> Jinnah is a baniya/bora muslim from gujrat.He is not rajput.
> 
> Ghaznavid stuff happened 800 years thats like one week in history,thats all.
> 
> BTW,i have R1-A1 dna haplogroup and i am tamil brahmin from kanyakumari.My ancestors ran away from muslim oppresion of alauddin khilji and settled in the south of india since 1400 AD.big deal,man.






thanks for sharing YOUR family history.....so sorry to hear about your "oppressed" ancestors.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kambojaric

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> thanks for sharing YOUR family history.....so sorry to hear about your "oppressed" ancestors.



Im confused as well, dont know what the point of his post was

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subramanian

Jana said:


> I am Girl so dont call me bro.
> 
> Secondly you you called Arabs before Islam as Hindus (Pagans)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point to bring that point was that whenever someone mentions that pre-Islamic practice in Arab world, The Indians jump in and say They were pagans that does not mean those arbas were Hindus.
> 
> Since you said Pagan arabs were hindus so i was just testing what was your stance on that point then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont try to sell you Indian bullshit to me as being Pukhtun i know what does a Pukhtun mean and NO Hindu is Pukhtun. Its a bloodline that makes you a Pukhtun or otherwise. Just by living in Frontier or Kabul does NOT change Bloodline or genes of Hindus into Pukhtun Bloodline or genes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another Indian with some Complex to prove everyone Hindu.
> 
> Sorry my Ancestors being Pukhtuns were NEVER having any kind of Hindu roots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no one was slaughtered forces of our Prophet (PBUH) when Islam was started. It was very much a peaceful invitation but turned into battles and wars for survival when those might pagans started atrocities against those who adopted a new religion.




See,world people are either followers of book religions or not.

when you are pagan,you dont have the urge to convert everyone to your faith.You dont interfere in their worship and you dont try to sell your religion.

The sole reason hinduism became organized and behaved like one religion is as a reaction to heavy handed book religions like Islam who have a fundamental problem in agreeing to disagree with anyone.

Pakhtun is a race,right?It existed before sunni islam,then.There could have been pakhtun people who were non islamic,resisted the imposition of it and perished as a result of it.

I am not calling your ancestors hindus,i am saying the people your ancestors killed were hindus.

BTW,even hindus came from central asia.I am caste hindu and i have roots from Iran,dont sell your ignorance on me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subramanian

Jana said:


> Those came from CARs are by NO Means Hindus or having Hindu roots.
> 
> 
> This is interesting that Indians for so long had been trying to prove themselves anything other than Dravidian



I have dravidian roots too,probably mongloid roots too and i am damn proud of it.

It is your problem that you are stuck up in hallucinating European divisive theories like Aryan Migration and all and you fail to see reality.


----------



## Ek Aasaman

Lets get this straight. Hindi and Urdu are the same language (spoken). And India and Pakistan have no basis of independent seperation before partition.

 

Also the Dravidians were originally invaders from the middle east who displaced the native austric people. Later few Indo-Eropeans invaded (aryans), their language became predominant in the North, the Dravidian languages were preserved in the more isolated south. Still there is not evidence for a massive move of the Dravidians them selfs, nor a massive input of Aryans thus the gene-pool of the sub-continent is of mainly Dravidian (what ever your skin color).


----------



## PureAryan

*I dont know about NWFP,Baloch and the northern areas.But punjab and sindh,east or west of the indus is all hindu territory.Muslims came there much later and it doesn't matter what the poluation was recently.

Jinnah is a baniya/bora muslim from gujrat.He is not rajput.

Ghaznavid stuff happened 800 years thats like one week in history,thats all.

BTW,i have R1-A1 dna haplogroup and i am tamil brahmin from kanyakumari.My ancestors ran away from muslim oppresion of alauddin khilji and settled in the south of india since 1400 AD.big deal,man.*

Punjab and sindh were never hindu, Pakistan became a buddhist country during the reign of Asoka and remained buddhist until muslims(Arabs) arrived. When Muslims invaded Pakistan region (Arabs called the region btw arabian sea and hindu kush as sindh everything east of sindh as hindh) the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became budh. The fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there&#65279; are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD. And by the way buddhism has nothing to do with hinduism, the largest budhist country Japanese do not call them hindus, buddhism opposes everything which hinduism has. 

Jinnah grandfather was from Punjab Pakistan and was a punjabi rajput and he migrated to kathiawar and got married over there. Kathiawar is a disputed territory and acceded to pakistan but bharat forcefully occupied it, It is still shown as part of pakistan in official maps. So Jinnah was a pakistan both from paternal and maternal lineage

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aviator

PureAryan said:


> Punjab and sindh were never hindu, Pakistan became a buddhist country during the reign of Asoka and remained buddhist until muslims(Arabs) arrived. When Muslims invaded Pakistan region (Arabs called the region btw arabian sea and hindu kush as sindh everything east of sindh as hindh) the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became budh. The fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there&#65279; are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region.



Dude what are you smoking ? Around lil less than half of Punjab became part of India in 1947 (oh yea Indian states of Punjab-Haryana-Himachal Pradesh), I am from Haryana and I don't see many Buddhist in these states. Also my grandparents were from pakistani side Punjab and from all those who came from that side I haven't seen a single being Buddhist, all Hindus and Sikhs. Most of people who converted to Sikhism were also Hindus, Sikh gurus were from Hindu background.

Accepted you hate Hindus to the core that you don't want to have any indirect association with them either but Do you have some concrete unbiased sources to claim your point ?

PS: Haryana and Himachal were Hindu majority in 1947.
Correction: 42% of Punjab became part of India in 1947.


----------



## PureAryan

aviator said:


> Dude what are you smoking ? Around lil less than half of Punjab became part of India in 1947 (oh yea Indian states of Punjab-Haryana-Himachal Pradesh), I am from Haryana and I don't see many Buddhist in these states. Also my grandparents were from pakistani side Punjab and from all those who came from that side I haven't seen a single being Buddhist, all Hindus and Sikhs. Most of people who converted to Sikhism were also Hindus, Sikh gurus were from Hindu background.
> 
> Accepted you hate Hindus to the core that you don't want to have any indirect association with them either but Do you have some concrete unbiased sources to claim your point ?
> 
> PS: Haryana and Himachal were Hindu majority in 1947.



If you had read my post clearly i did give you unbiased source, The book is called Chachnama 
Chach Nama (Sindhi: &#1670;&#1670; &#1606;&#1575;&#1605;&#1608 also known as the Fateh nama Sindh (Sindhi: &#1601;&#1578;&#1581; &#1606;&#1575;&#1605;&#1607; &#1587;&#1606;&#1676,and also known as Tarekh-e-Hind wa Sindh Arabic (&#1578;&#1575;&#1585;&#1610;&#1582; &#1575;&#1604;&#1607;&#1606;&#1583; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1587;&#1606;&#1583; ) is a book about the history of Sindh, chronicling the Chacha Dynasty's period, following the demise of the Rai Dynasty and the ascent of Chach of Alor to the throne, down to the Arab conquest by Muhammad bin Qasim.

It was written after invasion and it explain how the majority buddhist population were ruled by repressive minority hindu kingdom, and when muslim arrived the buddhist helped them to get rid of hindu kingdom.

According to ancient designation the real punjab lies in pakistan(5 rivers) the indian punjab and haryana were incoporated into punjab during delhi sultanate so indian punjab is not the ancient punjab. India should change the name of their punjab state its creating confusion because it doesn't have 5 rivers.
I am talking about pakistani punjab not indian punjab, In pakistani punjab budhism wasn't dominant but so was hinduism, there were dozens of other religion zoroastrianism, animism, shamis, fire worshipping but in all other provinces buddhism was dominant. There are only few hindu architecture cannot be dated past few centuries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Ek Aasaman said:


> Lets get this straight. Hindi and Urdu are the same language (spoken)



utter bullshyte in pure powder form....and i'd be very careful if I were you about making such silly statements

they are not the same language; there is a whole culture behind Urdu that can never be imitated or duplicated by modern or classical hindi





> And India and Pakistan have no basis of independent seperation before partition.



clearly, they did. We were just finally blessed in 1947. hindustan (india) was never even one nation before partition. This is how a huge number feel.




> Also the Dravidians were originally invaders from the middle east who displaced the native austric people. Later few Indo-Eropeans invaded (aryans), their language became predominant in the North, the Dravidian languages were preserved in the more isolated south. Still there is not evidence for a massive move of the Dravidians them selfs, nor a massive input of Aryans thus the gene-pool of the sub-continent is of mainly Dravidian (what ever your skin color).




always trust a hindustani to bring up this whole Aryan & dravidian/ skill colour related stuff.

I know about the north vs. south indian and white vs. brown obcession in that country --- we don't focus or worry about it so much. At least the sane people. 



the truth is, the eventual people of Pakistan then and the Pakistanis of today are proud to have their own country; neither we nor our ancestors had any affinity to hindustan. Though I do know people whose parents were born indian and died Pakistani

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PureAryan

Ek Aasaman said:


> Lets get this straight. Hindi and Urdu are the same language (spoken). And India and Pakistan have no basis of independent seperation before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the Dravidians were originally invaders from the middle east who displaced the native austric people. Later few Indo-Eropeans invaded (aryans), their language became predominant in the North, the Dravidian languages were preserved in the more isolated south. Still there is not evidence for a massive move of the Dravidians them selfs, nor a massive input of Aryans thus the *gene-pool of the sub-continent* i*s of mainly Dravidian *(what ever your skin color).



hindi and urdu are not the same language, Urdu originated in Lahore in Ghaznavid punjab around 10th century, it is a mixture of old punjabi, farsi, arabic, and turkish, it is a pakistani language no amount of bharati propaganda can change that 

Genetics and excavations around harrapa have proven there was an aryan migration and the local did put up a fight.
I hope Pakistan is not included in your defination of sub-continent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Subramanian

PureAryan said:


> *I dont know about NWFP,Baloch and the northern areas.But punjab and sindh,east or west of the indus is all hindu territory.Muslims came there much later and it doesn't matter what the poluation was recently.
> 
> Jinnah is a baniya/bora muslim from gujrat.He is not rajput.
> 
> Ghaznavid stuff happened 800 years thats like one week in history,thats all.
> 
> BTW,i have R1-A1 dna haplogroup and i am tamil brahmin from kanyakumari.My ancestors ran away from muslim oppresion of alauddin khilji and settled in the south of india since 1400 AD.big deal,man.*
> 
> Punjab and sindh were never hindu, Pakistan became a buddhist country during the reign of Asoka and remained buddhist until muslims(Arabs) arrived. When Muslims invaded Pakistan region (Arabs called the region btw arabian sea and hindu kush as sindh everything east of sindh as hindh) the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became budh. The fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there&#65279; are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD. And by the way buddhism has nothing to do with hinduism, the largest budhist country Japanese do not call them hindus, buddhism opposes everything which hinduism has.
> 
> Jinnah grandfather was from Punjab Pakistan and was a punjabi rajput and he migrated to kathiawar and got married over there. Kathiawar is a disputed territory and acceded to pakistan but bharat forcefully occupied it, It is still shown as part of pakistan in official maps. So Jinnah was a pakistan both from paternal and maternal lineage



Buddhism has everything to do with Hinduismin.It was formed right in the middle of india in bihar and it is an atheistic sect whose ideas have been imbibed into hinduism.Unlike muslims,hindus dont have an inferiority complex and different spiritual paths have always existed so do nonspiritual paths that exist like today.

Taxila was where Chanakya went to study,which is pretty much in Pakistan and as you say 9th century is a very recent thing.

1100 years in nothing in the history of the subcontinent which has been existing for 3000 years and more.

Who cares what the Japanese say?today we have cults theravad buddhism which makes buddhism look like a warrior cult rather than a spiritual cult.

Jinnah's lineage was of rajputs,but what was his hindu grandfather doing as a merchant in gujarat?Last time i heard that was not rajputs did.


----------



## Subramanian

PureAryan said:


> If you had read my post clearly i did give you unbiased source, The book is called Chachnama
> Chach Nama (Sindhi: &#1670;&#1670; &#1606;&#1575;&#1605;&#1608 also known as the Fateh nama Sindh (Sindhi: &#1601;&#1578;&#1581; &#1606;&#1575;&#1605;&#1607; &#1587;&#1606;&#1676,and also known as Tarekh-e-Hind wa Sindh Arabic (&#1578;&#1575;&#1585;&#1610;&#1582; &#1575;&#1604;&#1607;&#1606;&#1583; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1587;&#1606;&#1583; ) is a book about the history of Sindh, chronicling the Chacha Dynasty's period, following the demise of the Rai Dynasty and the ascent of Chach of Alor to the throne, down to the Arab conquest by Muhammad bin Qasim.
> 
> It was written after invasion and it explain how the majority buddhist population were ruled by repressive minority hindu kingdom, and when muslim arrived the buddhist helped them to get rid of hindu kingdom.
> 
> According to ancient designation the real punjab lies in pakistan(5 rivers) the indian punjab and haryana were incoporated into punjab during delhi sultanate so indian punjab is not the ancient punjab. India should change the name of their punjab state its creating confusion because it doesn't have 5 rivers.
> I am talking about pakistani punjab not indian punjab, In pakistani punjab budhism wasn't dominant but so was hinduism, there were dozens of other religion zoroastrianism, animism, shamis, fire worshipping but in all other provinces buddhism was dominant. There are only few hindu architecture cannot be dated past few centuries.



Panjab is the land of 5 rivers and everyone knows that pakistan has the panjab and india only has the Doaba but so what?Does that mean it belongs to muslims?

vedic hinduism is the not the only thing.My mom once picked up a stone while she was playing and took it to her dad,a pious sanskrit speaking brahmin and he examined it and saw the uniqueness of the stone.

He kept it in his worship and started worshipping it for the qualities it gave.

Hinduism is free,when we say hindu u need not necessarily go to a shiv temple and worship,it just means you dont follow something blindly because they say so in saudi arabia/rome.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Subramanian said:


> Panjab is the land of 5 rivers and everyone knows that pakistan has the panjab and india only has the Doaba but so what?Does that mean it belongs to muslims?



river water doesnt have a religion......those rivers were there before human race

let's not even delve into 'water issues' for now




> Hinduism is free,when we say hindu u need not necessarily go to a shiv temple and worship,it just means you dont follow something blindly because they say so in saudi arabia/rome.





feel free to elaborate

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Subramanian

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> river water doesnt have a religion......those rivers were there before human race
> 
> let's not even delve into 'water issues' for now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to elaborate



there is nothing to elaborate?am just stating facts there.

If you query/disagreement is specific,go on....


----------



## Rafi

The Punjab has been Islamic for a over a thousand years, and will always be Muslim Inshallah. We were taken from dark into light, by the wonderful Sufi Missionaries - and their beautiful example

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Subramanian

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> river water doesnt have a religion......those rivers were there before human race
> 
> let's not even delve into 'water issues' for now
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to elaborate



yeah,but pakistani punjab also belongs to the hindu/sikh people who used to live there.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Subramanian said:


> yeah,but pakistani punjab also belongs to the hindu/sikh people who used to live there.



whether true or not, moot point now!


----------



## PureAryan

Subramanian said:


> *Buddhism has everything to do with Hinduismin*.It was formed right in the middle of india in bihar and it is an atheistic sect whose ideas have been imbibed into hinduism.Unlike muslims,hindus dont have an inferiority complex and different spiritual paths have always existed so do nonspiritual paths that exist like today.
> 
> Taxila was where Chanakya went to study,which is pretty much in Pakistan and as you say 9th century is a very recent thing.
> 
> 1100 years in nothing in the history of the subcontinent which has been existing for 3000 years and more.
> 
> Who cares what the Japanese say?today we have cults theravad buddhism which makes buddhism look like a warrior cult rather than a spiritual cult.
> 
> Jinnah's lineage was of rajputs,but what was his hindu grandfather doing as a merchant in gujarat?Last time i heard that was not rajputs did.



Tell that to japanese buddhist or chinese buddhist, A bharti has no right to claim budhism as their own religion given the fact how buddhism was exterminated from its place of birth by hindus all the budhists were hounded out of bharat during gupta empire, millions were slaughtered.

Following are some of the differences we can see in the principles and practice of these two religions.

1. Hinduism is not founded by any particular prophet. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. 

2. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedas. The Buddhist do not believe in the Vedas or for that matter any Hindu scripture. 

3. Buddhism does not believe in the existence of souls as well in the first cause, whom we generally call God. Hinduism believe in the existence of Atman , that is the individual soul and Brahman, the Supreme Creator. 

4. Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an incarnation of Mahavishnu, one of the gods of Hindu trinity. The Buddhist do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. 

5. The original Buddhism as taught by the Buddha is known as Theravada Buddhism or Hinayana Buddhism. Followers of this do not worship images of the Buddha nor believe in the Bodhisattvas. The Mahayana sect considers the Buddha as the Supreme Soul or the Highest Being, akin to the Brahman of Hinduism and worship him in the form of images and icons. 

6. The Buddhists consider the world to be full of sorrow and regard ending the sorrow as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) 

7. Hindus also believe in the four ashramas or stages in life. This is not followed in Buddhism. People can join the Order any time depending upon their spiritual preparedness. 

8. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically a religion of the individual.

9. Buddhism believes in the concept of Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in it.

11. Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status.

12. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dhamma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization.

13. Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings.


----------



## Omar1984

Subramanian said:


> yeah,but pakistani punjab also belongs to the hindu/sikh people who used to live there.



Most of the people who witnessed partition are long gone and even if they have descendents living in india, they can't buy property in Pakistan's Punjab Province.

A Baloch who has Pakistani citizenship and not a drop of Punjabi blood in him can buy property in Pakistan's Punjab but not a hindu/sikh who had a grandfather who migrated from Pakistan's Punjab to indian punjab during partition.


By the way, I think its hilarious to see indians screaming we are the same but Pakistanis responding no we are not 

I'm so glad we Pakistanis separated from indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PureAryan

Subramanian said:


> yeah,but pakistani punjab also belongs to the hindu/sikh people who used to live there.



Ok, Could you enlighten us, how does pakistani punjab belongs to hindus siks, as i told you before the real punjab lies in pakistan, indian punjab is not the ancient punjab, pakistani punjab belongs to the pakistani people wwho live their, no bengali, no nepali and no bharti can claim that even if his ancestors used to live there

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PureAryan

Subramanian said:


> Sufi?I thought they were a spiritual cult who asked you to reject conventional religion.
> 
> Dark to light,not bad bro.Did they also tell you to slaughter people of other faith or forcibly convert them under the sword?



Again same nonsence, pakistani punjab and sindh were never hindu, pakistanis became buddhist during asoka rule and remained buddhist untill muslims arrived, Chach nama is available to read.
The very few hindu architecture in pakistan cannot be dated past few centuries, while the buddhist architecture found in pakistan is thousands of years old, few buddhist civilization was ghandara, indo greek, kushans and huns

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

PureAryan said:


> Ok, Could you enlighten us, how does pakistani punjab belongs to hindus siks, as i told you before the real punjab lies in pakistan, indian punjab is not the ancient punjab, pakistani punjab belongs to the pakistani people wwho live their, no bengali, no nepali and no bharti can claim that even if his ancestors used to live there



These bharatis are delusional man, they dont see the INTERNATIONAL BORDER dividing Pakistan's Punjab Province from indian punjab state.

They need visa passport to even visit Pakistan's Punjab Province, they can only dream of buying property in Pakistan's Punjab province.

Pakistan's Punjab province belongs to only PAKISTANIS (Pakhtoon, Baloch, Sindhi, Gilgiti, Balti, etc..) 

bharati hindu/sikh punjabis are nothing to us

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Subramanian

PureAryan said:


> Tell that to japanese buddhist or chinese buddhist, A bharti has no right to claim budhism as their own religion given the fact how buddhism was exterminated from its place of birth by hindus all the budhists were hounded out of bharat during gupta empire, millions were slaughtered.
> 
> Following are some of the differences we can see in the principles and practice of these two religions.
> 
> 1. Hinduism is not founded by any particular prophet. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha.
> 
> 2. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedas. The Buddhist do not believe in the Vedas or for that matter any Hindu scripture.
> 
> 3. Buddhism does not believe in the existence of souls as well in the first cause, whom we generally call God. Hinduism believe in the existence of Atman , that is the individual soul and Brahman, the Supreme Creator.
> 
> 4. Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an incarnation of Mahavishnu, one of the gods of Hindu trinity. The Buddhist do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha.
> 
> 5. The original Buddhism as taught by the Buddha is known as Theravada Buddhism or Hinayana Buddhism. Followers of this do not worship images of the Buddha nor believe in the Bodhisattvas. The Mahayana sect considers the Buddha as the Supreme Soul or the Highest Being, akin to the Brahman of Hinduism and worship him in the form of images and icons.
> 
> 6. The Buddhists consider the world to be full of sorrow and regard ending the sorrow as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.)
> 
> 7. Hindus also believe in the four ashramas or stages in life. This is not followed in Buddhism. People can join the Order any time depending upon their spiritual preparedness.
> 
> 8. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically a religion of the individual.
> 
> 9. Buddhism believes in the concept of Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in it.
> 
> 11. Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status.
> 
> 12. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dhamma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. *Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization.*
> 
> 13. Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings.



Yeah,one of those paths can also be buddhism.

These spiritual differences you mentioned are very minimal.

I agree buddhists have been slaughtered in the past over religion but thats the most shameful thing ever in the history of hinduism,people who do that in the name of religion cannot be true hindus at all.

In Tamilnadu,there were lot of buddhists and now many of them are hindus,not in the vedic sense,no atman/brahman but in their own way of hinduism which they modified to their own ways of belief.

Moreover,hindus hardly went and destroyed buddhists shrines,that honour truly belongs to muslims and christians.

In south india,buddhism survived till the 15-16th century.


----------



## pakdefender

Let me bust this myth that once upon a time people of Panjab and Sindh were 'Hindus' in large numbers.

Lets look at Hinduism.

Hindus have multiple statues of their gods , these are in the form of monkey ( Hanuman ) in the form of Elephant ( Ganesh ) and many others with some having multiple limbs and some in the form of a snake etc etc.

They make large number of these statues; big and small and of all sizes.

Now my question is WHERE in Pakistan have excavations revealed statues of monkey form Hanuman, elephant form Ganesh or Kali or Shiva and so many more , WHERE ? 

Answer is that NOWHERE in Pakistan have ANY artefacts been found that resemble these forms.

Statues of Gautam Budh that have been found, big and small and they have stood the test of time

So similarly shouldn&#8217;t the statues of Hanuman, Ganesh and all others (if they were ever there) have stood the test of time and at least some traces of these be found ? The fact that none have been found leads one to believe that this type of Hinduism never existed in this land called Pakistan

Also look at the temples that Hindus build, they are huge, extensive and intricate , how come none have been found in Pakistan ? The ancient ruin that we have in Harapa , Moenjo daro , Taxila none have any sign of these type of temples that Hindus have . 

It should be asked well why not ? If their are ancient ruins of other structures why there are not ancient ruin of hindu temples ?

The lack of these can be attributed to two things

a. There never existed in the land that is Pakistan the kind of Hinduism that is there in India.
b. If it did exist at some time, all traces of it were wiped out so extensively that noting that is there today relates to it not even any ruins.

In both case then the people of preset day Panjab and Sindh have no big relation to the Hindus of India.

So HOW can Indians continue to claim that Panjab and Sindh were 'Hindu' , the archaeological evidence just does not support this bs claim.

Basically all fascist beliefs tend to claim anything and every thing as theirs , like Hindus even claim that Buddhism is also a form of Hinduism , Harapa and Indus valley were also part of Hinduism and there are even those who say that the pagans of Mecca with their statues and all were ALSO part of Hinduisms.

These calims are just ludicrous, we need to look at facts rather than the spin that our neighbours from the east put , one has to admits that they are good at spinning facts.

Basically in logon ko Quaid ka do-Qaumi nazriya hazam nahin hota

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subramanian

PureAryan said:


> Ok, Could you enlighten us, how does pakistani punjab belongs to hindus siks, as i told you before the real punjab lies in pakistan, indian punjab is not the ancient punjab, pakistani punjab belongs to the pakistani people wwho live their, no bengali, no nepali and no bharti can claim that even if his ancestors used to live there



real or not,whatever it might be,punjabi hindus and sikhs are pretty much from there.Maybe 60 years ago and today they might be living everywhere in the world from Canada to Newzeland except in Pakistani punjab but these boundaries do not change anything at all.

I am tamil and i ll always be even if tomorrow someone asks me to get out of there.


----------



## PureAryan

Omar1984 said:


> These bharatis are delusional man, they dont see the INTERNATIONAL BORDER dividing Pakistan's Punjab Province from indian punjab state.
> 
> They need visa passport to even visit Pakistan's Punjab Province, they can only dream of buying property in Pakistan's Punjab province.
> 
> Pakistan's Punjab province belongs to only PAKISTANIS (Pakhtoon, Baloch, Sindhi, Gilgiti, Balti, etc..)
> 
> bharati hindu/sikh punjabis are nothing to us



Omar, I can understand why bhartis want to claim pakistanis punajb as their own, because all the pakistanis who ruled bhartis were punjabis or punjabi born. Most famous punjabis are Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka, Bahlol Khan Lodi, Sikandar Lodhi, Firuz Shah Tughlaq, Ghiyas ud din Tughluq Shah, Sher Sha Suri, Abdali there are more i cant remeber


----------



## Omar1984

Subramanian said:


> I know that things are the same.If you are not the same,you have to be arbi or turk and you should go back there.If you claim to belong to wherever you do,then you are one of the same.I am not saying it,i know,it is a fact for FFS..




Read on Pakistani Punjabis. We are much more diverse than Indian Punjabis (who are mostly Jatts).

Pakistani Punjabis also have Jatts but we also have Maliks, Syyeds, Qureshis, Gilanis, Moghals, Naqvis, Rizvis, etc who have nothing in common with indian punjabis.

And even our Pakistani Jatts are patriotic Pakistanis who want nothing to do with you bharati punjabis.

In fact we Pakistani Punjabis want you bharati punjabis to make your Khalistan out of your indian punjab state, haryana, and himachal pradesh. Even with your Khalistan, we dont want to unite with you because we Pakistani Punjabis already have our own homeland, Pakistan.




Subramanian said:


> you should be,else you would have got slaughtered beyond recognition.



Yea just like the millions of Muslim Punjabis you bharati punjabis slaughtered when they were peacefully trying to cross into Pakistan's Punjab province during partition.


----------



## Subramanian

pakdefender said:


> Let me bust this myth that once upon a time people of Panjab and Sindh were 'Hindus' in large numbers.
> 
> Lets look at Hinduism.
> 
> Hindus have multiple statues of their gods , these are in the form of monkey ( Hanuman ) in the form of Elephant ( Ganesh ) and many others with some having multiple limbs and some in the form of a snake etc etc.
> 
> They make large number of these statues; big and small and of all sizes.
> 
> Now my question is WHERE in Pakistan have excavations revealed statues of monkey form Hanuman, elephant form Ganesh or Kali or Shiva and so many more , WHERE ?
> 
> Answer is that NOWHERE in Pakistan have ANY artefacts been found that resemble these forms.
> 
> Statues of Gautam Budh that have been found, big and small and they have stood the test of time
> 
> So similarly shouldnt the statues of Hanuman, Ganesh and all others (if they were ever there) have stood the test of time and at least some traces of these be found ? The fact that none have been found leads one to believe that this type of Hinduism never existed in this land called Pakistan
> 
> Also look at the temples that Hindus build, they are huge, extensive and intricate , how come none have been found in Pakistan ? The ancient ruin that we have in Harapa , Moenjo daro , Taxila none have any sign of these type of temples that Hindus have .
> 
> It should be asked well why not ? If their are ancient ruins of other structures why there are not ancient ruin of hindu temples ?
> 
> The lack of these can be attributed to two things
> 
> a. There never existed in the land that is Pakistan the kind of Hinduism that is there in India.
> b. If it did exist at some time, all traces of it were wiped out so extensively that noting that is there today relates to it not even any ruins.
> 
> In both case then the people of preset day Panjab and Sindh have no big relation to the Hindus of India.
> 
> So HOW can Indians continue to claim that Panjab and Sindh were 'Hindu' , the archaeological evidence just does not support this bs claim.
> 
> Basically all fascist beliefs tend to claim anything and every thing as theirs , like Hindus even claim that Buddhism is also a form of Hinduism , Harapa and Indus valley were also part of Hinduism and there are even those who say that the pagans of Mecca with their statues and all were ALSO part of Hinduisms.
> 
> These calims are just ludicrous, we need to look at facts rather than the spin that our neighbours from the east put , one has to admits that they are good at spinning facts.
> 
> Basically in logon ko Quaid ka do-Qaumi nazriya hazam nahin hota



If you are talking of a territory as belonging to a religion,then pakistan doesn't belong to them and yes pagans used to exist even in mecca.

If you are talking of pakistan as belonging to the people of the region,say punjabis,balochi,pashtun,sindhi even then lot of hindus/sikhs can have stake in it and not the mohajirs.

Decide for yourself if you are of the region/religion.


----------



## Subramanian

PureAryan said:


> Omar, I can understand why bhartis want to claim pakistanis punajb as their own, because all the pakistanis who ruled bhartis were punjabis or punjabi born. Most famous punjabis are Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka, Bahlol Khan Lodi, Sikandar Lodhi, Firuz Shah Tughlaq, Ghiyas ud din Tughluq Shah, Sher Sha Suri, Abdali there are more i cant remeber



last i heard,patna/pataliputra was in bihar and abdali?seriously?


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Subramanian said:


> BTW,
> 
> Muslims belong to the deserts of arabia or the mountains of pakhtunkhwa,not the river basins of punjab.



What's wrong with Punjabi Muslims ?


----------



## Omar1984

Subramanian said:


> i really wish we invade your punjab just to see your face.



You tried in 1965, and we kicked your asss!!!!!!!!!

Bring it on again, and we'll destroy your bharat.

YouTube - 6th of September 1965: Battle of Lahore (we will never forget)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PureAryan

Subramanian said:


> Yeah,one of those paths can also be buddhism.
> 
> These spiritual differences you mentioned are very minimal.
> 
> I agree buddhists have been slaughtered in the past over religion but thats the most shameful thing ever in the history of hinduism,people who do that in the name of religion cannot be true hindus at all.
> 
> In Tamilnadu,there were lot of buddhists and now many of them are hindus,not in the vedic sense,no atman/brahman but in their own way of hinduism which they modified to their own ways of belief.
> 
> Moreover,hindus hardly went and destroyed buddhists shrines,that honour truly belongs to muslims and christians.
> 
> In south india,buddhism survived till the 15-16th century.



We still have buddhist architecture available in every major city in pakistan, While in Bharat every buddhist architecture was destroyed, If it wasn't for the pakistani ghandhara civilization ther would be no budhist in the world today, 
Thanks to pakistanis for taking in budhists who fled their place of birth bharat to take refuge here, From ghandara budhism spread to china(pakistan's 5000 year old friend) , from china it spread to to japan and korea.


----------



## pakdefender

Subramanian said:


> If you are talking of a territory as belonging to a religion,then pakistan doesn't belong to them and yes pagans used to exist even in mecca.
> 
> If you are talking of pakistan as belonging to the people of the region,say punjabis,balochi,pashtun,sindhi even then lot of hindus/sikhs can have stake in it and not the mohajirs.
> 
> Decide for yourself if you are of the region/religion.



you have side stepped all the points I raised in my post , read my post again and then tell me how can you say that people of Pakistan's Panjab and Sindh are related to Hindus of india when clearly there is no link


----------



## Subramanian

Omar1984 said:


> Read on Pakistani Punjabis. We are much more diverse than Indian Punjabis (who are mostly Jatts).
> 
> Pakistani Punjabis also have Jatts but we also have Maliks, Syyeds, Qureshis, Gilanis, Moghals, Naqvis, Rizvis, etc who have nothing in common with indian punjabis.
> 
> And even our Pakistani Jatts are patriotic Pakistanis who want nothing to do with you bharati punjabis.
> 
> In fact we Pakistani Punjabis want you bharati punjabis to make your Khalistan out of your indian punjab state, haryana, and himachal pradesh. Even with your Khalistan, we dont want to unite with you because we Pakistani Punjabis already have our own homeland, Pakistan.
> 
> 
> Yea just like the millions of Muslim Punjabis you bharati punjabis slaughtered when they were peacefully trying to cross into Pakistan's Punjab province during partition.



what Jatt/Rajput/Gujjar?

Once you are muslim why dont you give up all this?

and regarding khalistan there are lot of jatts who quashed it too.Kuldip singh brar,KPS Gill and many many people.

once you convert,go search for your identity in islam,dont hold onto your caste because it suits your convenience.

yeah and those muslim punjabis were waving white flags,is it?

everyone knows it is the muslims who start the fight and indulge in violence always?

Starting from direct action day in calcutta and the whole violent legacy of your very religion,it sounds funny that the innocent,peave loving doves of islam got slaughtered on the way.


----------



## Omar1984

PakiiZeeshan said:


> What's wrong with Punjabi Muslims ?



These bharatis are delusional man.

Most Punjabis are Muslims.

Pakistan has more than 80 million Punjabis while india has less than 30 million Punjabis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Subramanian said:


> I am tamil and i ll always be even if tomorrow someone asks me to get out of there.



Your not even Punjabi. So why the hell are you getting involved.

indian Punjabis treat Tamils like dirt.. why the hell would any tamil in their right mind support Punjabi/Sikhs/Hindus of india

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Subramanian

pakdefender said:


> you have side stepped all the points I raised in my post , read my post again and then tell me how can you say that people of Pakistan's Panjab and Sindh are related to Hindus of india when clearly there is no link



india and pakistan exist only since 60 odd years,did they exist before?

did hindus/sikhs live never ever live on the other side of the border?

basically all the people of india and pakistan and bangladesh came from central asia,because thats the only land route,every other side there are either mountains or seas.

The intermixing from the other directions is very minimal compared to the one through khyber pass.It is very difficult to enter from china/south east asia.

Thats why.anyway i am basically talking only about the people of Punjab,himachal,haryana,rajasthan and Western UP.They are definitely connected.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Omar1984 said:


> These bharatis are delusional man.
> 
> Most Punjabis are Muslims.
> 
> Pakistan has more than 80 million Punjabis while india has less than 30 million Punjabis.



I doubt tht number!
Why? coz of all the non punjabi-punjabi speakers in north and south...... for e.g:pashtuns,balouch,hindkowans,gakhars,etc etc..... All have been punjabized yet by ethnicty they r not punjabi............ @ this subarmanium character!

Dude.... even ur own countrymen consider u inferior.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subramanian

PureAryan said:


> We still have buddhist architecture available in every major city in pakistan, While in Bharat every buddhist architecture was destroyed, If it wasn't for the pakistani ghandhara civilization ther would be no budhist in the world today,
> Thanks to pakistanis for taking in budhists who fled their place of birth bharat to take refuge here, From ghandara budhism spread to china(pakistan's 5000 year old friend) , from china it spread to to japan and korea.



there is a lot of buddhists architecture available in india too,Bodh gaya is very much here and buddhism didn't take the silk route to china.Bihar is right below nepal which right next to tibet.


----------



## PureAryan

Omar1984 said:


> These bharatis are delusional man.
> 
> Most Punjabis are Muslims.
> 
> Pakistan has more than 80 million Punjabis while india has less than 30 million Punjabis.



Not only majority of punjabis are muslim, the punjabi language was also created by sufi muslims, all the major punjabi writers are muslims, Punjabi langauge was born with literature in 11th centruy, Most famous punjabi writers are Baba Farid, Baba Bulleh Shah, Waris Shah,


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

*Punjab belongs to Punjabis. *

No non-Punjabi has any right over us, our land, our culture, our language, our religious beliefs.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Subramanian said:


> india and pakistan exist only since 60 odd years,did they exist before?
> 
> did hindus/sikhs live never ever live on the other side of the border?
> 
> basically all the people of* india and pakistan and bangladesh *came from central asia,because thats the only land route,every other side there are either mountains or seas.
> 
> The intermixing from the other directions is very minimal compared to the one through khyber pass.It is very difficult to enter from china/south east asia.
> 
> Thats why.anyway i am basically talking only about the people of Punjab,himachal,haryana,rajasthan and Western UP.They are definitely connected.



The high lighted part is an over kill!
Indians and bengalis from Central asia? ok maybe the northern indians! but wat abt east,south,mongoliod and bengalis?



Wat abt my dravidian friend? R u tryin to say tht we killed u and displaced u and u ended up in the south of india?


----------



## Omar1984

Oh. LOL Subramanian is a Tamil. LOL go ahead and post about Punjabis.

LOL even indian punjabis dont like tamils.


hahahhahahhahah.


----------



## Omar1984

PakiiZeeshan said:


> *Punjab belongs to Punjabis. *
> 
> No non-Punjabi has any right over us, our land, our culture, our language, our religious beliefs.



Actually many Pakhtoons, Baloch, Gilgitis, Sindhis, and Urdu-speaking Mohajairs live and own property in Punjab province of Pakistan and they have every right to because they are also Pakistani citizens.

Pakistan's Punjab province belongs to all Pakistanis.

We invite every Pakistani to Punjab because we Pakistani Punjabis are Pakistanis first.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PureAryan

Subramanian said:


> india and pakistan exist only since 60 odd years,did they exist before?
> 
> did hindus/sikhs live never ever live on the other side of the border?
> 
> basically all the people of india and pakistan and bangladesh came from central asia,because thats the only land route,every other side there are either mountains or seas.
> 
> The intermixing from the other directions is very minimal compared to the one through khyber pass.It is very difficult to enter from china/south east asia.
> 
> Thats why.anyway i am basically talking only about the people of Punjab,himachal,haryana,rajasthan and Western UP.They are definitely connected.



You are right bharat is only 60 years old but pakistan is 9000 years old read Pakistan's 9000 years old Mehrgar civilization, and 5000 year old indus valley civilization, Bharat is a failed experiment by british which went wrong from the start. Ancient names of pakistan are Melluha, Arywarta, Sapta Sindhwa, Sindh, Pancanda, can you name any ancient name of bharat.

Indians and bengalis have nothing to do with central asia, they have been living in their respective countries for centuries, If there is any country whhich claim ancestory from central asia it is only pakistan because it has been part of central asia for centuries but bharat and bengal has never been

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Subramanian said:


> aah,i am tamil brahmin.My girlfriend is a Gill,Jatt sikh.Two of my aunts are punjabi,one is an arora and the other is a janjua.
> 
> i have loads of friends who are punjabi,two of my cousins are married to a punjabi and a kashmiri pundit.
> 
> I know a lot of people and they treat me alright.
> 
> so,take it easy bro.
> 
> *and we tams have our own arrogance anyway*.


Google:
Why do people hate south indians..... 


YouTube - South India Travel Doc - Part 05
U guys .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

PakiiZeeshan said:


> indian Punjabis treat Tamils like dirt



Not from my experience.




> .. why the hell would any tamil in their right mind support Punjabi/Sikhs/Hindus of india



As long as they"re Indian.


----------



## pakdefender

Subramanian said:


> india and pakistan exist only since 60 odd years,did they exist before?
> 
> did hindus/sikhs live never ever live on the other side of the border?
> 
> basically all the people of india and pakistan and bangladesh came from central asia,because thats the only land route,every other side there are either mountains or seas.
> 
> The intermixing from the other directions is very minimal compared to the one through khyber pass.It is very difficult to enter from china/south east asia.
> 
> Thats why.anyway i am basically talking only about the people of Punjab,himachal,haryana,rajasthan and Western UP.They are definitely connected.



SO 'basically' if you are only talking about the people then what happened to your claim that people of Pakistan's Panjab and Sindh were 'Hindus' , that claim now stands busted I suppose ? .. By saying that you are only talking about the people you are agreeing that your claim that they were 'Hindus' (and hence part of Hinduism) is just plain wrong!

Now that your one myth has been busted, your other myth that the two people are the same also needs to be busted.

You are now also saying that India and Pakistan have existed for only 60 years so the other Indian myth that India has thousands of years of history also stands busted.

Based on the above its quite clear that while the two people might have similarities they are not the same, they have lived in their own dwelling for thousands of years and have their own set of beliefs. They might have been geographically connected but by and large remained isolated from each other ( the archaeological ruins are proof of this )


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Subramanian said:


> correct but non-muslim punjabis do,right?




Sikh/Hindu Punjabis have no right over Muslim Punjabis, and vice versa.


----------



## pakdefender

Subramanian said:


> Yeah,all those guys who claim themselves as Jatt muslims,Rajput muslims and all?they were hindu at some point right?otherwise they would not be all that?
> 
> India and Pakistan have existed for 60 years meaning the countries separately.
> 
> you tell me if the people of pakistan were so unique and different and were separated from the indian side guys,why was there a partition?why did so many guys die?
> 
> and what do those archaeological ruins prove?
> 
> Actually if we go by your logic,India has too many differences.Things change evry 100-200 KM and the difference you ll find ll be much more than between indian and pakistani punjabis or for that matter up/rajasthan guys.
> 
> I am used to diversity,for me the next different thing is arabia/china/Malaysia.
> 
> perhaps for you the difference starts soone rthan earlier.Thats all.
> 
> I can even differentiate myself between me and my own dad and spot minute,small differences and they ll be valid too,so whats the point?
> 
> it is upto you.
> 
> People of spain and portugal are different but compared to a turk or a slav,they are pretty much the same.Thats what am saying.



The archaeological ruins prove that there was no ram , sita , gita , hanuman , ganesh or panchgaya ( the symbols of Hinduism ) in present day Pakistan therefore the belief of the people was never the same as that of the ones that were in India and the two populations diverged from each other for historically significant periods of time.

And if it&#8217;s a question of who is related to who then all humans are related to each other , all human beings carry the ONE unique genetic marker that links all human being to the &#8216;Scientific Adam&#8217; and if we take that as a reference then all people of the world , be them from any where are the &#8216;same&#8217;

So yeah it&#8217;s really a question of who, why and what decides on these differences to be significant or not to conclude that the two populations to be declared same or different.

In case of you Hindus, your all this effort is direct at proving that partition was wrong and the two nations theory was worng and the existance of Pakistan is not justified which it was not and we&#8217;ll club you to death if you dare to even try to came into our Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tantridamantri

pakdefender said:


> Let me bust this myth that once upon a time people of Panjab and Sindh were 'Hindus' in large numbers.
> Lets look at Hinduism.
> 
> Hindus have multiple statues of their gods , these are in the form of monkey ( Hanuman ) in the form of Elephant ( Ganesh ) and many others with some having multiple limbs and some in the form of a snake etc etc.
> 
> They make large number of these statues; big and small and of all sizes.
> 
> Now my question is WHERE in Pakistan have excavations revealed statues of monkey form Hanuman, elephant form Ganesh or Kali or Shiva and so many more , WHERE ?



You sure 'bout that? 

How about this little website (thanks to University of Pennsylvania) dedicated to the Salt Range temples in Pakistan? 

h t tp: //w w w. arthistory.upenn.edu/meister/pakistan . h t m l

Yes my friend. Very orthodox Hindu temples - Shiva, Vishnu et al. 

Lots of other similar archaeological sites exist in Pakistan of course, but you would naturally choose to ignore them 



> Answer is that NOWHERE in Pakistan have ANY artefacts been found that resemble these forms.



ORLY? 

From the same university website: _
The Discovery of Siva-Mahesvara Figure at Kafirkot." Lahore Museum Bulletin 9/2 (1996) [1998]: 51-56._

Perhaps you should pay a visit to the Lahore museum  




> a. There never existed in the land that is Pakistan the kind of Hinduism that is there in India.
> b. If it did exist at some time, all traces of it were wiped out so extensively that noting that is there today relates to it not even any ruins.



Make up your mind m'dear. Did Hinduism exist or was it wiped out? You can't have it both ways you know 

In any case, orthodox Hinduism DID exist in Pakistan with all the major deities - Shiva, Vishnu, Surya, etc. etc. being worshiped. Deal with it buddy!


----------



## pakdefender

These are small sized isolated temples and these finds further show that through out time there have been only pockets of such beliefs, nothing of large scale that left a huge foot print.

The depiction of Siva is again one of those things that Hindus can claim to be just about any thing, from any thing that looks like rod to a sitting figure in yoga position , Hindus claim that this is Siva

The case being that of 'proto-siva' that was found in the ruins of the indus valley. The 'proto-siva' is a figure of a man with bull like horns that was found in the Indus ruins , Hindus immediately claimed that this is 'siva' , there are numerous rebuttals that can found that this is not the case but Hindus doggedly claim that this is depiction of siva and somehow all ancient finds are somehow part of 'Hinduism' , they even bribe researchers ( in the form of awards and funds ) to put out theories favouring the Hindu point of view.

Pockets of Hinduism , as Hinduism is practised in India , do exist in Pakistan but these are insignificant and the 1998 census shows that there are about 2 million Hindus in Pakistan out of a total of 160 million which is about 1.25&#37; of the total population. .: Pakistan Hindu Council :. 

It just not possible that Hinduisms (as it is practised in India today) simply vanished from present day Pakistan.. It can only mean that the scope of its existence was very limited and had limited impact on the landscape and the people.

I have to say Hinduism as it exists in India today since its all too convenient for Hindus to claim everything and anything that has existed in present day Pakistan ( and India as well ) to be part of Hinduism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tantridamantri

Small and Isolated? Did you even bother to find anything out? 

Hinduism was a major religion in Pakistan during pre-Islamic times, and that's something you'll have to deal with. You can try to pretend that it was "minimal" or "marginal" or whatever, but that just shows your desperation to minimize any shared heritage with India.

The proportion of Hindus has obviously been reducing in Pakistan for several centuries, and culminating in 1947 when most Pakistani hindus were forced to migrate to India. 

You should really take a moment and think how ridiculous you sound when you claim that Hinduism "never existed" in Pakistan. It's completely absurd


----------



## amigo

pakdefender said:


> These are small sized isolated temples and these finds further show that through out time there have been only pockets of such beliefs, nothing of large scale that left a huge foot print.
> 
> The depiction of Siva is again one of those things that Hindus can claim to be just about any thing, from any thing that looks like rod to a sitting figure in yoga position , Hindus claim that this is Siva
> 
> The case being that of 'proto-siva' that was found in the ruins of the indus valley. The 'proto-siva' is a figure of a man with bull like horns that was found in the Indus ruins , Hindus immediately claimed that this is 'siva' , there are numerous rebuttals that can found that this is not the case but Hindus doggedly claim that this is depiction of siva and somehow all ancient finds are somehow part of 'Hinduism' , they even bribe researchers ( in the form of awards and funds ) to put out theories favouring the Hindu point of view.
> 
> Pockets of Hinduism , as Hinduism is practised in India , do exist in Pakistan but these are insignificant and the 1998 census shows that there are about 2 million Hindus in Pakistan out of a total of 160 million which is about 1.25% of the total population. .: Pakistan Hindu Council :.
> 
> It just not possible that Hinduisms (as it is practised in India today) simply vanished from present day Pakistan.. It can only mean that the scope of its existence was very limited and had limited impact on the landscape and the people.
> 
> I have to say Hinduism as it exists in India today since its all too convenient for Hindus to claim everything and anything that has existed in present day Pakistan ( and India as well ) to be part of Hinduism.



ok ok stop explaing now, pakistan has or had nothing to do with hinduism & hinduism is nothing to do with pakistan. now are u happy.

i wonder whenever hindu word comes why u ppl. go out of ur senses.


----------



## Rafi

I am a Pakistani Punjabi Jatt and I have more brotherly relations with our Pakistani brothers, whether Pashtun, Kashmiri, Balochi etc, than with so-called indian Jatts =

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

tantridamantri said:


> ^They try their best to prove that they are different . Sadly for them, the British-drawn boundary line was not based on any such historical considerations, but a simple and brutal religious census that ignored everything else.



Why do you indians love to live in the past and always try to convince us we are the same when we say we are different.

Pakistan and india are two different countries. Your people cant enter Pakistan without visa/passport and our people cant enter india without visa/passport. And neither of us can buy property in each other's countries.

Today, Pakistan has only 1% hindu population, most live in Sindh province.

Does it matter what our ancestors believed in thousands of years ago? Even the people of Mecca believed in a polythiest pagan religion like hinduism before Islam. In Islam, once you become Muslim you have nothing to do with your past religion.


And we Pakistanis are more than happy being Pakistanis. Its time you accept that. Were you even born when partition happened? Move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tantridamantri

Well of course it's a different country. No problemo. But it's still funny to see how some Pakistanis try to convince themselves that their history was always "different" from India and how the imaginary line in the sand has always existed


----------



## Omar1984

tantridamantri said:


> Well of course it's a different country. No problemo. But it's still funny to see how some Pakistanis try to convince themselves that their history was always "different" from India and how the imaginary line in the sand has always existed



If its just an imaginary line then try to cross it you will see yourself in Pakistani prisons like the thousands of indians who crossed the 'imaginary line" since 1947.

LONG LIVE THE BORDER BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA !!!!!!!!!!!!

KEEP THE INDIANS OUT

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

tantridamantri said:


> Well of course it's a different country. No problemo. But it's still funny to see how some Pakistanis try to convince themselves that their history was always "different" from India and how the *imaginary line* in the sand has always existed



Yes that imaginary line has always existed, the indus people of pakistan have nothing to do with gangetic people.

Just because you bhartis stole the name of ancient pakistan(India) doesn't mean pakistanis will accept you people as their own kind. Now look at the borders of alexander the great empire, indo greek empire, hephthalite empire, ghaznavid empire, indo-sassanid, indo-parthian, they all correspond to modern day border between india and pakistan.
Keep trying hard to show the world that pakistanis and indians are same people, no sane person is going to believe this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## absmonarch

Greek Geographer (and considered father of Geography), Eratosthenes, Head Librarian at the Great Library of Alexandira, drew this map in 220BC. 

The Map shows very accurate map of Indian peninsula with Indus river in the west and Ganga river in the east. Pataliputra, the largest city in the world at the time, is shown on the banks of Ganga river. 

Here is the links to view the map:

http ://www .19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/1895-Summary/Plates-150ppi/Plate-3a. jpg

(Please remove the spaces to view the link. I cannot post links).

So India = Indian subcontinent for 2300 years. This is true history. Not stealing, but real history.


----------



## Rafi

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.

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

This book has pretty much busted the contention of a single subcontinent, and shows the difference between the Indus Civilization (Pakistan) and bharat (modern india).


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> Greek Geographer (and considered father of Geography), Eratosthenes, Head Librarian at the Great Library of Alexandira, drew this map in 220BC.
> 
> The Map shows very accurate map of Indian peninsula with Indus river in the west and Ganga river in the east. Pataliputra, the largest city in the world at the time, is shown on the banks of Ganga river.
> 
> Here is the links to view the map:
> 
> http ://www .19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/1895-Summary/Plates-150ppi/Plate-3a. jpg
> 
> (Please remove the spaces to view the link. I cannot post links).
> 
> So India = Indian subcontinent for 2300 years. This is true history. Not stealing, but real history.



Very clever of you, Eratosthenes lived at the time when Ancient pakistan(India) and Ganga(Bharat) were united by a Mauryan king, any historian from that time will obviously draw a map that shows indus valley and ganga as one.

You people simply dont want to listen *FROM 7000BC TO 1200AD PAKISTAN AND BHARAT WERE UNITED FOR ONLY 100 YEARS. IN SIMPLE WORDS PAKISTAN AND INDIA WERE UNITED FOR 100 YEARS OUT OF 8800 YEARS UNTIL 1200AD*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## absmonarch

^Wrong! Eastern Pakistan and India united for much longer period. Maybe western part of Pakistan not united.


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> ^Wrong! Eastern Pakistan and India united for much longer period. Maybe western part of Pakistan not united.



Ok then please tell me the name of the empire which was ruling eastern pakistan


----------



## PureAryan

I repeat again except 100 year rule of Mauryans Indus valley(pakistan) and ganga valley(bharat) were never united until muslims came in 1200AD


----------



## absmonarch

Lot of different empires rule different parts of Ancient India. Ancient India have many kingdoms. But collectively always identify as "India" by learned people.

Ancient maps show "India" properly for 2300+ years.


----------



## Rafi

Pakistan has a 9,000 year history, and for the vast majority of that time - she was independent of bharat, and that is a fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## absmonarch

Since partition, you try to rewrite history by ignoring facts to the contrary. But unsuccessful.

Read what your own founder Jinnah said. Pakistan was meant to be utilitarian entity - meant to protect the communal rights of muslims of India. Not as separate nationalistic entity. Nationalism in Pakistan is result of Zia ul Haq and military establishment figures who use hatred against Hindus to gain power and suppress democracy.


----------



## Rafi

Pakistan has a 9,000 year history, and for the vast majority of that time - she was independent of bharat, and that is a fact.

Your assertions about Pakistan are borne from misinformation - and the Quaid, when he knew that the Hindus would not honour safe guards - went ahead with independence from Britain, and not partition from india.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## absmonarch

You are misinformed. Jinnah never sold his house in Bombay because he thought he could walk across the "border" every weekend to visit his relatives.

Fact is that he saw India and Pakistan as complimentary entities, and thought that India and Pakistan could form some loose federation after Independence. But that never happened because Islamist ideology take over in Pakistan.

Ask any educated Pakistan who is more than 50-60 years old and they will say same thing.

But Pakistani who grow up after Islamization believe such ridiculous things like Hindus are evil and Pakistan always exist.


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

absmonarch said:


> You are misinformed. Jinnah never sold his house in Bombay because he thought he could walk across the "border" every weekend to visit his relatives.
> 
> Fact is that he saw India and Pakistan as complimentary entities, and thought that India and Pakistan could form some loose federation after Independence. But that never happened because Islamist ideology take over in Pakistan.
> 
> Ask any educated Pakistan who is more than 50-60 years old and they will say same thing.
> 
> But Pakistani who grow up after Islamization believe such ridiculous things like Hindus are evil and Pakistan always exist.



The word "india" before 1947, was used to describe the geographic location of the south Asian region. Just like the word "middle east" is used to describe the geographic location of south-west and western Asian countries.

Just because iranians, arabs, kurds, turks, assyrians ect. are described as "middle easterners" doesn't mean they share the same history, language, ethncity, ect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## makikirkiri

Rafi said:


> Pakistan has a 9,000 year history, and for the vast majority of that time - she was independent of bharat, and that is a fact.
> 
> Your assertions about Pakistan are borne from misinformation - and the Quaid, when he knew that the Hindus would not honour safe guards - went ahead with independence from Britain, and not partition from india.


 Firstly , how could an Islamic country be existent more than 7000 yrs before the birth of mohammed?
What do you think was meant by the term "Bharat" all along during your profound history of 9000 yrs?
What was pakistan known as before it went ahead with it's independence from the British?


----------



## UnitedPak

makikirkiri said:


> Firstly , how could an Islamic country be existent more than 7000 yrs before the birth of mohammed?
> What do you think was meant by the term "Bharat" all along during your profound history of 9000 yrs?
> What was pakistan known as before it went ahead with it's independence from the British?



This ignorance is always displayed here and has been answered a million times before. Nobody mentioned an "Islamic country". Islam and 1947 independence are part of the long history of the Indus region which belongs to the Pakistani people. Indus valley history is Pakistani history.

Pakistan (Indus region) was part of the British Indian empire (not India) from *1849 - 1947*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PureAryan

makikirkiri said:


> Firstly , how could an Islamic country be existent more than 7000 yrs before the birth of mohammed?
> What do you think was meant by the term "Bharat" all along during your profound history of 9000 yrs?
> What was pakistan known as before it went ahead with it's independence from the British?



Stop attaching our history if you dont know anything about our ancestors, Pakistan has a 9000 year old recorded history, Bharat has a mere 60 year history. Pakistan's history starts with Mehrgarh civilization in 7000BC and it continues with Indus valley, Islam came in 711 AD but before we were buddhists, Vedics, zoroastrians, hindus were always minority. Pakistan has been known with different names all along, Sapta sindhwa, arywarta, melluha, sindh, pancanda, india(given by greeks now stolen by bharat) are some of pakistan's ancient name. Read history by Dr Ahmed Dani or any history book on Pakistan.

*If you have different views about pakistan's ancestors i suggest you post references rather lies and fabrication*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## makikirkiri

PureAryan said:


> Stop attaching our history if you dont know anything about our ancestors, Pakistan has a 9000 year old recorded history, Bharat has a mere 60 year history. Pakistan's history starts with Mehrgarh civilization in 7000BC and it continues with Indus valley, Islam came in 711 AD but before we were buddhists, Vedics, zoroastrians, hindus were always minority. Pakistan has been known with different names all along, Sapta sindhwa, arywarta, melluha, sindh, pancanda, india(given by greeks now stolen by bharat) are some of pakistan's ancient name. Read history by Dr Ahmed Dani or any history book on Pakistan.
> 
> *If you have different views about pakistan's ancestors i suggest you post references rather lies and fabrication*


 1.*Pakistan has a 9000 year old recorded history, Bharat has a mere 60 year history* : lol
2. If the Indus valley civilization belonged to the pakistani ancestors .. where the hell did the south indian dravidians (read people from tamil nadu, kerala , andhra and karnataka) pop out from?
3.Who the hell were Vedics ? Not Hindus?
Aren't zooroastrians originally hindus who started following a Zooroatrianism which was modified form of vedic Hinduism preached by Zarathustra? What the hell were the buddhists doing before Buddha was born if not practicing hinduism or zooroastrianism ?
4. So aryavarta was pakistan? Ever cared to find out the meaning and the extents of aryavarta? 
Sapta Sindhwa ? melluha? sindh? pancanda?Yeah right !all these were names of that part of india. First learn to pronounce them properly.. the way they were in the ancient times before your forefathers came about and started mispronouncing them.. uneducated as they were.
5. A little food for thought: Your Quaid -e -Azam said pakistan came into existence with the first conversion to islam in the sub continent. What are your views on his understanding of the history of pakistan?


----------



## makikirkiri

self delete


----------



## PureAryan

makikirkiri said:


> 1.*Pakistan has a 9000 year old recorded history, Bharat has a mere 60 year history* : lol
> 2. If the Indus valley civilization belonged to the pakistani ancestors .. where the hell did the south indian dravidians (read people from tamil nadu, kerala , andhra and karnataka) pop out from?
> 3.Who the hell were Vedics ? Not Hindus?
> Aren't zooroastrians originally hindus who started following a Zooroatrianism which was modified form of vedic Hinduism preached by Zarathustra? What the hell were the buddhists doing before Buddha was born if not practicing hinduism or zooroastrianism ?
> 4. So aryavarta was pakistan? Ever cared to find out the meaning and the extents of aryavarta?
> Sapta Sindhwa ? melluha? sindh? pancanda?Yeah right !all these were names of that part of india. First learn to pronounce them properly.. the way they were in the ancient times before your forefathers came about and started mispronouncing them.. uneducated as they were.
> 5. A little food for thought: Your Quaid -e -Azam said pakistan came into existence with the first conversion to islam in the sub continent. What are your views on his understanding of the history of pakistan?



Ok great
Zoroastrians were hindus
Vedics were hindus
buddhists were hindus
Indus people are tamils
Thanks i learned a lot

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmad

Zoroastrans were not hindus, for god's sake correct yourselves. Sometimes the rivalary between paksitanis and indians drive them to a really funny level.


----------



## makikirkiri

PureAryan said:


> Ok great
> Zoroastrians were hindus
> Vedics were hindus
> buddhists were hindus
> Indus people are tamils
> Thanks i learned a lot


 Yes u have .


----------



## PureAryan

Ahmad said:


> Zoroastrans were not hindus, for god's sake correct yourselves. Sometimes the rivalary between paksitanis and indians drive them to a really funny level.



No ahmed according to the guy above the whole world was indian and hindu before islam, he is making a joke of himself, the vedics were monotheists, the zoroastrians were also monotheists, indus people were same as pakistani people today.
Just because bharat has adopted aryan culture and aryan language from arywarta(pakistan) they have forgotten their dravidian roots

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Super duper Aryan man!

Google... *arywarta*(Pakistan) lol


Its *&#256;ry&#257;varta*, and most people there were not "Aryans". Brahmins, priests, etc 







This is basically the Indo-Ganginic plains.



> &#256;ry&#257;varta (Sanskrit: &#2310;&#2352;&#2381;&#2351;&#2366;&#2357;&#2352;&#2381;&#2340;, "abode of the Aryas") is a name for Northern India in classical Sanskrit literature. The Manu Smriti (2.22) gives the name to "the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the eastern to the western sea".
> The Vasistha Dharma Sutra I.8-9 and 12-13 locates &#256;ry&#257;varta to the east of the disappearance of the Sarasvati in the desert, to the west of Kalakavana, to the north of the mountains of Pariyatra and Vindhya and to the south of the Himalaya. Baudhayana Dharmasutra (BDS) 1.1.2.10 gives similar definitions and declares that &#256;ry&#257;varta is the land that lies west of Kalakavana, east of Adarsana, south of the Himalayas and north of the Vindhyas, but in BDS 1.1.2.11 &#256;ry&#257;varta is confined to the Ganges - Yamuna doab, and BDS 1.1.2.13-15. Pata&#241;jali's Mah&#257;bh&#257;&#7779;ya defines &#256;ry&#257;varta like the Vasistha Dharma Sutra.
> Some sutras recommend expiatory acts for those who have crossed the boundaries of &#256;ry&#257;varta. Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra recommends this for those who have crossed the boundaries of &#256;ry&#257;varta and ventured into far away places.
> The Gurjar Pratihar king in the tenth century was entitled as Maharajadhiraja of Aryavarta


----------



## makikirkiri

Ahmad said:


> Zoroastrans were not hindus, for god's sake correct yourselves. Sometimes the rivalary between paksitanis and indians drive them to a really funny level.


 true that not all zorashtrians "were" originally Vedic hindus.
But the discussion here is abt the so called zoroastrians of the indus valley.(if at all they ever existed)


----------



## Omar1984

absmonarch said:


> You are misinformed. Jinnah never sold his house in Bombay because he thought he could walk across the "border" every weekend to visit his relatives.
> 
> Fact is that he saw India and Pakistan as complimentary entities, and thought that India and Pakistan could form some loose federation after Independence. But that never happened because Islamist ideology take over in Pakistan.
> 
> Ask any educated Pakistan who is more than 50-60 years old and they will say same thing.
> 
> But Pakistani who grow up after Islamization believe such ridiculous things like Hindus are evil and Pakistan always exist.



Thats not true. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah always referred to your country as Hindustan and our country as Pakistan.

In 1947 when the British left the subcontinent, our elders believed British india was over and two separate countries formed, Pakistan and Hindustan, but you hindustanis kept the foreign-made words india and indians because you wanted to keep the history too but our history of our land belongs to us and your history of your land belongs to you.

Btw, Quaid-e-Azam Muahmmad Ali Jinnah said in a speech he wanted Hindustan and Pakistan to be friendly neighbouring countries like Canada and the United States, but he soon realized that could not happen after the first war over Kashmir in 1948.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

makikirkiri said:


> 1.*Pakistan has a 9000 year old recorded history, Bharat has a mere 60 year history* : lol
> 2. If the Indus valley civilization belonged to the pakistani ancestors .. where the hell did the south indian dravidians (read people from tamil nadu, kerala , andhra and karnataka) pop out from?
> 3.Who the hell were Vedics ? Not Hindus?
> Aren't zooroastrians originally hindus who started following a Zooroatrianism which was modified form of vedic Hinduism preached by Zarathustra? What the hell were the buddhists doing before Buddha was born if not practicing hinduism or zooroastrianism ?
> 4. So aryavarta was pakistan? Ever cared to find out the meaning and the extents of aryavarta?
> Sapta Sindhwa ? melluha? sindh? pancanda?Yeah right !all these were names of that part of india. First learn to pronounce them properly.. the way they were in the ancient times before your forefathers came about and started mispronouncing them.. uneducated as they were.
> 5. A little food for thought: Your Quaid -e -Azam said pakistan came into existence with the first conversion to islam in the sub continent. What are your views on his understanding of the history of pakistan?




And where did our ancestors come from? The sky?

LOL sounth indians share absolutely nothing with Pakistani people. Not Religion, not culture, not food, not clothing, not language.

Even your north indians dont consider south indians to be the same as them and you want us Pakistanis to have a link with south indians.

We may have some links with indian punjabis but not south indians 

LOL have you even looked at the map. Wow what a long journey from the Indus Valley (Pakistan) to south india. I think south indians came from africa (makes more sense).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Ahmad said:


> *Zoroastrans were not hindus*, for god's sake correct yourselves. Sometimes the rivalary between paksitanis and indians drive them to a really funny level.



Quite true!

But there is heavy similarity between Vedic Hinduism and Zorastrianism.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

> but you hindustanis kept the foreign-made words india and indians because you wanted to keep the history too but our history of our land belongs to us and your history of your land belongs to you.



Hindustani itself is a foreign word. Bharat is also the official name of India.

Your religion, name, etc is foreign to your land fool! 



> our elders believed British india was over and two separate countries formed, Pakistan and Hindustan



Did your leaders want a land for Muslims and other for Hindus and called it Hindustan?? No, India is the land of Indian including Sikhs, Christians(my background), Jains, Muslims, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc


----------



## makikirkiri

PureAryan said:


> No ahmed according to the guy above the whole world was indian and hindu before islam, he is making a joke of himself, the vedics were monotheists, the zoroastrians were also monotheists, indus people were same as pakistani people today.
> Just because bharat has adopted aryan culture and aryan language from arywarta(pakistan) they have forgotten their dravidian roots


 Kudos to u for enlightening everyone on this forum that vedics were monotheists. What do u think is hinduism? Now if you start arguing there are number of gods in hinduism , just count the number of gods in the Vedic times. 
Who said we forgot our dravidian roots. You are trying to make up for ur lack of self esteem by trying to suggest a racial superiority. To remind you--the all intelligent being , it was me who brought up the fact that dravidians are in india. 

and No no .. nothing can be more funnier than bharat has history of 60 yrs and pakistan 9000. No never.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

It is PAKISTANIS

not Paksitanis or Paskitanis. Type slower, spell the country name correctly. Or your post(s) will be reported.


k thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Varghese said:


> Super duper Aryan man!
> 
> Google... *arywarta*(Pakistan) lol
> 
> 
> Its *&#256;ry&#257;varta*, and most people there were not "Aryans". Brahmins, priests, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is basically the Indo-Ganginic plains.



Aryans were not Hindu


The Aryans associated with the Rig Veda and Sapta Sindhu (i.e. today's Pakistan region) were definitely not Hindu because they did not follow the Hindu caste system, they ate beef, sacrificed cows, culturally were closer to Avestan Iranians, forbade idolatry, etc. Also, not a single Hindu idol/temple has been excavated from the Rig Vedic Aryan period. 

Here are some excerpts that support my views: 

&#8220;The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas&#8221;. (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown) 

According to A. L. Stravrianos on the non-Hindu nature of Rig Vedic Aryans: 

"The word Veda means knowledge. There were originally four Vedas, but the most important is the Rigveda, which is also the oldest. The Rigveda is a primary source for study of the early Aryans; it is in essence a collection of 1028 hymns arranged in ten books. Per the Vedas, Aryans worshiped elements of nature in personified forms, and idolatry was forbidden. 

"In Rig Veda, the gods of Dyaus is the same as the Greek Zeus (Roman Jupiter), Mitra is the same as the Graeco-Roman Mithras, Ushas is the same as the Greek Eos (Roman Aurora), and Agni is the same as the Graeco-Roman Ignis. 

"The image of the Aryans that emerges from Vedic literature is that of a virile people, fond of war, drinking, chariot racing, and gambling. Their god of war, Indra, was an ideal Aryan warrior: &#8216;he dashed into battle joyously, wore golden armor, and was able to consume the flesh of three hundred buffaloes and drink three lakes of liquor at one time&#8217;. 

"When they first arrived in the South Asia the Aryans were primarily pastoralists. Their economic life centered around their cattle and wealth was judged on the basis of the size of herds. As the newcomers settled in fertile river valleys, they gradually shifted more to agriculture. They lived in villages consisting of a number of related families. Several villages comprised a clan, and several clans a tribe, at the head of which was the king. The king&#8217;s authority depended on his personal prowess and initiative, and was limited by the council of nobles, and in some tribes by the freemen. 

"The outstanding characteristics of this early Aryan society was its basic difference from the later Hinduism. Cows were not worshipped but eaten. Intoxicating spirits were not forsaken but joyously consumed. There were classes but no castes, and the priests were subordinate to the nobles rather than at the top of the social pyramid. In short, Aryan society resembled much more the contemporary Indo-European societies than it did Hinduism that was to develop in later centuries in the Gangetic Valley." 

Further supports how a few Aryans who later migrated eastward towards India slowly became Hindu because of Dravidic-Mundic influences: 

"The castes were hardened by the time the Aryans occupied the middle land i.e., the Gangetic Valley and distinguished themselves from their brethern in Sind and the Punjab who were despised by them for not observing the rules of caste .... and for their non-Brahmanical character.&#8221; (Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur) 

&#8220;While some Aryans had by now expanded far into India, their old home in the Punjab, Sind and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely, and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where sacrifices are not performed.&#8221; (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham) 

This is further supported by Dr. Gurupdesh Singh: 

"From geographical information in the RigVeda, the Vedic Period (1500-500 BC) was confined to the northwest. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the northwest (Saptha Sindhva) tell that the Vedic peoples worshipped non-Brahmanical Gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra), ate cows, elected their chiefs, drank liqor, considered the Punjab rivers to be sacred, and refer to people living to the south in the gangetic region as 'Dasyas'! None of the gangetic Brahmanical gods (e.g Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in RigVeda hyms nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite tablets. Avestan terms for soldiers ('rathaestar') and citizens ('vastriyo') are similar to Vedic-derived terms (kshatriyas, vasihyas) but the Avestan term for priest ('athravan') is not even close to 'Brahmanas'. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'; 'forbid Brahmins' from even visiting the northwest country ('Vahika-desa'); and depict dark Dravidian Gods like Krishna fighting and defeating Vedic Aryan gods like Indra (Mahabharta). Similarly, the RigVeda contains taboos and injunctions against the 'dasya-varta' region to the south of Saptha Sindhva and praises Indra (god of thunderbolt) for victories over 'dasya-purahs' (dasya cities). 

"Both early RigVedic and gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' at the ganga indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the northwest did not accept the gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture and Brahmanical caste ideology. The eastern gangetic heartland is not only historically a separate region, but geographically resides over 1500 miles to the southeast of the Saptha Sindhva country. Uptil the advent of Mohammed Ghori in the 13th century, the northwest was politically unified with southasia only 92 years under the Mauryas (out of 27 centuries) since the start of Saptha Sindhva&#8217;s Vedic period (1500 BC). 

"A few Vedic tribes from Saptha Sindhva broke RigVedic norms and migrated southward. These numerically outnumbered groups expanding into the trans-gangetic region near the end of the Vedic period (8-6th century BC) tried to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order. Within a few generations of acquiring control over the foreign Gangasthan, the minority Vedic tribes were usurped by the indigenous 'borrowed' priesthood; their Aryan religion, gods and customs mostly deposed and supplanted with indigenous gangetic gods and mythologies; and their new social order (varna or color based) replaced with the pre-existing profession (jati) based Brahmanical caste system ('chatur-varna' ). Through religious manipulation and intrigue, the Vedic in-comers to Gangasthan were usurped and made to surrender their political rule and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient chownkidars of their 'superior' dravidic Brahmanas." 

Now coming to idolatry which is an integral part of Hinduism, there are clear evidences of early Aryans rejecting it : 

&#8220;They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti&#8212;the material cause of the world&#8212;in place of the All-pervading God, but those who worship visible things born of the Prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time.&#8221;&#8212;Yajur Veda 40:9. 

&#8220;The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.&#8221;&#8212;Yajur Veda 32:3. 

Also, early Aryans had a Monist belief of worshipping elements of nature (in non-idolatrous personified forms): &#8220;There is only one God, worship Him&#8221; (Rig Veda, Vol. 6, Hymn 45 vs 16 ) and &#8220;Do not worship any one beside Him&#8221; (Rig Veda Bk. 8, Hymn 1, Vs 1) 

Then there are clear evidences in the Rig Veda that Aryans regularly ate beef and sacrificed cows for religious purposes which are strictly forbidden in Hinduism: 

Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single- colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647]. In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire. 

Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, &#8220;On the occasion of a girl&#8217;s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered&#8221;, and Rigveda (6/17/1) states that &#8220;Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.&#8221; 

Quoting from Rigveda, historian H. H Wilson writes, &#8220;the sacrifice and consumption of horse and cow appears to have been common in the early periods of the Aryan culture.&#8221;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

Varghese said:


> Hindustani itself is a foreign word. Bharat is also the official name of India.
> 
> Your religion, name, etc is foreign fool!



The word Pakistan was made by Muslim Punjabi Gujjar Chaudhry Rahmat Ali in the 1930's who was an active member of the Pakistan movement he was not a foreigner he was always part of the zameen of Pakistan.

Even the name of your religion, hinduism, was made by foreigners.

And Islam is for all of humanity, 13.5% of india's population is also Muslim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Varghese said:


> Super duper Aryan man!
> 
> This is basically the Indo-Ganginic plains.



"From geographical information in the RigVeda, the Vedic Period (1500-500 BC) was confined to the *northwest(pakistan)*. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the *northwest (Saptha Sindhva)* tell that the Vedic peoples *worshipped non-Brahmanical Gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra), ate cows, elected their chiefs, drank liqor, considered the Punjab rivers to be sacred*, and refer to *people* living to the *south in the gangetic region as 'Dasyas*'! *None of the gangetic Brahmanical gods (e.g Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in RigVeda hyms nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite tablets. *Avestan terms for soldiers ('rathaestar') and citizens ('vastriyo') are similar to Vedic-derived terms (kshatriyas, vasihyas) but the Avestan term for priest ('athravan') is not even close to 'Brahmanas'. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'; 'forbid Brahmins' from even visiting the northwest country ('Vahika-desa'); and depict dark Dravidian Gods like Krishna fighting and defeating Vedic Aryan gods like Indra (Mahabharta). Similarly, the RigVeda contains taboos and injunctions against the '*dasya-varta' *region to the south of Saptha Sindhva and praises Indra (god of thunderbolt) for victories over 'dasya-purahs' (dasya cities).


----------



## makikirkiri

Omar1984 said:


> And where did our ancestors come from? The sky?
> 
> LOL sounth indians share absolutely nothing with Pakistani people. Not Religion, not culture, not food, not clothing, not language.
> 
> Even your north indians dont consider south indians to be the same as them and you want us Pakistanis to have a link with south indians.
> 
> We may have some links with indian punjabis but not south indians
> 
> LOL have you even looked at the map. Wow what a long journey from the Indus Valley (Pakistan) to south india. I think south indians came from africa (makes more sense).



we don't want to have any link with you pakistanis. So firstly stop flattering yourself.South indians don't have much in common even with the north indians. The indus valley civilisation was a dravidian civilization. the native dravids moved out succubming to the aryan invasion . Indus valley civilisation is in pakistan..true.
It belongs to pakistanis .... false. What makes sense to you makes little academic sense. However the works of numerous historians and academicians suggests that IVC was infact dravidian and not an aryan civilisation.


----------



## PureAryan

Varghese said:


> Super duper Aryan man!
> 
> 
> This is basically the Indo-Ganginic plains.



To all indian 
Last time, Arywarta was the region composed of Indus valley, Punjab and sindh were sacred. The aryavartans(punjabis and sindhis) called 
the people living in ganga valley as Dasya vartans. 
Read the whole article if you can
Ofcourse the whole world is wrong but you people are right.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Omar1984 said:


> LOL have you even looked at the map. Wow what a long journey from the Indus Valley (Pakistan) to south india.



If Humans can migrate from Africa to Australia and South America,you doubt the possibility of a 3000km migration ?








> I think south indians came from africa (makes more sense).



All Humans came from Africa.

By the way,there is no modern genetic link between Africans and Dravidians. 






Genetic and racial significance doesn't hold to South Indians ,as they mixed.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Omar1984 said:


> The word Pakistan was made by Muslim Punjabi Gujjar Chaudhry Rahmat Ali in the 1930's who was an active member of the Pakistan movement he was not a foreigner he was always part of the zameen of Pakistan.
> 
> Even the name of your religion, hinduism, was made by foreigners.
> 
> And Islam is for all of humanity, 13.5&#37; of india's population is also Muslim.



Bharat is also an official name....

Dont like the name Hinduism? Ok what about sanatana dharma ?

Islam is for all humanity, I agree, but it is foreign religion and culture to the land. Just like some guy in Africa adopted the religion, is the same way we adopted the name India. Took it an made it our own.

BTW names all over the world are foreign in nature..

Britain, Gernany, China, Persia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, etc. All are NOT indigenous, whats your point?



PureAryan said:


> To all indian
> Last time, Arywarta was the region composed of Indus valley, Punjab and sindh were sacred. The aryavartans(punjabis and sindhis) called
> the people living in ganga valley as Dasya vartans.
> Read the whole article if you can
> Ofcourse the whole world is wrong but you people are right.



Google *Dasya vartans.*

I love how people have sort of fake superior complex on the internet!


----------



## PureAryan

Varghese said:


> Google *Dasya vartans.*



Like i said the whole world is wrong but you people(bhartis) are right.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

PureAryan said:


> Like i said the whole world is wrong but you people(bhartis) are right.



Right, right, totally super-duper aryan man from space.

You should join storm front.

I am out..


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Varghese said:


> Right, right, totally super-duper aryan man from space.
> 
> You should join storm front.
> 
> I am out..



Some people don't even understand the term _Aryan_ is obsolete from a racial,ethnic point of view.

Its only relevant from linguistic point.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Historical background of Pakistan's ethnic groups will a more appropriate and relevant subject to discuss here.

Another important point to note would be the fact that modern day Pakistan was a buffer for invasions/migrations to modern day India.
Hence the impact of Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Kushans, Hephthalites, Afghans, Arabs etc should not be ignored in this process.


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Bombensturm said:


> Historical background of Pakistan's ethnic groups will a more appropriate and relevant subject to discuss here.
> 
> Another important point to note would be the fact that modern day Pakistan was a buffer for invasions/migrations to modern day India.
> Hence the impact of Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Kushans, Hephthalites, Afghans, Arabs etc should not be ignored in this process.



Pakistanis are not related to arabs. We are genetically very different from arabs. arab genes in Pakistan are at very low levels, and can only be found is parts of Balochistan and Sindh.

Distribution of Haplogroup J (arab/semetic marker) ;


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

PakiiZeeshan said:


> Pakistanis are not related to arabs. We are genetically very different from arabs. arab genes in Pakistan are at very low levels, and can only be found is parts of Balochistan and Sindh.
> 
> Distribution of Haplogroup J;



Very interesting!

Do you any info on the most frequently occurring haplogroup in Pakistan?


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Bombensturm said:


> Very interesting!
> 
> Do you any info on the most frequently occurring haplogroup in Pakistan?



Haplogroup R1a1a most frequently occuring in Pakistan;


----------



## Water Car Engineer

*Haplogroup L*






*Haplogroup R1a
*










*Haplogroup T *






*Haplogroup J*

*ancient Haplogroup F. This haplogroup and its subclades contain more than 90&#37; of the world's existing male population. Two places of origin, either in the Middle east or South Asia.*










******************

*Haplogroup H-It is a branch of Haplogroup F, and is believed to have arisen in India between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago. Its probable site of introduction is India since it is concentrated there. It seems to represent the main Y-haplogroup of the indigenous paleolithic inhabitants of India, because it is the most frequent Y-haplogroup of tribal populations (25-35%). On the other hand, its presence in upper castes is quite rare (ca. 10%)*


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Even though Pakistan and india are right next to each other, there's still a huge difference between us in skin colour.. it's weird;






On this map Pakistan is mostly Medium yellow (15-17), and dark yellow (18-20) in South Pakistan.. but for india it's vastly different from Pakistan, india is mostly orange (21-23) , medium-purple (24-26) or dark-purple (27-29). 
indians are more similiar to sub-sahara Africans, East Africans, and Australian abrogines in terms of skin colour... it's just soo weird.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

PakiiZeeshan said:


> it's just soo weird.



As you move down the equator the pigmentation gets darker.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

> Even though Pakistan and india are right next to each other, there's still a huge difference between us in skin colour.. it's weird;



Its not strange at all, the once closest to the equator on average are darker. It also depends on environment too. In parts of Africa when the sun is baring on you 24/7, eventually some sort of natural selection will choose darker skin tone for better survivability. And its not a HUGE DIFFERENCE. Have you seen everyday Punjabis from Pakistan in New York?A lot of them are tunes of brown.


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Varghese said:


> Its not strange at all, the once closest to the equator are the darkest. And its not a HUGE DIFFERENCE. Have you seen everyday Punjabis from Pakistanis in New York?



Yes, it's a *huge difference* =)

I don't live in New York, but i know there are a fair amount of Pakistani-Americans there.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

PakiiZeeshan said:


> Yes, it's a *huge difference* =)
> 
> I don't live in New York, but i know there are a fair amount of Pakistani-Americans there.



Maybe with Pashtons or mixed, a lot of Punjabi-Pakistanis are shades of brown..

I see Pakistanis like every day, lol.


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Varghese said:


> Maybe with Pashtons or mixed, a lot of Punjabi-Pakistanis are brown toned..
> 
> I see Pakistanis like every day, lol.



Yeah, alot of Pakistani Punjabis are brown, but alot are white skinned and olive skinned too =)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

So glad for my fellow Pakistanis busting the myth of a unified sub continent, especially our learned Brother Pure Aryan and also PakZeeshan

Indus Valley Civilization = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## absmonarch

Maybe you have not seen picture of flood victim on TV. The poor pakistani people look just brown like most Indian.


Only rich pakistani who live inside big house look fair.


----------



## Dance

absmonarch said:


> Maybe you have not seen picture of flood victim on TV. The poor pakistani people look just brown like most Indian.
> 
> YouTube - Raw Video: Aid Pours for Pakistan Flood Victims
> 
> Only rich pakistani who live inside big house look fair.



Thats a pretty dumb generalization, what about the "poor people" from Khyber-FATA? Pakistanis range from a variety of colors.


----------



## absmonarch

Yes but majority of Pakistanis from Sindh and Punjab. Poor farmer from Sindh and Punjab look like what show in video.

Sindh and Punjab people are same like Indians, and "Ancient Indians" 

Maybe other Baloch and Pashtun people different from "Ancient Indians".


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

absmonarch said:


> Maybe you have not seen picture of flood victim on TV. The poor pakistani people look just brown like most Indian.



Poor people usually take jobs like manual labor and are continuously exposed to sun,naturally making them darker.


----------



## absmonarch

So same like Indians no? If I look at video, I cannot tell if India or Pakistan (only by muslim dress I can guess maybe Pakistan).

Majority of poor Pakistanis and "Indus people" look like that only. No difference.

But rich, fair Pakistani want to protect and feel superior, so they say Indians dark and we are fair.


----------



## pakdefender

the south indians have gone to great lengths to:
a) disprove the Aryan invasion theory 
b) cliam the indus valley as a dravidian settlement.

Following is an interview of Ahmed Hassan Dani , a renowned Pakistani archaeologist, he got a gold medal from Banaras Hindu University and here is what he had to say 

Ancient Indus Valley Script: Dani Interview Text Only 

Now there are other researchers also who the Tamil Nadu gang has been showering with medals and funds so as to show that some how the indus valley civilisation was linked with south india where as there just isnt evidence to support this claim.

For the tamil nadu telagu gang this is a highly politicised part of ancient history for which they are willing to go to great lenghts to re-write it from their point of view


----------



## absmonarch

Where I say south India or Tamil Nadu? Cannot you read my posts?

Can you make out from video of flood victims, whether they are in Lahore or Mathura? I cannot make out. Same people.

TV never show video of poor people. show only rich fair Pakistani. So only when poor people die, they show them. That is why flood victim video I post.


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> Yes but majority of Pakistanis from Sindh and Punjab. Poor farmer from Sindh and Punjab look like what show in video.
> 
> *Sindh and Punjab *people are same like Indians, and "Ancient Indians"
> 
> Maybe other Baloch and Pashtun people different from "Ancient Indians".



I wouldn't say that, In northern punjab people are quite fair compared to southern punjab. Punjab is not a race its a region and various different ethnic group live their, i can agree to some extent that interior sindhis look like indians but not all of Sindhis


----------



## pakdefender

absmonarch said:


> Where I say south India or Tamil Nadu? Cannot you read my posts?
> 
> Can you make out from video of flood victims, whether they are in Lahore or Mathura? I cannot make out. Same people.
> 
> TV never show video of poor people. show only rich fair Pakistani. So only when poor people die, they show them. That is why flood victim video I post.
> 
> YouTube - UN Says Millions Without Help in Pakistan Floods





quite frankly the tone of skin means nothing in terms of belonging , if I were to grab one guy from Dublin and one from London , they will both look very similar but they are not the same. The Irish are Celts where as the English are Anglo-Saxons.

Similiary people from india and Pakistan might have similarities but they are not the the same ... this fact just doesnt sink into your thick heads.


----------



## absmonarch

They are the same, but you cannot accept because you want to protect 'Ideology of Pakistan' that was introduced by Pakistani Army in 1960s.

Jinnah never said about looks or race. He only talk about religion. But later race also added by racial supremacist Pakistani Army people who say that Pakistanis fair and hindus dark. Total rubbish.

India is happy with border. We don't want Pakistan. But we would appreciate if you recognize the fact. No harm in that. Pakistan will not disappear if you appreciate fact. But maybe the radical nationalist element would become weak and it will be better for future of Pakistan.

Bangladesh also free country, but they don't teach that Bangladesh people are different race from Indians.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

In that sense there is no such thing as a Pakistani look. Somebody from Chitral or Hunza Gilgit may not look like somebody from Kurram or Dera Ismail Khan who won't look like someone from lets say Faisalabad or Azad Hyderabad

we have many shapes, sizes and colours in our country.......it's a huge gift for Pakistan which not many other countries could brag about


we must celebrate it


----------



## PureAryan

> absmonarch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are the same, but you cannot accept because you want to protect 'Ideology of Pakistan' that was introduced by Pakistani Army in 1960s.
> 
> Jinnah never said about looks or race. He only talk about religion. But later race also added by racial supremacist Pakistani Army people who say that Pakistanis fair and hindus dark. Total rubbish.
> 
> India is happy with border. We don't want Pakistan. But we would appreciate if you recognize the fact. No harm in that. Pakistan will not disappear if you appreciate fact. But maybe the radical nationalist element would become weak and it will be better for future of Pakistan.
> 
> Bangladesh also free country, but they don't teach that Bangladesh people are different race from Indians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong in acknowledging if one is dark or not, I myself has seen many european looking green eyed indian beauties but on average indians are darker than pakistanis, just as punjabis are darker than pushtun. Why do you want us to accept what we are not and we will never be. History has shown bangladeshis and indians have always remain united, bengalis have the same culture, tradition, language except religion, they are your people, but pakistanis are not your people. Pakistan is a natural extension of central asia.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## absmonarch

You want to believe that because you are paranoid about being "different" from India. But Bangladesh people are not so paranoid. They can appreciate that people and history is same, but only modern boundary is different. That way enmity is reduce and cooperation increase. 

Dark skin people also equally beautiful. But because of racism us subcontinent people think that only fair skin people are beautiful. So we like to pretend that we are all fair and thus "beautiful".


----------



## pakdefender

absmonarch said:


> They are the same, but you cannot accept because you want to protect 'Ideology of Pakistan' that was introduced by Pakistani Army in 1960s.
> 
> Jinnah never said about looks or race. He only talk about religion. But later race also added by racial supremacist Pakistani Army people who say that Pakistanis fair and hindus dark. Total rubbish.
> 
> India is happy with border. We don't want Pakistan. But we would appreciate if you recognize the fact. No harm in that. Pakistan will not disappear if you appreciate fact. But maybe the radical nationalist element would become weak and it will be better for future of Pakistan.
> 
> Bangladesh also free country, but they don't teach that Bangladesh people are different race from Indians.



first of all 'indian' is a not a race to begin with and NO, Pakistanis are not the same as indians .. 8 out of 10 times a Pakistani can tell just by the dress, the built and the face cut of the individual if he/she is indian or Pakistani wihtout taking into account skin tones so why you keep insiting that they are same when to keen eye the differences are obvious ?

Dont get me worng I belive that all humans are created equal by God but humans are differenitated based on 'Taqwa' .. ( this is my beilf and you dont have to ascribe to it ) however you indians should get this rubbish out of your systems that Indians and Pakistanis are the 'same' people as this is not the case and has never been the case

basically you use this mantra to undermie the very creation of Pakistan


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

with all due respect it is only the indians who harp and show their complex over skin colour and all that

of course in Pakistan some aging old aunties here and there will praise a 'fair' child or son in law but its an old passe mentality........at least based on my life i never much hear about it in Pakistan

whereas u watch bollywood or their commercials (i personally don't) and you see that the people they choose are totally unrepresentative of their population (the accents, the obvious application of skin creams and all that stuff)

who cares about skin colour? Westerners pay good money to sit in those machines just so they can get darker and here are people --some of whom are ashamed of a little bit of pigment in their skin


----------



## absmonarch

pakdefender said:


> first of all 'indian' is a not a race to begin with and NO, Pakistanis are not the same as indians .. 8 out of 10 times a Pakistani can tell just by the dress, the built and the face cut of the individual if he/she is indian or Pakistani wihtout taking into account skin tones so why you keep insiting that they are same when to keen eye the differences are obvious ?
> 
> Dont get me worng I belive that all humans are created equal by God but humans are differenitated based on 'Taqwa' .. ( this is my beilf and you dont have to ascribe to it ) however you indians should get this rubbish out of your systems that Indians and Pakistanis are the 'same' people as this is not the case and has never been the case
> 
> basically you use this mantra to undermie the very creation of Pakistan



Nobody try to undermine creating of Pakistan, only undermine the racist thinking that Pakistanis look different. 

Maybe Baloch and Pashtun look bit different, but Eastern Pakistani look same as Indian. 

If you try so hard to find differences, then you can find many differences within Pakistan also. Could use the same argument to undermine Pakistani unity. If you accept that differences are less and not worthy of exaggeration, then cooperation possible.

If you look at video of poor farmer in both countries, look same. Impossible to say whether India or Pakistan.


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> Nobody try to undermine creating of Pakistan, only undermine the racist thinking that Pakistanis look different.
> 
> Maybe Baloch and Pashtun look bit different, but Eastern Pakistani look same as Indian.
> 
> If you try so hard to find differences, then you can find many differences within Pakistan also. Could use the same argument to undermine Pakistani unity. If you accept that differences are less and not worthy of exaggeration, then cooperation possible.
> 
> If you look at video of poor farmer in both countries, look same. Impossible to say whether India or Pakistan.



There are some indian looking pakistanis but it's their features which distinguishes them, take for example shoaib akhtar, racially he looks indian, but he is well built, tall and his facial features are unlike any indians.


----------



## absmonarch

Just like PureAryan - his name is also offensive. He sound like Nazi Hitler - try to prove that Pakistani are taller or fairer but reality, poor people same in both country. 

Why choose Shoaib Akhthar? Many Indian also tall and broad. But that does not have any meaning.


----------



## Omar1984

absmonarch said:


> Yes but majority of Pakistanis from Sindh and Punjab. Poor farmer from Sindh and Punjab look like what show in video.
> 
> Sindh and Punjab people are same like Indians, and "Ancient Indians"
> 
> Maybe other Baloch and Pashtun people different from "Ancient Indians".



LOL indians think they are experts on Pakistanis.

Hey indian dont try to divide us Pakistanis.

Even dark Pakistanis who resemble indians dont like indians 

Yes Pakistanis come in all different skin colors but its none of your business because in the end of the day we are Pakistanis and you are indians you have your india and we have our Pakistan.

Do you think a dark skinned Sindhi Pakistani will ever side with an indian over a white skin Pakhtun Pakistani 

LONG LIVE THE BORDER BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pakdefender

The thing is that somehow Pakistanis can tell who is indian and who is from Pakistan .. they can just tell , it just works this way.

Its actually the same in many parts of Europe also ... to most outsiders Europeans look the 'same' but the ones who live in that place can immediately tell whose from outside town and whose the 'same'

Its not racism or xenophobia but over time people develop pecularites about themselves which just differentate them from even their neighbour.

So indians should give it a rest ... we are not the same .. just too bad I guess

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

I like this video and it has many Punjabis and Sindhis in the video:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## absmonarch

pakdefender said:


> The thing is that somehow Pakistanis can tell who is indian and who is from Pakistan .. they can just tell , it just works this way.
> 
> Its actually the same in many parts of Europe also ... to most outsiders Europeans look the 'same' but the ones who live in that place can immediately tell whose from outside town and whose the 'same'
> 
> Its not racism or xenophobia but over time people develop pecularites about themselves which just differentate them from even their neighbour.
> 
> So indians should give it a rest ... we are not the same .. just too bad I guess



So Indian can also tell the differences in different part of India. But we are all one people. share same history an ancient Identity.


----------



## absmonarch

Omar1984 said:


> LOL indians think they are experts on Pakistanis.
> 
> Hey indian dont try to divide us Pakistanis.
> 
> Even dark Pakistanis who resemble indians dont like indians
> 
> Yes Pakistanis come in all different skin colors but its none of your business because in the end of the day we are Pakistanis and you are indians you have your india and we have our Pakistan.
> 
> Do you think a dark skinned Sindhi Pakistani will ever side with an indian over a white skin Pakhtun Pakistani
> 
> LONG LIVE THE BORDER BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA.



You are paranoid and afraid. You are afraid that border will disappear if you accept fact. 

Nobody talk about 'choosing' or 'side'. 

Post selective video does not help. I post non-selective video of ordinary people.


----------



## Omar1984

absmonarch said:


> You are paranoid and afraid. You are afraid that border will disappear if you accept fact.
> 
> Nobody talk about 'choosing' or 'side'.
> 
> Post selective video does not help. I post non-selective video of ordinary people.



Why would I be afraid. 

You indians tried to invade Lahore in 1965 and we kicked you indians out. Today Pakistan is a nuclear power and no way indians can try to invade Pakistan again or else nuclear weapons will be flying all over delhi and mumbai.

Btw if we want to make any border disappear it will be with a friendly neighbour like China. Certainly not with a hostile neighbour like india.

LONG LIVE THE BORDER BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA AND ALSO LONG LIVE VISA PROCESS FOR INDIANS TRYING TO ENTER PAKISTAN.

YOU INDIANS ARE FOREIGNERS TO US JUST LIKE AFRICANS ARE. GO ON NOW UNITE WITH NEPAL YOU WILL HAVE A BETTER CHANCE WITH THEM.


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> So Indian can also tell the differences in different part of India. But we are all one people. *share same history* an ancient Identity.



Can you enlighten us a bit on "share same history"


----------



## pakdefender

absmonarch said:


> So Indian can also tell the differences in different part of India. But we are all one people. share same history an ancient Identity.



The indus was never yours, its people were not like you , people of the plains of indus dont have much to share with whatever is that you call 'indian'


----------



## Dance

I wonder why indians always want to lump Pakistanis and indians together?! Sure Pakistan has SOME similarities with india but there is still a huge part of Pakistan ( the western and northern parts mainly) who share nothing in common with india.


----------



## PureAryan

Bombensturm said:


> The unfortunate part is, foreigners can't differentiate.
> 
> 
> And Seems like Pakistanis use it as advantage.
> 
> Pakistanis pose as Indians after NY bomb scare



Not trying to sound racist but from my own personal experience majority of pakistanis in America are mohajir those who migrated from india to pakistan, So if mohajirs are trying to be indian their is nothing wrongs, its their ancestral homeland


----------



## Dance

Bombensturm said:


> The unfortunate part is, foreigners can't differentiate.
> 
> 
> And Seems like Pakistanis use it as advantage.
> 
> Pakistanis pose as Indians after NY bomb scare



Maybe 2 people did that and that made headlines. I live in the U.S and no Pakistani around me even thought of doing that. 


Anyways I've never met a Pakistani who would ever want to be called an indian. Pakistanis get offended when you call us indians


----------



## Omar1984

Bombensturm said:


> The unfortunate part is, foreigners can't differentiate.
> 
> 
> And Seems like Pakistanis use it as advantage.
> 
> Pakistanis pose as Indians after NY bomb scare



I live not too far from New York and I would call myself anything but indian. Even if someone put a gun on my head, I would never call myself indian I would rather die.


And most of the time I can tell a Pakistani apart from an indian even a dark skinned Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yeti

In Uk most curry houses are labelled Indian yet 1/2 are Pakistani or Bangladesh run and I could never tell the diffrence between a Pakistani or Indian especially if they were light toned in complexion also in genetic terms we more or less are the same people.


----------



## Omar1984

^ Again only indians say we are the same people.

I have yet to meet a 100&#37; Pakistani who says we are the same people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gabbar

*


Omar1984 said:



^ Again only indians say we are the same people.

Click to expand...

*


Omar1984 said:


> I have yet to meet a 100% Pakistani who says we are the same people.



We live in real world and we are not in denial Omar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

Omar1984 said:


> ^ Again only indians say we are the same people.
> 
> I have yet to meet a 100% Pakistani who says we are the same people.



Maybe you have not but I met many Pakistanis who still share the notion we are the same people in the genetic sense.


----------



## absmonarch

Some progress. Now some admit that some Pakistanis have 'dark skin'. Most Pakistan have dark skin but that fact is difficult to swallow. take more time to accept


----------



## pakdefender

absmonarch said:


> Some progress. Now some admit that some Pakistanis have 'dark skin'. Most Pakistan have dark skin but that fact is difficult to swallow. take more time to accept



well then let me just set your imginary progress a wee bit back .. fact of the matter is that most Pakistanis would have wheatish to brown skin tone where as for most indians it would be brown to dark.

The browns of Pakistan are still distinguishable from the browns of india based on the facial features , built and dress

So over all we are NOT the same people no matter how hard you try to convince your self ( since you cannot convince us  )

From genetic point of view most people in Pakistan and in north india would be in the R1A1 groups but the R1A1 group also there in quite large numbers in Poland and south of Ukraine so does that mean they are also the 'same' .. No they arent , the genentic similarity is also a game if you take 12 markers on the Y-chromosome than a lot more people can be called 'same' if you take 24 markers on the Y-chromosome then even lesser numbers are the 'same' if you take 36 markers then even further lesser people are the 'same' and if you take the full Y-chromosome then no two individuals can be called the 'same' .. now chew on that and again come back and tell us that we are the 'same'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

pakdefender said:


> well then let me just set your imginary progress a wee bit back .. fact of the matter is that most Pakistanis would have wheatish to brown skin tone where as for most indians it would be brown to dark.
> 
> The browns of Pakistan are still distinguishable from the browns of india based on the facial features , built and dress
> 
> So over all we are NOT the same people no matter how hard you try to convince your self ( since you cannot convince us  )
> 
> From genetic point of view most people in Pakistan and in north india would be in the R1A1 groups but the R1A1 group also there in quite large numbers in Poland and south of Ukraine so does that mean they are also the 'same' .. No they arent , the genentic similarity is also a game if you take 12 markers on the Y-chromosome than a lot more people can be called 'same' if you take 24 markers on the Y-chromosome then even lesser numbers are the 'same' if you take 36 markers then even further lesser people are the 'same' and if you take the full Y-chromosome then no two individuals can be called the 'same' .. now chew on that and again come back and tell us that we are the 'same'





Pakistan*: Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun (Pathan), Baloch, Muhajir (immigrants from India and *their descendants)Ethnicity and Race by Countries &mdash; Infoplease.com



Actually more or less we are the same the Punjabis in Pakistan are the same to Indian punjabi people as are the Muhajir's and the Sindis not to mention the Bengalis in Bangladesh and India.

I have been mistaken many times as a Pakistani and muslim due to being light toned what does that prove? how can you tell 100&#37; if someone is Pakistani or Indian its total rubbish


----------



## pakdefender

Yeti said:


> Maybe you have not but I met many Pakistanis who still share the notion we are the same people in the genetic sense.



they are just misinformed then and poor souls have swallowed the indian propaganda


----------



## Omar1984

absmonarch said:


> Some progress. Now some admit that some Pakistanis have 'dark skin'. Most Pakistan have dark skin but that fact is difficult to swallow. take more time to accept



Pakistanis come in many different skin colors. I've met many good looking dark skin Pakistanis, but when I say dark I mean light brown not dark brown or black like you indians.

Even many African Americans I see walking here in New York are lighter than most of you dravadian indians

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

pakdefender said:


> they are just misinformed then and poor souls have swallowed the indian propaganda




or perhaps they have logic and sense theres a thought


----------



## Omar1984

Yeti said:


> Actually more or less we are the same the Punjabis in Pakistan are the same to Indian punjabi people as are the Muhajir's and the Sindis not to mention the Bengalis in Bangladesh and India.



Punjabis are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan and make more than 45&#37; of Pakistan's population. Punjabis make only 3% of India's population and are mostly Jatts. Punjabis in Pakistan are Muslim Jatts, Gujjars, Rajputs, Syyed, Qureshis, Gilani, Malik, Moghal, etc.. We have lots of diversity in our side of Punjab.

Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloch when all combined dont even make 1% of india's population.

Muhajrs came from all over india during partition their descendents are 7% of Pakistan's population. Muhajirs is not an ethnic group.

What about more than 95% of india;s population who are nothing like Pakistani ethnic groups?



Yeti said:


> I have been mistaken many times as a Pakistani and muslim due to being light toned what does that prove? how can you tell 100% if someone is Pakistani or Indian its total rubbish



Again only indians say we are the same. Pakistanis never say we are the same. We Pakistanis can tell a Pakistani apart from an indian most of the time.


----------



## Yeti

Omar1984 said:


> Punjabis are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan and make more than 45&#37; of Pakistan's population. Punjabis make only 3% of India's population and are mostly Jatts. Punjabis in Pakistan are Muslim Jatts, Gujjars, Rajputs, Syyed, Qureshis, Gilani, Malik, Moghal, etc.. We have lots of diversity in our side of Punjab.
> 
> Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloch when all combined dont even make 1% of india's population.
> 
> Muhajrs came from all over india during partition their descendents are 7% of Pakistan's population.
> 
> What about more than 95% of india;s population who are nothing like Pakistanis.
> 
> 
> 
> U are not Unique im sorry to say there is no such thing as Pakistani race this is a fact unless you can prove it
> 
> 
> 
> Again only indians say we are the same. Pakistanis never say we are the same. We Pakistanis can tell a Pakistani apart from an indian most of the time.




And again I say that is total rubbish from what i have experianced


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Omar1984 said:


> I live not too far from New York and I would call myself anything but *indian. *



Sure! there are other demonyms to choose:Bharati,Hindustani




> Even if someone put a gun on my head, I would never call myself indian I would rather die.



Why would anyone put a gun your head and ask you to call yourself _Indian_ ?


By the way,spelling _Indian_ isn't that difficult,if thats your original problem.

Try pronouncing it repeatedly. 
_ In-di-ian 
_


----------



## pakdefender

Yeti said:


> Pakistan*: Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun (Pathan), Baloch, Muhajir (immigrants from India and *their descendants)Ethnicity and Race by Countries &mdash; Infoplease.com
> 
> 
> 
> Actually *more or less we are the same *the Punjabis in Pakistan are the same to Indian punjabi people as are the Muhajir's and the Sindis not to mention the Bengalis in Bangladesh and India.
> 
> I have been mistaken many times as a Pakistani and muslim due to being light toned what does that prove? how can you tell 100% if someone is Pakistani or Indian its total rubbish



now you have come down to 'more or less' we are the same .. well then more or less all human beings are the same .. a black man can father children from a white woman just like a white man can father chidlren from a black woman. Human beings are same species and 'more or less' they are the 'same' .. how about that ?

Being 'same' or 'different' is all relative to some points of reference and for nation hood what are those reference points that set a two people apart ?

Is it based on skin colour ?
Is it based on language ?
Is based on the markers on the Y-chromosome ? ( and that too how deep a trace 12,24, 36 or what )
Is it based on our beliefs ?

No matter what you pick up from above , its nearly impossible to proove that indians and Pakistanis are 'same' people

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

Bombensturm said:


> Sure! there are other demonyms to choose:Bharati,Hindustani



Someone is becoming desperate.

What about PAKISTANI AND ONLY PAKISTANI.


----------



## pakdefender

if indians are so deperate to claim we are same , then they can start calling themselves 'PAKISTANI' and india should be called Pakistan.. this can be acceptable to us and we can all be the 'same'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

DNA trawl shows long history of India's castes | Reuters

Reuters) - A genetic search of India's diverse populations shows most people have mixtures of European and ancient south Indian genes, and helps illustrate the deep roots of the country's caste system, researchers reported on Wednesday.

*"One, the 'Ancestral North Indians', is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians', is as distinct from ancestral north Indians and East Asians as they are from each other," they wrote.*"Nobody's even close to having all of one or the other," Reich said in a telephone interview. "People in India are almost all a mixture of these two ancestral populations."


North Indians and Pakistanis are very similar


----------



## Omar1984

Yeti said:


> And again I say that is total rubbish from what i have experianced



Facts are facts. The only ethnic group Pakistanis and Indians share are Punjabis.

Punjabis make more than 45&#37; of Pakistan's population and Punjabis make 3% of India's population.

The Punjabi ethnic group is broken down into clans. Jatts, Gilanis, Syyeds, Moghals, Maliks, Qureshis, Maliks, etc.. Indian Punjabis are mostly Jatts. Pakistani Punjabis are very diverse.

When you combine the rest of Pakistan's major groups (Sindhis, Baloch, Pakhtuns) they make less than 1% of india's population.

What about more than 95% of india's population who share no ethnic similarities like Pakistanis? Why ignore them?

Religion or no Religion, Pakistanis and Bharatis are hardly the same people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

Bombensturm said:


> The question is not about Indians are so deperate to claim that we both are the same.
> 
> The question is about Pakistanis posing as Indian.



You are indian living in india. I am 100% Pakistani living in the United States.

I know more about Pakistanis here than you. The only Pakistanis posing as indians are the ones who have indians in their families.

No person who is 100% Pakistani would ever pose as indian.

We Pakistanis find it an insult if people say we are indian.


----------



## absmonarch

If yo are 100% Pakistani why you live in USA? 

You don't feel insulted that a patriotic Pakistani has to live in USA? Why not go back to Pakistan and do your patriotic duty, oh patrioic Pakistani? 

I will answer: 

You are not caring about people of Pakistan at all. You only care about yourself, your identity, and your ego. In order to defend this, you believe in some ideology which prove it. Simple.

You don't care about poor people of Pakistan. If you cared, you would be in Pakistan and helping them.


----------



## PureAryan

Yeti said:


> DNA trawl shows long history of India's castes | Reuters
> 
> Reuters) - A genetic search of India's diverse populations shows most people have mixtures of European and ancient south Indian genes, and helps illustrate the deep roots of the country's caste system, researchers reported on Wednesday.
> 
> *"One, the 'Ancestral North Indians', is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians', is as distinct from ancestral north Indians and East Asians as they are from each other," they wrote.*"Nobody's even close to having all of one or the other," Reich said in a telephone interview. "People in India are almost all a mixture of these two ancestral populations."
> 
> 
> North Indians and Pakistanis are very similar



I think you went too far this time, Here in Australia, Melbourne is full of indian Punjabis but i have not seen a single light brown punjabi, Most of them are dark brown i have even seen african looking punjanis. Sorry if i offended you but i am just being honest. I am not saying every indian punjabi is dark but all indian punjabi here are definitely darker may be its because they have come from villages. So a european looking punjabi is something unimaginable


----------



## Yeti

Omar1984 said:


> Facts are facts. The only ethnic group Pakistanis and Indians share are Punjabis.
> 
> Punjabis make more than 45% of Pakistan's population and Punjabis make 3% of India's population.
> 
> The Punjabi ethnic group is broken down into clans. Jatts, Gilanis, Syyeds, Moghals, Maliks, Qureshis, Maliks, etc.. Indian Punjabis are mostly Jatts. Pakistani Punjabis are very diverse.
> 
> When you combine the rest of Pakistan's major groups (Sindhis, Baloch, Pakhtuns) they make less than 1% of india's population.
> 
> What about more than 95% of india's population who share no ethnic similarities like Pakistanis? Why ignore them?
> 
> Religion or no Religion, Pakistanis and Bharatis are hardly the same people.




Yes facts are facts so prove to me with a credible source that u are a unique race compared to North Indians until that day I say rubbish


----------



## Omar1984

absmonarch said:


> If yo are 100&#37; Pakistani why you live in USA?
> 
> You don't feel insulted that a patriotic Pakistani has to live in USA? Why not go back to Pakistan and do your patriotic duty, oh patrioic Pakistani?
> 
> I will answer:
> 
> You are not caring about people of Pakistan at all. You only care about yourself, your identity, and your ego. In order to defend this, you believe in some ideology which prove it. Simple.
> 
> You don't care about poor people of Pakistan. If you cared, you would be in Pakistan and helping them.



 Theres more indians here in USA driving taxis and working in dunkin donuts. I see them eevryday.

Pakistanis are in almost every country in the world. Pakistan is the 6th largest nation in the world.

Why are there millions of indians living in usa driving taxi and serving coffee and donuts to fat americans when they should be helping the 420 million poor people living below the poverty line in india.

Wherever I go in the world, I go as a proud patriotic Pakistani.

Even the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the founder of your bharat, Gandhi, lived most of their lives outside their countries for education and work.


----------



## Omar1984

Yeti said:


> Yes facts are facts so prove to me with a credible source that u are a unique race compared to North Indians until that day I say rubbish



Prove to me that we are same as North indians. For us Pakistanis there are no North indians. Kashmiris are part of Kashmir, a disputed territory between Pakistan and india. Punjabi indians are Khalistanis. Everything south of Punjab is the southern part of the subcontinent for us Pakistanis.


----------



## pakdefender

Yeti said:


> North Indians and Pakistanis are very similar



similar -> perhaps 
same -> definitly not


----------



## Yeti

PureAryan said:


> I think you went too far this time, Here in Australia, Melbourne is full of indian Punjabis but i have not seen a single light brown punjabi, Most of them are dark brown i have even seen african looking punjanis. Sorry if i offended you but i am just being honest. I am not saying every indian punjabi is dark but all indian punjabi here are definitely darker may be its because they have come from villages. So a european looking punjabi is something unimaginable




I have seen many light skin punjabis in the west what does that prove?


----------



## Omar1984

Bombensturm said:


> Maybe they are Pakistani and identifying themselves as Indian to you all along.
> 
> Say that you are a Pakistani,and maybe then the"ll be honest about their nationality



Pakistanis dont wear pink/orange/red threads around their wrists. Our women dont paint red dots on their foreheads. And we dont have names like Patel, Singh, Gupta, Sharma, or Chopra.


----------



## SpArK

Omar1984 said:


> Pakistanis dont wear pink threads around our wrists. Our women dont paint red dots on their foreheads. And we dont have names like Patel, Singh, Gupta, Sharma, or Chopra.



Same with Indians who are Muslims , Sikhs and Christians.. whats ur point?


----------



## Yeti

Omar1984 said:


> Pakistanis dont wear pink threads around our wrists. Our women dont paint red dots on their foreheads. And we dont have names like Patel, Singh, Gupta, Sharma, or Chopra.




Actually many muslims have the surname of Patel what you said might be true but not in the West where asian people have similar dress and fashion sense not all Pakistanis wear burkha or have beards and not all Indian ladies have dots or males wear threads.


----------



## Omar1984

Yeti said:


> Actually many muslims have the surname of Patel what you said might be true but not in the West where asian people have similar dress and fashion sense not all Pakistanis wear burkha or have beards and not all Indian ladies have dots or males wear threads.



LOL no Pakistani Muslim has the name Patel.

I never met a Pakistani with the name Patel or Singh.

These names are very common here among indian americans.

LOL every indian in dunkun donuts is Patel 

And here in the United States most indians wear threads around their wrists and all Sikhs wear karas around their wrists.

Pakistani Muslims dont wear threads or karas like you indians do.


----------



## SpArK

Omar1984 said:


> LOL no Pakistani Muslim has the name Patel.
> 
> I never met a Pakistani with the name Patel or Singh.
> 
> These names are very common here among indian americans.
> 
> LOL* every indian in dunkun donuts is Patel *



Collegues?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bang Galore

Omar1984 said:


> Prove to me that we are same as North indians. For us Pakistanis there are no North indians. Kashmiris are part of Kashmir, a disputed territory between Pakistan and india. Punjabi indians are Khalistanis. Everything south of Punjab is the southern part of the subcontinent for us Pakistanis.



*Haplogroup U*

Haplogroup U is sub group of Macrohaplogroup R. The distribution of haplogroup U is a mirror image of that for haplogroup M: the former has not been described so far among eastern Asians but is frequent in European populations as well as among Indians. *Indian U lineages differ substantially from those in Europe and their coalescence to a common ancestor also dates back to about 50,000 years*
*
Haplogroup Populations*

U2* (a parahaplogroup) is sparsely distributed specially in the northern half of the subcontinent. It is also found in SW Arabia.
*U2a shows relatively high density in Pakistan and NW India but also in Karnataka, where it reaches its higher density.*
U2b has highest concentration in Uttar Pradesh but is also found in many other places, specially in Kerala and Sri Lanka. It is also found in Oman.
U2c is specially important in Bangladesh and West Bengal.
U2l is maybe the most important numerically among U subclades in South Asia, reaching specially high concentrations (over 10%) in Uttar Pradesh, Sri Lanka, Sindh and parts of Karnataka. It also has some importance in Oman. mtDNA haplogroup U2i is dubbed "Western Eurasian" in Bamshad et al. study but "Eastern Eurasian (mostly India specific)" in Kivisild et al. study.
U7 this haplogroup has a significant presence in Gujrat, Punjab and Pakistan. The possible homeland of this haplogroup spans Indian Gujarat(highest frequency, 12%) and Iran because from there its frequency declines steeply both to the east and to the west.


----------



## Yeti

Omar1984 said:


> LOL no Pakistani Muslim has the name Patel.
> 
> I never met a Pakistani with the name Patel or Singh.
> 
> These names are very common here among indian americans.
> 
> LOL every indian in dunkun donuts is Patel
> 
> And here in the United States most indians wear threads and all Sikhs wear karas.
> 
> Pakistani Muslims dont wear threads or karas like you indians do.




I said muslims I know a few who have the surname of Patel most are guju muslims u talking about Raksha bandan that thread people wear for a few days or weeks not many keep it on the whole year through not many young hindus I met do that. Most the asian people I met in England and France dress and act the same hard to tell if they are Pakistani or Indian until they actually tell you.


----------



## aviator

Just a question: Is there a way to know from names whether a pakistani is punjabi/sindhi/afghan/persian/turkic or arab descendant, is their methodology in naming or any tom dick and harry can take any arabic name that he wants. Like chowdhary's are jatts, khans are pathans, same ways is their pattern ? What are Qureshi's and Siddiqui's ?


----------



## absmonarch

So about Hindu Americans wearing threads and Muslim Americans not wearing threads. 


Perhaps Muslim Americans need own country. Pamericastan


----------



## KS

Omar1984 said:


> Pakistanis come in many different skin colors. I've met many good looking dark skin Pakistanis, but when I say dark I mean light brown not dark brown or black like you indians.
> 
> Even many African Americans I see walking here in New York are lighter than most of you dravadian indians



Post reported for being a raciist prick.


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

absmonarch said:


> Maybe you have not seen picture of flood victim on TV. The poor pakistani people look just brown like most Indian.
> 
> 
> Only rich pakistani who live inside big house look fair.
> 
> YouTube - Raw Video: Aid Pours for Pakistan Flood Victims




Why are getting worked up about that?

I never said there's anything wrong in having dark skin. I was just pointing out the skin colour diference between Pakistanis and indians.

Most indians in general are the same skin colour as central and eastern Afrcians.
Most Pakistanis in general have a similiar skintone to middle eastern and south american people... that's just a fact. It doesn't mean we are superior to indians.

indians are the most powerful black nation on Earth, and you should be proud of that. :india:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nalwa

For sure Pakistanis are infatuated with skin colors. Just look at the number of posts by Pakistani members trying to claim 'white' as the dominant skin color in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Karthic Sri said:


> Post reported for being a raciist prick.


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Yeah, i've noticed that too! The only people in Pakistan who really associate with indians are muhajirs (many muhajirs in Karachi are pro-indian). And maybe some Punjabis associate with india, but most Pakistani Punjabis in general hate being compared to indians.


----------



## Ahmad

aviator said:


> Just a question: Is there a way to know from names whether a pakistani is punjabi/sindhi/afghan/persian/turkic or arab descendant, is their methodology in naming or any tom dick and harry can take any arabic name that he wants. Like chowdhary's are jatts, *khans are pathans,* same ways is their pattern ? What are Qureshi's and Siddiqui's ?



I dont think khan is used for pathans only, everybody can have this name.


----------



## PureAryan

Ahmad said:


> I dont think khan is used for pathans only, everybody can have this name.



In pakistan its generally used for pathan and fair people


----------



## Ahmad

PakiiZeeshan said:


> Yeah, i've noticed that too! The only people in Pakistan who really associate with indians are muhajirs *(many muhajirs in Karachi are pro-indian). *And maybe some Punjabis associate with india, but most Pakistani Punjabis in general hate being compared to indians.



how come they are pro india while they migrated from india to pakistan?


----------



## Nalwa

PakiiZeeshan said:


> Yeah, i've noticed that too! The only people in Pakistan who really associate with indians are muhajirs (many muhajirs in Karachi are pro-indian). And maybe some Punjabis associate with india, but most Pakistani Punjabis in general hate being compared to indians.



Similar here. Many Punjabis who crossed the border in 47 still feel nostalgic about the lands that were left behind. Maybe some Indian Muslims too feel a sense of belonging since they have relatives in Pakistan. Haven't heard that first hand from an Indian Muslim though.

Tell you a funny thing, sometimes I like to piss off my colleagues (mostly Hindu) by watching Pakistani Punjabi music videos. When asked, I just say "What? They speak the same language as us. Whats the big deal?"


----------



## Ahmad

PureAryan said:


> In pakistan its generally used for pathan and fair people



yea i know, this is very strange.


----------



## LaBong

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> For sure Pakistanis are infatuated with skin colors. Just look at the number of posts by Pakistani members trying to claim 'white' as the dominant skin color in Pakistan.



Yes Pakistanis are white, I came to know this fact after joining this forum, previously I had different opinion after watching Pakistani cricketers and politicians(probably exported from India). 

This guys should join stromfront sort of forums.


----------



## Nalwa

Ahmad said:


> how come they are pro india while they migrated from india to pakistan?



I think what he meant was that they are less antagonistic about Indian than the average Pakistani. Not necessarily pro-India. The reason could be that some of them have relatives in India and have had much more contact than others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> Similar here. Many Punjabis who crossed the border in 47 still feel nostalgic about the lands that were left behind. Maybe some Indian Muslims too feel a sense of belonging since they have relatives in Pakistan. Haven't heard that first hand from an Indian Muslim though.
> 
> Tell you a funny thing, sometimes I like to piss off my colleagues (mostly Hindu) by watching Pakistani Punjabi music videos. When asked, I just say "What? They speak the same language as us. Whats the big deal?"



I have noticed indian punjabi is quite distinct from pakistani punjabi, I can understand pakistani punjabi music but i dont undestant a word in indian punjabi music videos


----------



## PureAryan

Abir said:


> Yes Pakistanis are white, I came to know this fact after joining this forum, previously I had different opinion after watching Pakistani cricketers and politicians(probably exported from India).
> 
> This guys should join stromfront sort of forums.



which dark pakistani politician you are talking about, please name few

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------




Ahmad said:


> yea i know, this is very strange.




---------- Post added at 10:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ----------

are you a pushtun, Ahmed


----------



## Ahmad

PureAryan said:


> are you a pushtun, Ahmed



No i am tajik. In Afghanistan the name Khan is used for men only, it has nothing to do with any particular ethnic group.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Ahmad said:


> No i am tajik.



Well then i guess we both are aryan, I find tajiks better than afghani pushtun in Australia, they are more civilized, beautiful and talented

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

PakiiZeeshan said:


> Yeah, i've noticed that too! The only people in Pakistan who really associate with indians are muhajirs (many muhajirs in Karachi are pro-indian). And maybe some Punjabis associate with india, but most Pakistani Punjabis in general hate being compared to indians.



Yea ive noticed the same about muhajirs, but not all are like that.

We Pakistani Punjabis are very anti-indian though. We are nationalists and Pakistani first even the Punjabis who migrated from india's part of Punjab to Pakistan's Punjab province are Pakistani nationalists and very anti-indian.

No Pakistani likes indians except for some mohajirs like mota kala altaf hussain


----------



## Nalwa

PureAryan said:


> I have noticed indian punjabi is quite distinct from pakistani punjabi, I can understand pakistani punjabi music but i dont undestant a word in indian punjabi music videos



Really? Thats the first time I have heard that. 99% of the Punjabi spoken in both the Punjabis is the same. In fact when I was in Canada, I had more Pakistani Punjabi friends than Indians.

Can you post a video of an Indian Punjabi song that you couldn't understand? Check this thread. *http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/37912-punjabi-music.html*
Most of the videos are Indian Punjabi songs. If you can understand them, there really shouldn't be an issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Omar1984 said:


> Yea ive noticed the same about muhajirs, but not all are like that.
> 
> We Pakistani Punjabis are very anti-indian though. We are nationalists and Pakistani first even the Punjabis who migrated from india's part of Punjab to Pakistan's Punjab province are Pakistani nationalists and very anti-indian.
> 
> No Pakistani likes indians except for some mohajirs like mota kala altaf hussain



I find pakistani punjabi more tougher/well built and more nationalist than pakistan pathan but i dont know why some people say its always pathan who won all the wars for pakistan


----------



## LaBong

PureAryan said:


> which dark pakistani politician you are talking about, please name few




Well Sir Aryan, I guess mine and yours perception of skin colour is different, so don't bother!


----------



## Nalwa

Actually Khan was a royal title prevalent in central Asia in medieval times. The Pashtuns took it up in large numbers. Genghis Khan, as we all know was a Mongol.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

PureAryan said:


> I find pakistani punjabi more tougher/well built and more nationalist than pakistan pathan but i dont know why some people say its always pathan who won all the wars for pakistan



99&#37; of Pakistani Punjabis say we are Pakistani first.

The same can not be said by all ethnic groups, but there are patriotic Pakistani nationalists in every ethnic group. Its just that you will never find a Pakistani Punjabi who says he is Punjabi before he is Pakistani.

We Pakistani Punjabis love all the ethnic groups of Pakistan but we hate those who are traitors and are sell-outs to Pakistan and Pakistaniat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PureAryan

Omar1984 said:


> 99% of Pakistani Punjabis say we are Pakistani first.
> 
> The same can not be said by all ethnic groups, but there are patriotic Pakistani nationalists in every ethnic group. Its just that you will never find a Pakistani Punjabi who says he is Punjabi before he is Pakistani.
> 
> We Pakistani Punjabis love all the ethnic groups of Pakistan but we hate those who are traitors and are sell-outs to Pakistan and Pakistaniat.



Here in Australia i know few pakistani pathan family who are actually assylum seekers and call themselves Afghanis so to act as refugees and to receive social assistance from governement. Ever pakistani punjabi calls himself pakistani never punjabi. I think we kashmiri and punjabi are the most patriotic pakistanis followed by pathans, sindhi, balochs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Most Pakistani Punjabis will always call ourselves Pakistani *first*, and we usually don't even feel the need to mention our ethncity, but if you are talking to nationalistic Punjabis then they will always mention their ethnicity.

Personally, i hate it when Pakistani Punjabis chose to speak Urdu over Punjabi, but i'd always be willing to give up Punjabi language for Pakistan.. not even worth a thought.


----------



## PureAryan

PakiiZeeshan said:


> Most Pakistani Punjabis will always call ourselves Pakistani *first*, and we usually don't even feel the need to mention our ethncity, but if you are talking to nationalistic Punjabis then they will always mention their ethnicity.
> 
> Personally, i hate it when Pakistani Punjabis chose to speak Urdu over Punjabi, but i'd always be willing to give up Punjabi language for Pakistan.. not even worth a thought.



Why do you hate Urdu, you should be proud of yourself, Urdu originated in Lahore, Ghaznavid Punjab, It is a mixture of old punjabi, farsi, turkic, sanskrit, Arabic

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Ahmad said:


> how come they are pro india while they migrated from india to pakistan?



You can find many Muhajirs who are pro-indians. They will say that india is a better Country than Pakistan, they will write pro-indian articles, alot of them even want Pakistan and india to unite.

Not all muhajirs are like this, but many are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nalwa

PureAryan, you are a Kashmiri right? Did you choose your username because you think Kashmiris are pure Aryans? I would like to hear your views on that.


----------



## pakdefender

pakdefender said:


> if indians are so deperate to claim we are same , then they can start calling themselves 'PAKISTANI' and india should be called Pakistan.. this can be acceptable to us and we can all be the 'same'



.... and they all lived happily ever after 







agreed ?


----------



## Nalwa

pakdefender said:


> .... and they all lived happily ever after
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> agreed ?



Why did you leave Bangladesh out? Thats not fair! Don't they have a desire to be called Pakistanis? On second thoughts, perhaps they dont. We already figured that out in '71. 

Dont troll man. If you can, so can others.


----------



## PureAryan

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> PureAryan, you are a Kashmiri right? Did you choose your username because you think Kashmiris are pure Aryans? I would like to hear your views on that.



Not really, I have some indian looking kashmiris in my family too, but i didn't choose the name because i am fair or something like that. In islam, muslim should not have even an atom size of pride. I just chose this name because there has been an internet campaign started by afghans, iranians and indians, all 3 of them claiming that they are the real aryan, But the fact is its Pakistanis who are 99% indo-Aryan. Iranians have alot semitic genes in them, Afghanis have a lot of mongoloid genes in them and indians have alot of dravidian genes in them. So Aryan is basically a sanskrit word which you know originated in Pakistan but its neighbouring countries have hijacked the word


----------



## pak-marine

PakiiZeeshan said:


> You can find many Muhajirs who are pro-indians. They will say that india is a better Country than Pakistan, they will write pro-indian articles, alot of them even want Pakistan and india to unite.
> 
> Not all muhajirs are like this, but many are.



dude i find your comments very insulting and ignorant ""hear this these mohajirs you are accusing here were the one who really strugled or did any thing for pakistan they sacrificed (life and property) unlike majority of pakistanis who woke up on 14th of august 1947 coming to know that they have a new country on their hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

PakiiZeeshan said:


> You can find many Muhajirs who are pro-indians. They will say that india is a better Country than Pakistan, they will write pro-indian articles, alot of them even want Pakistan and india to unite.
> 
> Not all muhajirs are like this, but many are.



You know here in the U.S. I had an argument with a Muhajir who thought we should unite with indians. He was so damn pro-indian he even married an indian girl and started calling himself indian.

I told him you can go back to india and be indian but dont drag us Pakistanis with you. 

I think the reason is because they still have affection for their ancestral land in bharat while our ancestors always lived in Pak Sarzameen, but not all mohajirs are pro-indian and want to unite with indians, some are very patriotic nationalist Pakistanis.

By the way, I prefer Urdu language over Punjabi language.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> Why did you leave Bangladesh out? Thats not fair! Don't they have a desire to be called Pakistanis? On second thoughts, perhaps they dont. We already figured that out in '71.
> 
> Dont troll man. If you can, so can others.



do you agress or dissagree that indians and Pakistanis are the 'same' ? if they are 'same' then why this map bothered you !?!?


----------



## Nalwa

PureAryan said:


> Not really, I have some indian looking kashmiris in my family too, but i didn't choose the name because i am fair or something like that. In islam, muslim should not have even an atom size of pride. I just chose this name because there has been an internet campaign started by afghans, iranians and indians, all 3 of them claiming that they are the real aryan, But the fact is its Pakistanis who are 99% indo-Aryan. Iranians have alot semitic genes in them, Afghanis have a lot of mongoloid genes in them and indians have alot of dravidian genes in them. So Aryan is basically a sanskrit word which you know originated in Pakistan but its neighbouring countries have hijacked the word



But how do you know that Aryans were whiter looking than the people they encountered in the sub-continent? The Vedas, which are the earliest records of these Central Asian immigrants, do not contain any mention of their physical features. Arya, the word itself denotes a person of higher social standing in Sanskrit.


----------



## Nalwa

pakdefender said:


> do you agress or dissagree that indians and Pakistanis are the 'same' ? if they are 'same' then why this map bothered you !?!?



I agree man, whole heartedly. But I have a problem with that name. You see the name Pakistan only contains references to a few of the provinces. Lets find a new name if we are planning on unifying the sub-continent, the one that resonates with as many people as possible. 

Actually, I have a brilliant idea!! Lets call it India! After all thats whats the British and the world as a whole called it before '47. Would you agree with that?


----------



## PureAryan

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> But how do you know that Aryans were whiter looking than the people they encountered in the sub-continent? The Vedas, which are the earliest records of these Central Asian immigrants, do not contain any mention of their physical features. Arya, the word itself denotes a person of higher social standing in Sanskrit.



The word aryan has nothing to do with race, It has been proven that aryan migration did happen and the locals did put up a fight but they lost, Skeleton found around harrapa proves that there was some war. Also in rig vedas it says aryans adopted harrapan culture, So pakistanis are the mixture of europeans and locals. The pakistani kalash community is also a source that they are aryans and they have not not assimilated with locals and remained isolated and they have preserved their features


----------



## pakdefender

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> I agree man, whole heartedly. But I have a problem with that name. You see the name Pakistan only contains references to a few of the provinces. Lets find a new name if we are planning on unifying the sub-continent, the one that resonates with as many people as possible.
> 
> Actually, I have a brilliant idea!! Lets call it India! After all thats whats the British and the world as a whole called it before '47. Would you agree with that?



well we are not the ones who is making the cliam of being 'same' , that claim is being made your countrymen and if A = B then surely B = A too and since we have no problem being Pakistani and its you guys who are trying to convince us otherwise so its better that we change your name to Pakistan all together ... india after all is a relic of the past and as you said , a colonial leftover


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

pak-marine said:


> dude i find your comments very insulting and ignorant ""hear this these mohajirs you are accusing here were the one who really strugled or did any thing for pakistan they sacrificed (life and property) unlike majority of pakistanis who woke up on 14th of august 1947 coming to know that they have a new country on their hand.



I don't think i'm being ignorant about it. As i said; many muhajirs are pro-indian, but not all muhajirs are like this... some muhajirs are really patriotic and nationalistic.

And in 1947 Punjabi Muslims also suffered alot. Hundreds of thausands of Punjabi Muslims, were killed, raped, had their property looted/stolen by Punjabi Sikhs and hindus... more Punjabi Muslims were killed than Punjabi Sikhs or Punjabi hindus in 1947.

Even when it comes to sacrificing for Pakistan, many Punjabi, Pashtun and Sindhi soldiers have died for our Country in wars against that terrorist india.

It's wrong for you to say "Muhajirs are the only people who sacrificed lives for Pakistan".. this is a ridiculous thing to say.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nalwa

PureAryan said:


> The word aryan has nothing to do with race, It has been proven that aryan migration did happen and the locals did put up a fight but they lost, Skeleton found around harrapa proves that there was some war. Also in rig vedas it says aryans adopted harrapan culture, So pakistanis are the mixture of europeans and locals. The pakistani kalash community is also a source that they are aryans and they have not not assimilated with locals and remained isolated and they have preserved their features



How do you know that the Indo-Aryans are still living in Pakistan? As the events (Aryan migration) happened about 1500-1000 BC ago, what is to say that the people who arrived didnt move on to other areas? Perhaps eastwards or even westwards? And we didnt find any DNA from any skeletons from Harappan remains. So we cant say anything about the people who lived there.

And Rig Veda is not a historical account. Its just a collection of hymns. It does not in any way talk about Aryans adopting Harappan culture.


----------



## pakdefender

Pakistan's orignal map , as put forward by Ch Rehmat Ali , was as follows ( note Bangladesh was not meant to be part of Pakistan )






dinia


----------



## PureAryan

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> How do you know that the Indo-Aryans are still living in Pakistan? As the events (Aryan migration) happened about 1500-1000 BC ago, what is to say that the people who arrived didnt move on to other areas? Perhaps eastwards or even westwards? And we didnt find any DNA from any skeletons from Harappan remains. So we cant say anything about the people who lived there.
> 
> And Rig Veda is not a historical account. Its just a collection of hymns. It does not in any way talk about Aryans adopting Harappan culture.


Aryan migration did happen, one that came to indus valley adopted harrapan culture and gave rise to vedic culture, those who migrated to ganga valley adopted dravidian cultures and gave rise to hinduism, The indus valley people were called arya vartans (pakistanis) and ganga valley people were called dasya vartana(bhartis) , Arya vartans (pakistanis) never like dasya vartans(bhartis) and there were constant warfare between them.
There are dozens of books written on it Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur, The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham, Dr. Gurupdesh Singh


----------



## Nalwa

pakdefender said:


> Pakistan's orignal map , as put forward by Ch Rehmat Ali , was as follows ( *note Bangladesh was not meant to be part of Pakistan )*



Before giving us a sample of your knowledge of the geography of the sub-continent, perhaps you could have checked the Atlas. What is the area referred to as Bangistan majorly comprised of?


----------



## LaBong

For the umpteenth times Aryans are NOT A RACE!  

Indo-Aryans are linguistic groups. There is NO genetic difference in people of subcontinent barring pashtuns, baluchs and parsis.


----------



## SQ8

PureAryan said:


> Why do you hate Urdu, you should be proud of yourself, Urdu originated in Lahore, Ghaznavid Punjab, It is a mixture of old punjabi, farsi, turkic, sanskrit, Arabic



Moreover.. The amalgamation of different cultures in urban environments forces the need for a common language. One that everybody can understand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nalwa

PureAryan said:


> *Aryan migration did happen, one that came to indus valley adopted harrapan culture and gave rise to vedic culture, those who migrated to ganga valley adopted dravidian cultures and gave rise to hinduism, The indus valley people were called arya vartans (pakistanis) and ganga valley people were called dasya vartana(bhartis) , Arya vartans (pakistanis) never like dasya vartans(bhartis) and there were constant warfare between them.*
> There are dozens of books written on it Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur, The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham, Dr. Gurupdesh Singh



I understand that. Perhaps what you are talking about is the conflict between the later Aryans and the early Aryans of the sub-continent. Actually Mahabharat is an account of one such major battle.

Now my question is that, how do you know that the arya vartans remained in Pakistan? They could have moved out into other areas and their place taken up by newer people, right? There were constant immigrations and invasions. How can we say that the current residents of Pakistan are the same Arya Vartans of 2000 BC?


----------



## pakdefender

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> Before giving us a sample of your knowledge of the geography of the sub-continent, perhaps you could have checked the Atlas. What is the area referred to as Bangistan majorly comprised of?



Bangistan is shown with a seperate name , seperate from Pakistan but also seperate from india .. whats your point ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Abir said:


> For the umpteenth times Aryans are NOT A RACE!
> 
> Indo-Aryans are linguistic groups. There is NO genetic difference in people of subcontinent barring pashtuns, baluchs and parsis.



This is taking quite long to convince bhartis that pakistanis are not south asian. Pakistan is a natural extension of central asia, we are working to revive the silk road. We are building pakistan to tajikistan road along 7000m pamir mountains, pakistanis are expanding train link to china, pakistan is also starting rail service from islamabad to turkey . Sorry you people will not be able to enjoy any of this. 

Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bharat, Bhutan, Nepal same people no difference

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

Abir said:


> For the umpteenth times Aryans are NOT A RACE!
> 
> Indo-Aryans are linguistic groups. There is NO genetic difference in people of subcontinent barring pashtuns, baluchs and parsis.



go back and read what I wrote about genetic similarites and differences , you guys never learn 

here Im posting it again 

From genetic point of view most people in Pakistan and in north india would be in the R1A1 groups but the R1A1 group also there in quite large numbers in Poland and south of Ukraine so does that mean they are also the 'same' .. No they arent , the genentic similarity is also a game if you take 12 markers on the Y-chromosome than a lot more people can be called 'same' if you take 24 markers on the Y-chromosome then even lesser numbers are the 'same' if you take 36 markers then even further lesser people are the 'same' and if you take the full Y-chromosome then no two individuals can be called the 'same' .. now chew on that and again come back and tell us that we are the 'same' GET THIS IN YOUR THICK HEADS!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> I understand that. Perhaps what you are talking about is the conflict between the later Aryans and the early Aryans of the sub-continent. Actually Mahabharat is an account of one such major battle.
> 
> Now my question is that, how do you know that the arya vartans remained in Pakistan? They could have moved out into other areas and their place taken up by newer people, right? There were constant immigrations and invasions. How can we say that the current residents of Pakistan are the same Arya Vartans of 2000 BC?



I have answered this question so many times today not to you but, Punjab and sindh were sacred to vedic aryans and they called punjab as sapta sindhwa, and those aryans who migrated to ganga valley were despised by indus valley aryans

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

pakdefender said:


> go back and read what I wrote about genetic similarites and differences , you guys never learn
> 
> here Im posting it again
> 
> From genetic point of view most people in Pakistan and in north india would be in the R1A1 groups but the R1A1 group also there in quite large numbers in Poland and south of Ukraine so does that mean they are also the 'same' .. No they arent , the genentic similarity is also a game if you take 12 markers on the Y-chromosome than a lot more people can be called 'same' if you take 24 markers on the Y-chromosome then even lesser numbers are the 'same' if you take 36 markers then even further lesser people are the 'same' and if you take the full Y-chromosome then no two individuals can be called the 'same' .. now chew on that and again come back and tell us that we are the 'same' GET THIS IN YOUR THICK HEADS!!



I haven't researched on this but i think in Bharat the halogroup R1A1 is only found in high caste brahmins hindus not in ordinary bharti person as in pakistan, So ordinary pakistanis should be the same as high caste brahmins who again i am not sure make up 2&#37; population

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

PureAryan said:


> I haven't researched on this but i think in Bharat the halogroup R1A1 is only found in high caste brahmins hindus not in ordinary bharti person as in pakistan, So ordinary pakistanis should be the same as high caste brahmins who again i am not sure make up 2&#37; population



Actaully what you have said above was was the accepted field research done by many renowned rsearchers but this was not accetable to the tamil lobby in india and now they have published twisted results showing that R1A1 is found in south indians also in one form or the other.

what this shows is that games can be played even with gentic markers and we therefore have to use more points of referece to distinguish two nations from one another and lanuage , culture , history , beilief are all part of defining nations.

Thats why the Quiad's two Nation theory is more robust today than ever before.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Urdu was mainly developed in Uttar Pradesh.


----------



## PureAryan

Varghese said:


> Urdu was mainly developed in Uttar Pradesh.



and your reference is which book.


----------



## Nalwa

PureAryan said:


> I have answered this question so many times today not to you but, Punjab and sindh were sacred to vedic aryans and they called punjab as sapta sindhwa, and those aryans who migrated to ganga valley were despised by indus valley aryans



That still doesnt prove that the current residents of Pakistan are the original Aryans (so called). And the Aryans that moved to the Ganga valley were the early Aryans. They weren't despised because they supposedly mixed with an inferior race but because of the battle for resources. There was constant warfare between the two kinds.

And to talk about mixing with other races, whats to say that the later Aryans didnt mix with other races that arrived later into the sub-continent? The truth is that there is no way to find all this out. So to claim Aryan ancestory is foolish.


----------



## pakdefender

You can find many discussions on 'Is R1A1 the Aryan Marker' on the net


----------



## PureAryan

pakdefender said:


> Actaully what you have said above was was the accepted field research done by many renowned rsearchers but this was not accetable to the tamil lobby in india and now they have published twisted results showing that R1A1 is found in south indians also in one form or the other.
> 
> what this shows is that games can be played even with gentic markers and we therefore have to use more points of referece to distinguish two nations from one another and lanuage , culture , history , beilief are all part of defining nations.
> 
> Thats why the Quiad's two Nation theory is more robust today than ever before.



I dont accept any research done in Bharat by by bharati researchers, its one the world's most corrupted nation whose prime minister has been involved in stealing $39 billion so you can imagine the credibility of these researchers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nalwa

PureAryan said:


> I dont accept any research done in Bharat by by bharati researchers, its one the world's most corrupted nation whose prime minister has been involved in stealing $39 billion so you can imagine the credibility of these researchers



That much generalizations and bias? You could have told me before. I would have realized that it just isn't worth arguing with someone like you.


----------



## PureAryan

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> That still doesnt prove that the current residents of Pakistan are the original Aryans (so called). And the Aryans that moved to the Ganga valley were the early Aryans. They weren't despised because they supposedly mixed with an inferior race but because of the battle for resources. There was constant warfare between the two kinds.
> 
> And to talk about mixing with other races, whats to say that the later Aryans didnt mix with other races that arrived later into the sub-continent? The truth is that there is no way to find all this out. So to claim Aryan ancestory is foolish.



I am not able to understand what you are trying to ask, Read the books which i gave you i am just tired about this aryan nonsence. If there any aryan races in pakistan they are either kashmiris or pathans, punjabis and sindhis have become tan


----------



## PureAryan

Kutt@_Bimar said:


> That much generalizations and bias? You could have told me before. I would have realized that it just isn't worth arguing with someone like you.



I didn't say anything about indian people except indian government, you just want a reason to fight


----------



## Ahmad

PureAryan said:


> I am not able to understand what you are trying to ask, Read the books which i gave you i am just tired about this aryan nonsence. If there any aryan races in pakistan they are either kashmiris or pathans, punjabis and sindhis have become tan



In case of Pathans there are other theories as well, they are thgought to have semitic blood belonging to the lost tribes of israel, some even put Ghilzai pashtoons as having turkic origin, but god knows what teh truth is.


----------



## pakdefender

you can actaully read about experinces of REAL people as they exist today about the R1A1 marker on Facebook

R1a1 (Indo-European Origins) | Facebook


----------



## pakdefender

Ahmad said:


> God knows what the truth is.



haha indeed God knows what the real truth is .. I think we should leave it there


----------



## PureAryan

Ahmad said:


> In case of Pathans there are other theories as well, they are thgought to have semitic blood belonging to the lost tribes of israel, some even put Ghilzai pashtoons as having turkic origin, but god knows what teh truth is.



It is true that Ghilzai pushtoon are turkic in origin and abdalis are persian in origin, i read it quite a while ago


----------



## Ahmad

pakdefender said:


> haha indeed God knows what the real truth is .. I think we should leave it there



Yes, if you dont have the right information about a subject dont be stuborn and admit it, just what i did, i see many people who are repeating non sense to each other here without having a tiny knowledge about things. what is wrong with that? as per pathans, yes, there are semitic theory about them and also turkic one.


----------



## Ahmad

PureAryan said:


> It is true that Ghilzai pushtoon are turkic in origin and abdalis are persian in origin, i read it quite a while ago



to be honest they are all theories, nothing proven for definate. secondly who cares about aryan and non aryan, as long as you are good human being then that is what matters.

the abdali Pashtoons have had close relations with the Persians in Afghanistan, some them even adopted the culture and language of persian, on the other hand the Ghilzais are different and almost all Pashtoon nomads come from Ghilzais. As per pashtoons of Pakistan, they are karlanis, which is differnent from both Ghilzai and abdalis. i cant post the videos about pashtoons being semitic, it doesnt prove anything, but it is good to watch it.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Turi r also thought to be turkic... afridis r thought to be indigenous.. balouch(me) claim the ancestory of Hazrat Hamza ra..unce of Prophet SAW.
Also we r similiar to kurds.
Jats claim to be scythian,rajput=indo european or aryan,gakhars=iranian,kurd=similiar to arabs,tajiks=similiar to iranians,central asian=turkic+mongliod....... history is so messed up!


----------



## LaBong

pakdefender said:


> go back and read what I wrote about genetic similarites and differences , you guys never learn
> 
> here Im posting it again
> 
> From genetic point of view most people in Pakistan and in north india would be in the R1A1 groups but the R1A1 group also there in quite large numbers in Poland and south of Ukraine so does that mean they are also the 'same' .. No they arent , the genentic similarity is also a game if you take 12 markers on the Y-chromosome than a lot more people can be called 'same' if you take 24 markers on the Y-chromosome then even lesser numbers are the 'same' if you take 36 markers then even further lesser people are the 'same' and if you take the full Y-chromosome then no two individuals can be called the 'same' .. now chew on that and again come back and tell us that we are the 'same' GET THIS IN YOUR THICK HEADS!!





PureAryan said:


> I haven't researched on this but i think in Bharat the halogroup R1A1 is only found in high caste brahmins hindus not in ordinary bharti person as in pakistan, So ordinary pakistanis should be the same as high caste brahmins who again i am not sure make up 2&#37; population



What retards!  

In India, high percentage of this haplogroup is observed in *West Bengal Brahmins (72%) to the east, Konkanastha Brahmins (48%) to the west, Khatris (67%) in north and Iyenger Brahmins (31%) * of south. It has also been found in several South Indian Dravidian-speaking Adivasis including the Chenchu (26%) and the Valmikis of Andhra Pradesh and the Kallar of Tamil Nadu suggesting that M17 is widespread in Tribal Southern Indians.
Besides these, studies show high percentages in regionally diverse groups such as *Manipuris (50%) to the extreme North East and in Punjab (47%) to the extreme North West.*

*In Pakistan it is found at 71% among the Mohanna of Sindh Province to the south and 46% among the Baltis of Gilgit-Baltistan to the north. While 13% of Sinhalese of Sri Lanka were found to be R1a1a (R-M17) positive.
Hindus of Terai region of Nepal show it at 69%.*

Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists


----------



## LaBong

PureAryan said:


> This is taking quite long to convince bhartis that pakistanis are not south asian. Pakistan is a natural extension of central asia, we are working to revive the silk road. We are building pakistan to tajikistan road along 7000m pamir mountains, pakistanis are expanding train link to china, pakistan is also starting rail service from islamabad to turkey . Sorry you people will not be able to enjoy any of this.
> 
> Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bharat, Bhutan, Nepal same people no difference



Ok you are central Asian. 
And you are Semitic also. 
But some one told me you're Persian!  

You lot are most confused bunch I have ever come across and I'm really not dying to enjoy that experience!


----------



## Yeti

There was no Aryan invasion that myth has been debunked, I have seen dark Pakistanis as I have seen light skinned Indians there is no such thing as a Pakstani race or them being unique. More or less North Indians and Pakistanis are the same people.


Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues found "strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today".

"*One, the 'Ancestral North Indians', is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians', is as distinct from ancestral north Indians and East Asians as they are from each other," they wrote.*


http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No1/temp/jgen08-00038.pdf


----------



## Md Akmal

Judas Iscariote said:


> *The Following Years​*
> *The Ayub Years*
> 
> The Tashkent Agreement and the Kashmir war, however, generated frustration among the people and resentment against President Ayub. Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto resigned his position agitated against Ayub's dictatorship and the loss of Kashmir. _*Ayub tried unsuccessfully to make amends, and in March 1969 he resigned.*_ Instead of transferring power to the speaker of the National Assembly, as the constitution dictated, he handed it over to the commander in chief of the army, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan. Yahya assumed the presidential office and declared martial law.
> 
> *My Comments*
> 
> Ayub did not resigned rather he was forced to resign by Yahya. Infact, it was a silent military coup. So, Yahya was always afraid that if by chance the ex-Muslim Leaquer comes to power he had it. Yahya at once freezed all the central fund of Conventional Muslim Leaque since it was the party created by Ayub. Moreso, in those days ML was divided into 4/5 fractions like Council Muslim Leaque, Qaumi ML, Convention ML etc. He and his intelligence group never tried to unite all these political parties in the true sense rather it paved the smooth way for victory for Butto and Mujib. Even he did not help or give proper protection to other Islamic political parties. I remember on 18 January, 1970 at Dacca once Mulana Modudi came to address, the members of AL did not allow rather they attacked in all side on the meeting three died on the spot and around 500 seriously injured. Again on 25 January 1970 same at Dacca on the meeting of Convention Muslim Fuzlul Kader Chow(ex-speaker of Ayub's cabinet) was made injured and the political main stage was burned. This was the political scenerio in the then East Pakistan. At that time I was at Rawalpindi and saw the same thing about PPP's activities." Ayub ***** hai hai". I never consider the election of 1970 was a real free and fair. It was something like might was right. How could all these happened during the Martial Law times? Again why Yahta dismissed all the senior 300 CSP officers. What was the motive ? Was all these CSP officers were corrupt ?
> 
> The 10 year reign of Ayub era was a golden era in united Pakistan. His era was regarded as the "nomuna" in the Third World Countries


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

^^^

Who are North Indians? Kashmiri and Punjabis, right? They are less than 5% of the indian population, and they hate being compared to most other indian populations.

And sure, you must have seen dark skinned Pakistanis, and light skinned indians, but the vast majority of indians are still the same skin colour as central afrcians and east afrcians...so just leave it at that, and leave Pakistanis alone.


----------



## Yeti

PakiiZeeshan said:


> ^^^
> 
> Who are North Indians? Kashmiri and Punjabis, right? They are less than 5% of the indian population, and they hate being compared to most other indian populations.
> 
> And sure, you must have seen dark skinned Pakistanis, and light skinned indians, but the vast majority of indians are still the same skin colour as central afrcians and east afrcians...so just leave it at that, and leave Pakistanis alone.




Actually North Indians are not 5% of India there is 2 genetic populations in India. 

Pakistanis and North Indians are more or less the same people I have yet to found any scientist who says Pakistanis are a unique race or set of people.


*Indians today possess varying proportions of ancestry from two genetically distinct populations, concludes a team led by David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Members of one ancient population share DNA patterns with modern Middle Easterners, central Asians and Europeans, the researchers report in the Sept. 24 Nature. The other population shows no strong connection to any modern mainland group. The first group is dubbed Ancestral North Indians and the second Ancestral South Indians. Both of the groups existed before the founding populations that contributed to todays genetic diversity moved to South Asia.*


DNA Points to India's Two-Pronged Ancestry - US News and World Report


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Yeti said:


> Actually North Indians are not 5% of India there is 2 genetic populations in India.
> 
> *Pakistanis and North Indians are more or less the same people I have yet to found any scientist who says Pakistanis are a unique race or set of people.*



 
1)He was talking abt punjabis of india which only make 2-3% of indian population!
2)Pakistani is not a race its a nationality!
3)Yeah man the light skinned beautiful almighty north indians are all punjabis,pashtuns,balouch,sindhis,hazaras,baltis,kashmiris and tajik etc!
Ur so funny man!

Im so damn impresed by the way u so called north indian or "wannabe Pakistanis"...........DAMN!

U can call urself a Pakistani indian next time u visit some foriegn country or guy!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amigo

PakiiZeeshan said:


> ^^^
> 
> Who are North Indians? Kashmiri and Punjabis, right? They are less than 5&#37; of the indian population, and they hate being compared to most other indian populations.
> 
> And sure, you must have seen dark skinned Pakistanis, and light skinned indians, but the vast majority of indians are still the same skin colour as central afrcians and east afrcians...so just leave it at that, and leave Pakistanis alone.



both countries have mixture of diff. ppl. in pak also there are punjabis,sindhis, baluchis,pashtuns etc as well as mujahirs which are from diff. parts of india. so saying pakistanis are diff. from indians is just funny. if someone would ask pakistanis with whom they share thier looks in entire world then surely they will say indians.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Dance said:


> Anyways I've never met a Pakistani who would ever want to be called an indian. Pakistanis get offended when you call us indians



definitely can't argue with that 

we are seperate people and a seperate nation.....we're a proud people also

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yeti

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> 1)He was talking abt punjabis of india which only make 2-3&#37; of indian population!
> 2)Pakistani is not a race its a nationality!
> 3)Yeah man the light skinned beautiful almighty north indians are all punjabis,pashtuns,balouch,sindhis,hazaras,baltis,kashmiris and tajik etc!
> Ur so funny man!
> 
> Im so damn impresed by the way u so called north indian or "wannabe Pakistanis"...........DAMN!
> 
> U can call urself a Pakistani indian next time u visit some foriegn country or guy!





My point was there is no such thing as Pakistanis being unique or diffrent race im glad you agree I hope you tell that to some other members on this thread who believe that.


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

amigo said:


> both countries have mixture of diff. ppl. in pak also there are punjabis,sindhis, baluchis,pashtuns etc as well as mujahirs which are from diff. parts of india. so saying pakistanis are diff. from indians is just funny. if someone would ask pakistanis with whom they share thier looks in entire world then surely they will say indians.




Yes, in Pakistan there are Punjabis, Pakhtuns, Sindhis, Balochis, and Muhajirs. And the only people from these ethnic groups who compare themselves to indians are the muhajirs. Muhajirs are the only people in Pakistan who like indians.

Most Pakistanis would never say we look like indians. Indians are the same skin colour as East and Central Afrcians... Pakistanis have a similiar skintone to middle eastern and south American people...you indians, should comapre yourselves to Africans in terms of looks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Yeti said:


> My point was there is no such thing as Pakistanis being unique or diffrent race im glad you agree I hope you tell that to some other members on this thread who believe that.



Wat do u say about history and civilisations?Can my history be urs?NO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yeti

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Wat do u day about history and civilisations?Can my history be urs?NO.





History and culture is 2 diffrent things of course Pakistan has its own history but some members saying Pakistanis are a unique people which is total non-sense no scientists agree with this concept.


Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues found "strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today".

*"One, the 'Ancestral North Indians', is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians', is as distinct from ancestral north Indians and East Asians as they are from each other," they wrote*.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58M4N020090923


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

Here's your post in its entirety, and I'll be dealing with parts of it in the following:


PakiiZeeshan said:


> Yes, in Pakistan there are Punjabis, Pakhtuns, Sindhis, Balochis, and Muhajirs. And the only people from these ethnic groups who compare themselves to indians are the muhajirs. Muhajirs are the only people in Pakistan who like indians.
> 
> Most Pakistanis would never say we look like indians. Indians are the same skin colour as East and Central Afrcians... Pakistanis have a similiar skintone to middle eastern and south American people...you indians, should comapre yourselves to Africans in terms of looks.



You say:


> And the only people from these ethnic groups who compare themselves to indians are the muhajirs.


Isn't it anthropologists' job to compare people? I guess some people this thread is comparing Pakistanis and Indians, but guess what we haven't read anywhere "I am a Muhaajir and therefore I shall compare Pakistanis and Indians"!



> Muhajirs are the only people in Pakistan who like indians.


Now that's a bold, bold, bold statement to make, and that by someone who carries a racial slur in their screen name.

I guess by the term Muhaajir you're referring to people who migrated from India and did not speak Punjabi or Gujrati, as well as the progeny of those people. Now I've been with those people 25 years of my life, and I've found them to be the one of the few peoples of Pakistan in general that actively dissociate from Indians.

But I guess your petty mind is stuck up so far up your arse, talking reason with you won't serve anything. In my world you'd be incarcerated for life so that the hate emanating from you doesn't get a chance to infect others.




> Indians are the same skin colour as East and Central Afrcians... you indians, should comapre yourselves to Africans in terms of looks.


Get a ticket to various cities of India and to the Bantu regions of Africa that you refer to. Your knowledge is akin to that of a teenager who thinks he knows everything, but ten years on realizes how little he did actually. Maybe you are a teenager, in which case arguments are futile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

makikirkiri said:


> Firstly , how could an Islamic country be existent more than 7000 yrs before the birth of mohammed?
> ...


Islamic history begins with our First Messenger Adam AS, not the Last Messenger.


----------



## pakdefender

Yeti said:


> History and culture is 2 diffrent things of course Pakistan has its own history but some members saying Pakistanis are a unique people which is total non-sense no scientists agree with this concept.
> 
> 
> Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues found "strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today".
> 
> *"One, the 'Ancestral North Indians', is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians', is as distinct from ancestral north Indians and East Asians as they are from each other," they wrote*.
> 
> DNA trawl shows long history of India's castes | Reuters



History cannot be ignored for Nation formations.

a people becom a nation due to shared history , shared customs , shared norms , shared beliefs and shared physiology and genology.

Indians and Pakistanis share very little of the above between them to be considered 'same' .. we are going aroud in cricles

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IamINDIA

i come from tamil nadu any clue about my ancectry???


----------



## UnitedPak

IamINDIA said:


> i come from tamil nadu any clue about my ancectry???



Wrong topic. This thread is about ancestry of Pakistani people.

Human settlements in South India date back to 10s of thousand years. The region has a rich history, but not related to the Indus Valley.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

WHO WANTS TO BE INDIAN PAKISTANI?(indian of PAKISTANI origin) !??? RAISE UR HANDS!


Jokin






Not!


----------



## PureAryan

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> WHO WANTS TO BE A PAKISTANI INDIAN !??? RAISE UR HANDS!
> 
> 
> Jokin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not!



We just want our kashmir Back then we want nothing to do with Bharat

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## absmonarch

YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 1

YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 2

YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 4

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DesiGuy

PureAryan said:


> We just want our kashmir Back then we want nothing to do with Bharat




hey, that was very generous response from you.


----------



## absmonarch

YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 5

YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 6

YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 7

YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 8


----------



## aviator

absmonarch said:


> YouTube - Murder of History in Pakistan discussed by Mr Najam Sethi 8 of 1



Thanks for the videos, clears all my doubts why all pakistanis think in one and only one way.


----------



## ThunderCat

jinxeD_girl said:


> and here is the extent of Iranian tribes
> 
> 
> 
> Also you might want to check this article about Iranian peoples :-
> 
> 
> Iranian peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I dont agree that Pakhtuns are related to Persians, it's just a linguistic classification. Just like Hazaras are Iranic too by language but ethnically they are Turko-Mongol.

And the correct name for the languages are Iranic and Indo-Aryan not Iranian and Indian.


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

ThunderCat said:


> I dont agree that Pakhtuns are related to Persians, it's just a linguistic classification. Just like Hazaras are Iranic too by language but ethnically they are Turko-Mongol.
> 
> ...



It IS a linguistic classification, not a genotypic one. Points generally in the same direction.



> And the correct name for the languages are Iranic and Indo-Aryan not Iranian and Indian.



Indo-Iranian is a subgroup of Indo-European (which you're calling Indo-Aryan apparently), of which Iranian is a subgroup. Kurdish for example, is an Iranian language. It's difficult sometimes to tell where to put the line between the Indic and the Iranian groups, Urdu for example sits right on that line, and Marathi is decidedly Indic, though both are Indo-European.


----------



## Kambojaric

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Indo-Iranian is a subgroup of Indo-European (which you're calling Indo-Aryan apparently), of which Iranian is a subgroup. Kurdish for example, is an Iranian language. It's difficult sometimes to tell where to put the line between the Indic and the Iranian groups, Urdu for example sits right on that line, and Marathi is decidedly Indic, though both are Indo-European.



Actually it is Iranic. Iranic and Indic are subgroups of Indo-European languages as you pointed out.


----------



## ThunderCat

Bamxa said:


> Actually it is Iranic. Iranic and Indic are subgroups of Indo-European languages as you pointed out.



It is Iranic and Indo-Aryan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ThunderCat

OK guys i was reading some of the posts here so you need to time out for a min. First read this article:

PAKISTAN: On the meaning and origins of Hinduism:



> "The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by
> British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism' 519 ]
> 
> "The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the
> dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never
> used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in
> early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a
> term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,
> ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori
> for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus." [G. Singh,
> Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]
> 
> "Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things
> to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say
> definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of
> the word." [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi,
> 1983, p.75]
> 
> "Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a
> Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered
> again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory
> answer has been given." [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu
> Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178]
> 
> "Hinduism defies definition... It has no specific creed." [Khushwant
> Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19]
> 
> "The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to
> define it in a single phrase... A Hindu may have any religious
> belief or none." [Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan,
> 1961, p.40]


----------



## ThunderCat

Another thing for those Pakistanis who say we're the same people. those guys are mohajirs who came from gujrat, calcutta, utter pradesh and other places.

These pro-Indian clowns im talking about are Pervez Hoodboy or farukh saleem ahed rashid irfan husain


----------



## Solo Monk

ThunderCat said:


> Another thing for those Pakistanis who say we're the same people. those guys are mohajirs who came from gujrat, calcutta, utter pradesh and other places.
> 
> These pro-Indian clowns im talking about are Pervez Hoodboy or farukh saleem ahed rashid irfan husain


 
But the whole North India can be described in such terms, no ? I'm personnally a Punjabi Rajput, and know that there are a lot of them in India; they are perhaps religiously different, but in terms of cultural norms or anthropological classification, they belong to the 'Indus civilization' people, right ?
And I just talk of North India, even if I can't really define it... Punjab, Himachal Pradesh or Haryana for instance.


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

ThunderCat said:


> Another thing for those Pakistanis who say we're the same people. those guys are mohajirs who came from gujrat, calcutta, utter pradesh and other places.
> 
> These pro-Indian clowns im talking about are Pervez Hoodboy or farukh saleem ahed rashid irfan husain



Ironically I've always heard this being said by Sindhis and many Panjabis,. Care to explain why?


----------



## twofriends

There are some people who are trying to confuse Pakistani Nation that Pakistan was made as a secular state. They are running a media campaign. I think there must be a war against these traitors on media and online and on ground.


----------



## Kalyugi Mirza

Well we are same ..i don't think so people can differentiate between us


----------



## creater

leave the past.. look at pakistan now? what is happening now there guys?


----------



## scorpi786

I'm no expert in South Asian History but boy am I glad that we are a seperate nation then India, the gujarat riots were disgusting and I think we could have saw alot worser so yeah good thing we got our own nation. 

On the other hand I can see similarities between us and some Indians, not the tamil type but the northern indians mostly punjabis they are of similar race and culture to us. And even the Hindus (from what I see on the tv shows and some of my customers) are not that much different. 

So we really should have more reason to be on better grounds with them.

P.S

One big difference though is that they put more emphasis on education and wealth then we do, perhaps thats why they're doing better then us. 

On the other hand I don't like bollywood much these days, just dirty slags parading around as film stars and tv show hostesses (fuking hate rocki savanth). The culture glorifies sex and money, the rolemodels they set to young indian girls sheesh i feel sorry for the parents.


----------



## AryanWolve

I know it sounds weird but i just found this

European scholarship in Sanskrit, begun by Heinrich Roth (1620&#8211;1668) and Johann Ernst Hanxleden (1681&#8211;1731), is regarded as responsible for the discovery of the Indo-European language family by Sir William Jones. This scholarship played an important role in the development of Western philology, or historical linguistics.[citation needed]

Sir William Jones, speaking to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta (now Kolkata) on February 2, 1786, said:

The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.

--------

1.This would mean there was a race of people originally proto-indoeuropean and expanding their language and culture
2.If so than those people must have been european because sanskrit is so "wonderful", it was invented by europeans...

So the ideao that its a conspiracy against aryan [pakistani and indian] civilization poped up in my mind, i mean indians and pakistanis never pushed on europeans that they are indians but europeans pushed it on them that they were europeans once and their culture derrived from the europeans


----------



## AryanWolve

My duell with an nordicist white supremacist The Solar Race - The Indo-Aryans - Vanguard News Network Forum

Am i allowed to link to the discussion? Its very interesting and about indo-europeans, the indo-iranians, aryan tribes on the soul of pakistan and india --> aryavarta[=abode of the aryans]

Thanks!


----------



## scorpi786

We are not Aryan as in the common definition,i.e white and blonde. Our race is mostly dark coloured, although I would say there is alot of varieties I mean in my own families some are very fair, some quite dark and then some in between. 

We have our own unique subcontinent mix.


----------



## AryanWolve

scorpi786 said:


> We are not Aryan as in the common definition,i.e white and blonde. Our race is mostly dark coloured, although I would say there isalot of varieties I mean in my own families some are very fair, some quite dark and then some in between.
> 
> We have our own unique subcontinent mix.



LOL....Aryan never meant blonde and white. Please read the discussion its very interesting. Aryan means "Gora"=Brown-Yellowish or Golden, Aryans can also be Reddish Brown like Agni or Golden Brown like Indra. Aryans got Brownish to Black hair, sometimes a reddish tint like people in pakistan and northindia. They can have green and blue eyes though i have gypsy family who got green and grey eyes, but in quiet low frequencies however enough to be a beauty idol. Aryans were never whhite people. Aryans are not White, not Dravidians, not Arab, not Black, not anything else they are just Aryans always were and always are. Thats the discussion going on.

---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

Hymn 3.1.3 reads of Agni, "Bull, who beholdest men, through many mornings, *among the dark ones shine forth red*, O Agni."


----------



## W.11

im little purplish, little orangish and little greenish, does tht count aryan??


----------



## AryanWolve

KarachiPunk said:


> im little purplish, little orangish and little greenish, does tht count aryan??



The Aryans are a longheaded/dolicephal fair complexioned race of the robust medditerrenaoid variety. The upper castes, pure punjabi pakistanis and warrior clans jatts and rajputs and in europe the roma gypsies.

In the thread i linked to there is so many evidence to proove the nordicistic white supremacists false.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

I'm Muslim


----------



## AryanWolve

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> I'm Muslim



thats no race. islam is "dangerous" because you consider an dravid or negroe your brother


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

AryanWolve said:


> thats no race. islam is "dangerous" because you consider an dravid or negroe your brother




ROFL......................... Humans are all equal in Islam... One of the best companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH was a black slave he freed...Hazrat Bilal AS...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

No, it's egalitarian. 

At the Islamic Center here I pray side by side with African cab drivers, Pakistani and indian doctors and real estate guys, a tatto'd American convert who looks like he was once a punk-rocker, an Iranian-American businessman, an Arab professor, and even a Puerto Rican janitor who found light in Islam.


who the feck cares about race? Only insecure people who are at war with themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AryanWolve

AryanWolve said:


> thats no race. islam is "dangerous" because you consider an dravid or negroe your brother



Hinduism has many wrongs like all religions but at least its not anti-race

Daysu="the black skinned" "nose and mouthless"


1.130.8de mánave &#347;âsad avratân tváca&#7747; k&#7771;&#7779;&#7751;âm arandhayat
&#8212; "Plaguing the lawless he [Indra] gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin" (trans. Griffith)
9.41.1 prá yé gâvo ná bhûr&#7751;ayas / tve&#7779;â ayâso ákramu&#7717; / ghnánta&#7717; k&#7771;&#7779;&#7751;âm ápa tvácam[5]
&#8212; "(Praising the Soma-juices) which descend like streams of water, swift, brilliant, rapid driving off the black covered (Rakshasa who are darkness)"[6]
9.73.5cd índradvi&#7779;&#7789;&#257;m ápa dhamanti m&#257;yáy&#257; tvácam ásikn&#299;m bhûmano divás pári[7]
&#8212; "Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates." (trans. Griffith)

PS: Dasyu is a term that could also be applied to Vedic kings, if their behaviour changed. In the battle of the Ten Kings (Dasarajna) in the Rig Veda the king Sudas calls his enemies "Dasyu" which included Vedic peoples like the Anus, Druhyus, Turvashas, and even Purus. (RV 7.6, 12-14, 18)

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------




Pakistani Nationalist said:


> ROFL......................... Humans are all equal in Islam... One of the best companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH was a black slave he freed...Hazrat Bilal AS...



Yes thats what i mean and a negroe will have your daughter because he is your "muslim brother"...thats what i mean, i consider only aryans my brothers no matter the religion


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

AryanWolve said:


> Yes thats what i mean and a negroe will have your daughter because he is your "muslim brother"...thats what i mean, i consider only aryans my brothers no matter the religion



Watch your mouth kid... im against interracial marriages n stuff... though i see roma people marrying with whites n negros...How do you feel about tht.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AryanWolve

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Watch your mouth kid... im against interracial marriages n stuff...



good.



> though i see roma people marrying with whites n negros...How do you feel about tht.



both is wrong but with whites is less bad than with negroes.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

AryanWolve said:


> both is wrong but with whites is less bad than with negroes.



White=black same thing... i wont marry a white or black lady ever... it dillutes your genes.


----------



## W.11

AryanWolve said:


> thats no race. islam is "dangerous" because you consider an dravid or negroe your brother



a slim strong negro is better than your rainbow coloured wandering gypsy family fat uncles 

thts s racist comment

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AryanWolve

KarachiPunk said:


> a slim strong negro is better than your rainbow coloured wandering gypsy family fat uncles
> 
> thts s racist comment



Lol than be happy with your next negroe in law..... i mean hey everyone should get lucky


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Watch your mouth kid... im against interracial marriages n stuff... though i see roma people marrying with whites n negros...How do you feel about tht.



those romas 


i used to see them in Istanbul.......gypsies. Saw an 11 year old gypsie girl almost everyday at intersection when i would drive to the office. She always used to beg me for money; i'd give her some coins, then she'd beg me for a smoke

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

AryanWolve said:


> Lol than be happy with your next negroe in law..... i mean hey everyone should get lucky




Take your confused white wannabe @ss back to stormfront.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AryanWolve

Roma Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire were low bottom class, discriminated against because of their aryan way of life. They didnt adhered to strict islam. Muslim Gypsies drink alcohol for example and are quiet liberal in religion ways. Thats why the ottomans taxed the muslims gypsies like christians and muslims gypsies got beheaded like christians, while the other muslims got hanged and buried with head. The discrimination is evident till today. The christians and muslims discriminated gypsies. The only religion who is pro-gypsy is hinduism. --->Rajan Zed Hindu Leader.....LONG LIVE HINDUTVA


----------



## Water Car Engineer

AryanWolve said:


> Roma Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire were low bottom class, discriminated against because of their aryan way of life. They didnt adhered to strict islam. Muslim Gypsies drink alcohol for example and are quiet liberal in religion ways. Thats why the ottomans taxed the muslims gypsies like christians and muslims gypsies got beheaded like christians, while the other muslims got hanged and buried with head. The discrimination is evident till today. The christians and muslims discriminated gypsies. The only religion who is pro-gypsy is hinduism. --->Rajan Zed Hindu Leader.....LONG LIVE HINDUTVA





You're European now..... Take it and go..


----------



## El Weirdo

Sir LurkaLot said:


> You're European now..... Take it and go..



Well whats the problem do U have mate if AryanWolve wants to reconnect with his ancestory????
I have been living in Europe from the past many many years , does that mean I shud kiss good by to where my heart belongs? What was his fault if his great grand parents have to move away/taken away by those f(_)cking Invadors... If he sees a sence of belonging to the country of his genes/relegion he just shouldnt be a laughing / bashing matter..


----------



## scorpi786

Your a confused kid aryanwolf, you'll grow out of it one day in the mean time take pride in yourself, what you really are under the skin colour and the cultural/religious identities. Once you embrace that you'll find your true self and be better for it.


----------



## bajwajatt1984

sir please stop this bulshit i belonge to bajwa jatt sikh family our family migrated from sialkot distt small towns like narowal charwinda and pusrur and 84 village in sialkot distt eg ban bajwa,badani,kotli bajwa,jodhay wali was establish by our ancestors our ancester came from jaisalmer in 14th century not from central asia or iran ...all our relatives also migrated from distt like Gujranwala, Sargodha,Sheikhupura and Lahore in 1947 and belongs to jatt clans like waraich,randhawa,ghuman,cheema,deo,gondal,gill,heer and virk these clans are also comman anong muslam jatts who are 45% of pak punjab population how come only pak jatt are from central asia and we has never clam that we are from central asia ......


ThunderCat said:


> Another thing for those Pakistanis who say we're the same people. those guys are mohajirs who came from gujrat, calcutta, utter pradesh and other places.
> 
> These pro-Indian clowns im talking about are Pervez Hoodboy or farukh saleem ahed rashid irfan husain


----------



## AryanWolve

Im 70% European (various subcontinents) + 30% Southasian (various subcontinents)
My average in Europe is in Northitaly, my average in Southasia on the border between Pakistan/India (maybe Kashmir or Punjab?). My personal average/average overall is in Northwest Turkey. Fits i think, many ppl here in austria think im a turk.

Here you see the spots, the green spot is where i fit best (its türkiye) and the brown spot is where my indian origins are and the red spot where my european origins are



image hosting

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

Pashtun and Cohini_Jew are ethnicity possibilities.


----------



## AryanWolve

Another Roma (Romanichal from England) has same(similar?) brown spot in India/Pakistan Border but his european and green spot are different. He is more European than me, he fits in Europe, i fit in Turkey.




upload images


----------



## A1Kaid

Today, groups of people in Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, North Pakistan/Kashmir, North Hind, are considered "Aryan" people. I have even heard of Armenians considering themselves as Aryans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AryanWolve

A1Kaid said:


> Today, groups of people in Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, North Pakistan/Kashmir, North Hind, are considered "Aryan" people. I have even heard of Armenians considering themselves as Aryans.



If im partially jewish, im not aryan. jewish is a possibilty but very vague.

New Email from Doug McDonald. Now more clearer predictions.
*Most likely fit is 70.3% (+- 9.2%) Europe (various subcontinents)

and 29.7% (+- 9.2%) S. Asia (various subcontinents)
*


The following are possible population sets and their fractions,

most likely at the top

*Romania= 0.795 S_India= 0.205

Spain= 0.610 Pathan= 0.390*



fits OK. But more complicated mixes fit better ... *but are so

complicated that it is useless to list them* ... they all comtain Southern

India plus one place from just about anywhere in Europe and one

in just about anywhere in the Mideast.



The chromosome painting is also somewhat enigmatic. It shows

European, Mideast, and S. Asian. *There are parts that are strongly European,

and some that are strongly S. Asian, but there are large areas that

lie on any of the three possible &#8220;borders&#8221;*. Also, the scatter plots indicate

that you are verly clearly strongly &#8220;mixed&#8221; ... no single population

could fit you unless it was VERY odd indeed (as odd, for example, as

Sardinian or Kalash) and was one we don&#8217;t have. I would expect that in

fact you were from somewhere in the very general area of Turkey and were in fact

of very mixed ancestry. That&#8217;s what the map says too, and it is very frequently right.



Doug McDonald

I had pathan in my first DOD Oracle Results. In second i had Cohini Jews (which are from Kerala Southerindia). Thats why i asked McDonald again if the Southindia could be Cohini_Jews.....

Well, in the Behar paper the Cohini Jews lie near the Pakistanis, but given that they have to mix with other things,

that&#8217;s close enough (and close to Pathan too).



The &#8220;red&#8221; (actually brown) point in India is from the average of the &#8220;more complicated fits&#8221;

I mentioned: it is the average position of all the India/Pakistani entries in that list ,... and lies

on the map between the Pathans and Cochini Jews. This makes sense.



As to the v3 chip ... no need to send those. The results are absolutely the same as the v2 chip,

as I use only SNPs in common between them.



Doug McDonald

*On the Map i have a spot in Italy, a spot in Northwestindia and a big spot in Turkey (which averages me there)*

I asked him if he had to give me one European Ethnicity and one Southasian what it would be.

He replied: *Romanian and Indian*

I also wondered why im not Serb and minor Russian on these analyses. Since thats my known European Ancestry.
He told me to try Dodecat Oracle. I already got my Results. Old and New.

Here are my new ones. The old ones DOD Oracle First Edition were similar just replace Cohini_Jews with Pashtun.

*single mode*
[1,] "Romanians" "13.2318"
[2,] "Bulgarian_D" "17.1616"
[3,] "Bulgarians_Y" "17.9173"
[4,] "O_Italian_D" "20.5611"
[5,] "Ashkenazy_Jews" "21.618"
[6,] "C_Italian_D" "22.0986"
[7,] "Greek_D" "22.1932"
[8,] "Tuscan" "22.8954"
[9,] "Ashkenazi_D" "23.1097"
[10,] "TSI25" "23.4849"

*two way mixed mode*
[1,] "75.8% Bulgarian_D + 24.2% Cochin_Jews" "2.051"
[2,] "25% Cochin_Jews + 75% Bulgarians_Y" "2.4013"
[3,] "23.6% Bnei_Menashe_Jews + 76.4% Romanians" "2.6058"
[4,] "19.5% Cochin_Jews + 80.5% Romanians" "2.7403"
[5,] "80.2% Bulgarian_D + 19.8% Velamas_M" "3.3046"
[6,] "71.4% Bulgarian_D + 28.6% Bnei_Menashe_Jews" "3.3216"
[7,] "80.3% Bulgarian_D + 19.7% Tamil_Nadu_Scheduled_Caste_M" "3.4346"
[8,] "78.7% Bulgarian_D + 21.3% INS25" "3.6316"
[9,] "79.2% Bulgarian_D + 20.8% Meghawal_M" "3.6469"
[10,] "77.9% Bulgarian_D + 22.1% Brahmins_from_Tamil_Nadu_M" "3.7009"

----

I also asked him about possible Jewish Ancestry, since on DOD Oracle i have jewish matches,even in single mode i match "ashkenazim". But he didnt replied to this. Also i doubt if nationalities can be ascribed with certainity. I mean im neither bulgarian nor romanian, nor spanish or italian. Im Serb+tiny bit Russian. Cannot say anything about the Subcontinent except its something indian. Predictions ranges from Pashtun (in Afghanistan) to some Southindian Ethnicity (which is again very diverse from brahmin,to jew to some tribal population - so how can i know for sure, i mean S.Indian itself doesnt tell the ethnicity its like saying South European). I guess when samples are improved and they count serbia and russia and maybe romani people than i will be what i am actually a mix between those 3 ethnicities.


----------



## AryanWolve

My First Edition Oracle Results (Top 10)

DodecadOracle, mixedmode (similarity to population mixes)
[,1] [,2]
*[1,] "33.3% Pathan + 66.7% Romanians_14" "6.683"*
[2,] "31.8% Bnei_Menashe_Jews + 68.2% Romanians_14" "6.8637"
[3,] "31% Burusho + 69% Romanians_14" "6.9093"
[4,] "70.7% Romanians_14 + 29.3% Sindhi" "7.0046"
[5,] "70.1% Romanians_14 + 29.9% Pakistani" "7.1144"
[6,] "64.5% Balkans_D + 35.5% Bnei_Menashe_Jews" "7.3362"
[7,] "26.4% Cochin_Jews + 73.6% Romanians_14" "7.3632"
[8,] "74.7% Romanians_14 + 25.3% Meghawal" "7.5858"
[9,] "69.9% Romanians_14 + 30.1% Kashmiri_Pandit" "7.61"
[10,] "73.6% Romanians_14 + 26.4% Vaish" "7.7052"

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

I think we can agree on (comment from DNA Forums.)

*Undetermined would be the consensus. It's difficult to separate components that the cluster together or next to each other. All we can really conclude is you are not 100% either, but have components that put you between them genetically. Not much else you can expect except wait for more samples that more clearly define the clusters or hope a new ethnic group is determined to be in that space you occupy on the plot. *


----------



## AryanWolve

AryanWolve said:


> [/COLOR]I think we can agree on (comment from DNA Forums.)
> 
> *Undetermined would be the consensus. It's difficult to separate components that the cluster together or next to each other. All we can really conclude is you are not 100% either, but have components that put you between them genetically. Not much else you can expect except wait for more samples that more clearly define the clusters or hope a new ethnic group is determined to be in that space you occupy on the plot. *



This means neither Pashtun nor Cohini_Jew but cluster inbetween them. Comment from DNA Forums.


----------



## AryanWolve

So there are Genetic similarities to Pashtos and Cohini_Jews with Romani People. There mtdna was traced to Punjab as Homeland of Romani People. So this fits with my (southasian) spot on the map.


----------



## scorpi786

Good for you, you happy know? Learnt something about yourself have you?


----------



## AryanWolve

scorpi786 said:


> Good for you, you happy know? Learnt something about yourself have you?



a little bit.


----------



## scorpi786

You'll learn more by discovering things about yourself, your built in needs and desires, how people see you, etc. The only way to achieve this is by interacting with people and being yourself.

You dont need to research no BS.


----------



## AryanWolve

From Harappa Ancestry Project Harappa Oracle, seems as if im a brahmin, cool. and the distance is quiete close, closer thane everything i got before 1.06 for bihari brahmin


[,1] [,2] 
[1,] "69.9% tuscans + 30.1% Bihari Brahmin" "1.0627"
[2,] "71.8% tuscans + 28.2% Bengali Brahmin" "1.4946"
[3,] "70.3% tuscans + 29.7% UP Brahmin" "1.5379"
[4,] "33.9% bene-israel + 66.1% bulgarians" "1.5631"
[5,] "72.6% tuscans + 27.4% ap-brahmin" "1.7342"
[6,] "71.4% tuscans + 28.6% vaish" "1.7753"
[7,] "72.9% tuscans + 27.1% Oriya" "1.7949"
[8,] "71.7% tuscans + 28.3% Brahmins_from_Uttar_Pradesh" "1.8043"
[9,] "67.8% tuscans + 32.2% Rajasthani Brahmin" "1.8924"
[10,] "66.6% tuscans + 33.4% punjabi-arain" "1.8939"
>


----------



## malinamartis

Great post!!!! I am so glad to read about this topic...thanks for the sharing.


----------



## AsianLion




----------



## W.11

Neo said:


> *PART-2*
> 
> *PAKISTAN RARELY PART OF INDIA *
> 
> But, as the following discussion will prove, during the Hindu period it was the people of the Indus Valley in the West and the Padma-Meghna Delta in the East that mostly emerged triumphant. Both the wings remained independent of Gangetic Valley and in fact Pakistan-based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than India has ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ------ cultural, commercial as well as political ---- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that these two wings became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by the two wings. In the pre-Muslim period, Indias great expansion covering large portions of the sub-continent took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. I shall quote a few passages from history to substantiate my statement.
> 
> "At the close of Samudraguptas triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith).
> 
> "Harshas subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid)
> 
> "The Gurjara empire of Bhoja may be defined as, on the north, the foot of the mountains; on the northwest, the Sutlej; on the west the Hakra or the lost-river forming the boundary of Sind." (Ibid).
> 
> "The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is extremely obscure. At some time, not recorded, a powerful kingdom had been formed, which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra of lost-river, so that it comprised a large part of the Punjab, as well as probably northern Sind." (Ibid)
> 
> "Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown)
> 
> The above quotations amply prove that none of the periods of its greatest expansion did India succeed in occupying Pakistan. The only exception is the Maurya period in the 3rd century BC when Asokas empire is said to have extended up to the Hindu Kush, north of Kabul. Even in this isolated case of the Mauryas, historians are aware that Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who hailed from Pakistan (Punjab), did not get Pakistan by conquest but by diplomacy from the Greek rulers who had succeeded Alexander.
> 
> 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. "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographers nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee)
> 
> During its five thousand-year known history, Pakistan has been subservient to Central Indian governments only during the Maurya, the Turko-Afghan and British periods who were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian respectively. While the Mauryan (300-200 BC) and British (1848-1947) periods lasted barely a hundred years each, the turko-Afghan period was the longest covering a span of 500 years.
> 
> Here we come across an important ideological point. All the three religions i.e. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which succeeded in uniting the sub-continent under the Maurya, Turko-Afghan and British rulers stood for universal brotherhood and were spread all over the world. In the context of ideology, the implications are obvious i.e., only people believing in universal brotherhood could unite and hold this sub-continent together. Otherwise Pakistans independence could never be challenged nor its people subdued by Indias Hindu Governments.
> 
> It is of these celebrated lands and of their intrepid people that we shall narrate the story here. In this article we shall give a brief historical background and the contribution made by each of the groups that inhabit it: We shall begin with a general account of the entire country first and then take up the history of each group.
> 
> Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif



The western scholars during the colonial period proposed an idea that pakistan was the eastern end of greek civilization and many buddhist arts were propagated as greek origin, etc. Taxila was declared as a city with greek iron grid planning and the black northern polished ware was declared as greek polished ware, so the idea that pakistan was actually more related to the west than india was an idea which was heavily propagated by the british colonial historians. A statue dating from indus civilization/ red jasper harappan torso was declared as example of greek influence in the indian/south asian/maurya arts, which is just rediculous

today we know that the greek polished ware didn't actually come from greece but Bihar, Magadh India and the period is 1000 BC and not the alexander's period. taxila being a greek planned city has been also debunked as well.

samundragupta was not the king who conquered Pakistan but his son chandragupta II, also called vikramaditya who not only captured Punjab/sapta sindh but also bactria.

calling mauryan king chandragupta as pakistabn/hailing from Punjab is laughable since the guy was part of magadh dynasty, even nandas before him held parts of Punjab.

what has been said about Punjab and sindh being mostly independent is also true, but then many other parts of india like kalinga/orissa, bengal etc also remained independent much of their pre islamic periods, gujarat mostly remained independent during gujarat sultanate period and bengal also remained independent as a separate sultanate.

regards


----------



## W.11

Neo said:


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



Actually just came to know that Harsha ''pounded the ruler of sindh'' according to his biographer Banabhatta, and Harsha was declared as the soverign of Uttarpatha by his rival Pulakesin 2. Kashmir was also under Harsha because al beruni recorded sri harsha era used in kashmir.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/history-vardhana.htm

regards


----------



## W.11

W.11 said:


> Actually just came to know that Harsha ''pounded the ruler of sindh'' according to his biographer Banabhatta, and Harsha was declared as the soverign of Uttarpatha by his rival Pulakesin 2. Kashmir was also under Harsha because al beruni recorded sri harsha era used in kashmir.
> 
> https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/history-vardhana.htm
> 
> regards



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

check out the names of the rulers of rai dynasty included as part of chach nama


----------

