# Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947



## roadrunner

We all name things for reasons. Even names have meaning. When the names of both India and Pakistan were submitted to Mountbatten at Partition by Nehru and Jinnah, what were the intentions of Nehru and colleagues for choosing the word "India". Surely they knew the history of the subcontinent well enough, the geography was obvious to them. The Indus River location was known to be outside of India, which is where India derives from. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I can only think that he chose the name because Hindus inhabited his country, Hindu of course taking its derivation from Indus also. To demonstrate this, let's say that a Spanish king invades France 200 years in the future, and calls them Germans (because he doesn't know any better). Then in 400 years time, political upheaval occurs, Germany changes its name to something else, and the French leader decides to rename his country Germany. Now all the history of Germany becomes French history. That's basically what has happened in the subcontinent. Pre-planned, or did the Indian leaders name it after the Hindus? 

In the words of Winston Churchill, "India is no more a country than the Equator"

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## bhangra12345

Road runner,
I dont know what you are after. Probably I have heard/seen the word "bharat" from you more than the rest of the world combined.

I remember a movie by the name 'Sardar" on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, which sums it all up. (all from my memory)During the discussions on partition between Mountbatten, Patel and Jinnah, Jinnah says "Mere khayal se jo do desh ban raha hain, wun ka naam hindustan aur pakistan rakhna chahiye" (ET: In my opinion the two countries which are being formed should be named hindustan and pakistan)to which Patel replies "yahaan do desh nahi ban rahe hain. Ek desh se ek hissa alag hoke jaa raha hain. Tumhare hisse ka jo naam rakhna chahe woh rakh sakhte hain, humare bare mein mat sochiye" (ET: Here two countries are not being formed. From an already existing country a part is seceeding away. You can keep whatever name you wish to keep, you need not worry about us).

It was not our country which removed all the stories of asoka, kanishka, gupta from our textbooks, but it was Pakistan who said we dont want to claim the heritage by removing
all their references from the children's textbooks and directly jump from indus valley to 712 sindh. Why are you even thinking of pinpointing us? It is "you yourselves" who is to blamed for letting go of such glorious heritage. 
see the following links
Pakistan History, Pakistan Ancient History, Pakistan History Culture, Modern History Of Pakistan
Pakistan History,Army history insurrection pakistan war,India Pakistan History,Pakistan Cricket History,pakistan political history
Pakistan History Index

check out wikipedia, I could not check the official govt sites because they seem to be under maintanence, but I am sure that it will be the same. 
All of them talk of ivc, then greek in bc and then jump to 712. 

You talk about Alexander's conquest, we talk about Porus's stand against alexander and overthrow of greek rule by Chandragupta Maurya. As long as you appreciate alexander more than Porus/Purushottam, dont expect to see your claim on history seriously. 

Because simple question? whom do you claim to be? of alexander or Puroshottam? Of some person coming from another country and attacking here or someone who might have lost but is native to the land. This is the question which Pakistan has to first answers before it starts reclaiming the history. Also realize answering this question will have profound implications on how you start seeing history from 712 AD and in essence your identity.

How do you start seeing Ranjit Singh and his escapades against british and mughal? when his capital is lahore? Dont forget that his principle enemy was a muslim mughal ruling from Delhi. Where do your sympathies lie?

Reactions: Like Like:
67


----------



## UnitedPak

stealth, why do you flood every thread with off topic quotes?

The "India" the greeks were referring to wasnt called "India", and it was in Pakistan. Look up Alexanders invasion of "India", it didnt even touch modern India.

And this is about the naming of Modern India, you cant possibly use ancient quotes to justify anything here.

Churchill was spot on, but I suppose you only want to quote hinduonnet sources.

&#8220;India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator.&#8221; -Winston Churchill

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> stealth, why do you flood every thread with off topic quotes?
> 
> The "India" the greeks were referring to wasnt called "India", and it was in Pakistan. Look up Alexanders invasion of "India", it didnt even touch modern India.
> 
> And this is about the naming of Modern India, you cant possibly use ancient quotes to justify anything here.
> 
> Churchill was spot on, but I suppose you only want to quote hinduonnet sources.
> 
> &#8220;India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator.&#8221; -Winston Churchill



*
I am using ancient India because Roadrunner is saying that Ancient India was nothing but Pakistan. Hence my "flooding" with quotes.*

*
UnitedPak, why would you ignore every Greek historian who described India, a Chinese historian, a Persian historian and Marco Polo and just consider Alexander?

All ancient writers describe India accurately as the area India+Pakistan *


Then the British came and named the entire place India.

Is that good enough for you?

*
Pakistan is simply a portion of the original India, as described by almost every early and late historian, that broke away in 1947.

The above is not my viewpoint, its the viewpoint of the ancient as well as the modern world.*

Reactions: Like Like:
21 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## bhangra12345

Now this is directly from the pakistan's government website.

http://www.heritage.gov.pk

and then click on History through Centuries, you will go to http://www.heritage.gov.pk/html_Pages/history_of_pakistan.htm i.e. here the whole of Pakistan's history is provided in a nutshell by the govt.

Something like 15 paragraphs for history in bc, mostly about greeks and ivc -mentions about kanishka and asoka. Then 2 small paras from bc to you know which year, yes 712. So all the 700 years of history has been jumped and then the mughal empire is discussed, but wait a minute there is even the sikh empire right, sorry no mention of it.

Basically, you dont claim it, you wont get it and you dont claim Pakistan's history.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

bhangra12345 said:


> Now this is directly from the pakistan's government website.
> 
> http://www.heritage.gov.pk
> 
> and then click on History through Centuries, you will go to http://www.heritage.gov.pk/html_Pages/history_of_pakistan.htm i.e. here the whole of Pakistan's history is provided in a nutshell by the govt.
> 
> Something like 15 paragraphs for history in bc, mostly about greeks and ivc -mentions about kanishka and asoka. Then 2 small paras from bc to you know which year, yes 712. So all the 700 years of history has been jumped and then the mughal empire is discussed, but wait a minute there is even the sikh empire right, sorry no mention of it.
> 
> *Basically, you dont claim it, you wont get it and you dont claim Pakistan's *history.



Sorry, but what do you think the whole point was of me and roadrunner bringing this topic up??
It was BECAUSE Pakistan history wasnt credited to Pakistan.
That has to be the weakest argument I have ever come across.

Just because Pakistani Gov doesnt claim it, doesnt mean its up for grabs, and India can claim to be people they are not.

When Pakistanis like me try to claim it, you have other completely besides the point arguments. There is no way of debating this with you.

And just for the record, Greek "India" was mainly Pakistan, if not all of it. When they invaded "India", they never set a foot in modern India. You need to stop claiming Pakistan is part of India. It belongs to Pakistanis (whatever they called themselves throughout history), Indians dont come into the equations whatsoever.

I dont know why you think Indians own Pakistanis. Everyone of your arguments is based on that assumption.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> And just for the record, Greek "India" was mainly Pakistan, if not all of it. When they invaded "India", they never set a foot in modern India. You need to stop claiming Pakistan is part of India. It belongs to Pakistanis (whatever they called themselves throughout history), Indians dont come into the equations whatsoever.



The Greeks never invaded the whole of India dear!! 

They simply reached the extreme end of Ancient India....and weren't able to progress further because of the powerful Maghada Kingdom!! 





> I dont know why you think Indians own Pakistanis. Everyone of your arguments is based on that assumption.



Ah...chillax.....we don't own Pakistanis.

*
The point is that a major chunk of Pakistani history is too intertwined with Indian history to be called exclusively it own! *

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## bhangra12345

Stealth Assassin said:


> *
> The point is that a major chunk of Pakistani history is too intertwined with Indian history to be called exclusively it own! *



I would change that to Pakistani geographical history instead of plain vanilla pakistani history.


----------



## Flintlock

bhangra12345 said:


> I would change that to Pakistani geographical history instead of plain vanilla pakistani history.



Yeah, well, history of the area currently occupied by Pakistan.....so Pakistani history...

Of course the whole of Pakistan was part of Ancient India....but that is another story.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

bhangra12345 said:


> Road runner,
> I dont know what you are after. Probably I have heard/seen the word "bharat" from you more than the rest of the world combined.
> 
> I remember a movie by the name 'Sardar" on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, which sums it all up. (all from my memory)During the discussions on partition between Mountbatten, Patel and Jinnah, Jinnah says "Mere khayal se jo do desh ban raha hain, wun ka naam hindustan aur pakistan rakhna chahiye" (ET: In my opinion the two countries which are being formed should be named hindustan and pakistan)to which Patel replies "yahaan do desh nahi ban rahe hain. Ek desh se ek hissa alag hoke jaa raha hain. Tumhare hisse ka jo naam rakhna chahe woh rakh sakhte hain, humare bare mein mat sochiye" (ET: Here two countries are not being formed. From an already existing country a part is seceeding away. You can keep whatever name you wish to keep, you need not worry about us).
> 
> It was not our country which removed all the stories of asoka, kanishka, gupta from our textbooks, but it was Pakistan who said we dont want to claim the heritage by removing
> all their references from the children's textbooks and directly jump from indus valley to 712 sindh. Why are you even thinking of pinpointing us? It is "you yourselves" who is to blamed for letting go of such glorious heritage.
> see the following links
> Pakistan History, Pakistan Ancient History, Pakistan History Culture, Modern History Of Pakistan
> Pakistan History,Army history insurrection pakistan war,India Pakistan History,Pakistan Cricket History,pakistan political history
> Pakistan History Index
> 
> check out wikipedia, I could not check the official govt sites because they seem to be under maintanence, but I am sure that it will be the same.
> All of them talk of ivc, then greek in bc and then jump to 712.
> 
> You talk about Alexander's conquest, we talk about Porus's stand against alexander and overthrow of greek rule by Chandragupta Maurya. As long as you appreciate alexander more than Porus/Purushottam, dont expect to see your claim on history seriously.
> 
> Because simple question? whom do you claim to be? of alexander or Puroshottam? Of some person coming from another country and attacking here or someone who might have lost but is native to the land. This is the question which Pakistan has to first answers before it starts reclaiming the history. Also realize answering this question will have profound implications on how you start seeing history from 712 AD and in essence your identity.
> 
> How do you start seeing Ranjit Singh and his escapades against british and mughal? when his capital is lahore? Dont forget that his principle enemy was a muslim mughal ruling from Delhi. Where do your sympathies lie?



People talk about Alexander for one reason. I talk about him because he is a part of Pakistan's history. He left a big enough mark on it by all the stupas built, and of course some tribes claim, descent from him. Therefore i talk about him. Porus I believe to have been an ancient Pakistani of course. He was defeated anyway. If he'd have won, he'd have been the only one to have defeated Alexander..He nearly did, so it was a good achievement. The only arrow that got Alexander was given to him in Pakistan I believe. So, it's not "hero worship" of Alexander (or Porus), it's he's a part of Pakistan's history. 

Why should my sympathies lie with Ranjit Singh? He was an idiot that conquested several areas of Pakistan and he was one of the reasons the British were able to get some of the regions under control. For me he's a traitor. I didn't even like the Mughals much, but i definitely didn't like Ranjit Singh or Hari Singh. For me, they were all colonialists.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Quote by Megasthenes (300 BC)
> 
> "India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the *Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth;* that *towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of H&#275;m&#333;dus from Scythia*, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; *and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."*



How does this refer to India? India today if anything is three-sided in plan. More triangular. Pakistan on the other hand is four-sided with all these features. Also, your quotes are from Wikipedia, which could easily be wrong. What is the link for your "Arrian" quote? 



Stealth Assassin said:


> *I believe the above quotes from Greek, Chinese and Marco Polo himself should establish the boundaries of India, as known to the ancient world, being approximately those of modern India and Pakistan.*



You seem to think you've hit upon something amazing here. All your quotes that include geographical modern India as "India" are from around the 1st century AD onwards. Do you know that "Ind" and the Indus were given to the name of ancient Pakistan since 2000 BC? So for 4,000 years people have been referring to Pakistan as India, whilst only 2000 years has India been included with the Ganges. And this being only what foreigners have been saying. Pakistan, or the ancient Pakistani people never agreed to accept you guys as part of the original India or Sindhu. 

Why on earth name your country after someone elses river? It's like naming your country "Rhineland" even though the Rhine flows through Germany. 
Why on earth name your country on what foreigners (who werent very good at geography) called your country?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> How does this refer to India? India today if anything is three-sided in plan. More triangular. Pakistan on the other hand is four-sided with all these features.



If you cross reference the archaic names mentioned, it is crystal clear.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> If you cross reference the archaic names mentioned, it is crystal clear.



You make even less sense than the irrelevant arguments you come out with usually.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

*Pliny: Position, Boundaries, and Physical Characteristics of India
*
BOOK VI. c. 17 (21). But where the chain of Hemodus rises the communities are settled, and the nations of India, which begin there, *adjoin not only the eastern sea but also the southern, which we have already mentioned under the name of the Indian Ocean.* That part which faces the east runs in a straight line to the bend where the Indian Ocean begins, and measures 1875 miles. *Then from this bend to the south up to the river Indus, which forms the western boundary of India,* the distance, as given by Eratosthenes, is 2475 miles. *But many authors have represented the total length of its coast as being a sail of forty days and forty nights, and its length from north to south as being 2850 miles*. Agrippa has estimated its length at 3300 miles, and its breadth at 2300. Poseidonios has measured it from north-east to south-east, placing it opposite to Gaul, which he was measuring from north-west to south-west, making the whole of India lie to west of Gaul. Hence he has shown by undoubted proofs that India being opposite to Gaul must be refreshed by the blowing of the west wind, and have in consequence a salubrious climate. Here the appearance of the heavens is entirely changed, and the stars rise differently; there are two summers in the year, and two harvests having winter between them, while the Etesian winds are prevalent; and during our winter the breezes there are light and the seas navigable. In this country the nations and cities are numberless should one attempt to reckon them all up. It was opened up to our knowledge not only by the arms of Alexander the Great and of the kings who succeeded him, Seleucus and Antiochus, as well as by their admiral Patrokles who sailed round even into the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, but also by certain Greek authors, who resided with Indian kings, such as Megasthenes, and Dionysius who was sent by Philadelphus, and have thus informed us of the power and resources of the Indian nations. However, there is no room for a careful examination of their statements, they are so diverse and incredible. The companions of Alexander the Great have written that in that *tract of India, which he subdued, there were 5000 towns, none less than Cos--that its nations were nine in number-*-that India was the third part of all the world, and that the multitude of its inhabitants was past reckoning. For this there was probably a good reason, since the Indians almost alone among the nations have never emigrated from their own borders. Their kings from Father Bacchus down to Alexander the Great are reckoned at 153 over a space of 6451 years and three months. The vast size of their rivers fills the mind with wonder. It is recorded that Alexander on no day had sailed on the Indus less than 600 stadia, and was unable to reach its mouth in less than five months and a few days, and yet it appears that it is smaller than the *Ganges*. Seneca, who was our fellow-citizen and composed a treatise on India, h*as given the number of its rivers at 60, and that of its nations at 118. *It would be as great a difficulty should we attempt to enumerate its mountains. The chains of Imavos, Hemodus, Paropanisus, and Caucasus are mutually connected, and from their base the whole country sinks down into a plain of immense extent and bears a great resemblance to Egypt. But that our account of the geography of these regions may be better understood, we shall tread in the steps of Alexander the Great, whose marches were measured by Diognetes and Baeton.

BooK II. c. 73 (75). In the same way they inform us that in the town of Syene, which is 5000 stadia south of Alexandria, no shadow is cast at noon on the day of the solstice, and that a well dug for the purpose of the experiment was completely illuminated, from which it appears that the sun is vertical at that place, and Onesicritus writes that in India this is the case at that time at the river Hypasis. . . . In the country of the Oretes, a people of India, is the mountain Maleus, near which shadows in the summer are cast to the south and in winter to the north. The stars of the Great Bear are visible there for fifteen days only.* In India also, at Patala, a celebrated port, the sun rises on the right hand and the shadows fall to the south.* It was observed, while Alexander was staying there the seven stars of the Bear were seen only at the early part of the evening. Onesicritus, one of his generals, states that in those parts of India where there are no shadows the Bear is not seen; these places, he says, are called 'ascia,' and time there is not reckoned by hours.

C. 108 (112). One part of the earth . . . stretches out to the greatest extent from east to west, that is, from India to the Pillars of Hercules at Gades, being a distance of 8578 miles according to Artemidorus, but according to Isidorus 9818 miles.

Book VI. c. 16 (18). This nation (the Bactrian) lies at the back of Mount Paropanisus over against the sources of the river Indus.

*From: McCrindle, J. W. Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature. Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1901, 107-110.*

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> You seem to think you've hit upon something amazing here. All your quotes that include geographical modern India as "India" are from around the 1st century AD onwards. Do you know that "Ind" and the Indus were given to the name of ancient Pakistan since 2000 BC? So for 4,000 years people have been referring to Pakistan as India, whilst only 2000 years has India been included with the Ganges. And this being only what foreigners have been saying. Pakistan, or the ancient Pakistani people never agreed to accept you guys as part of the original India or Sindhu.



Er....your "analysis" is highly suspect. Please provide quotes by ancient historians or writers clearly stating that India is comprised of merely the banks of the Indus.

I suspect that you will not find many.



> Why on earth name your country after someone elses river? It's like naming your country "Rhineland" even though the Rhine flows through Germany.
> Why on earth name your country on what foreigners (who werent very good at geography) called your country?



Er....silly argument.

Ancient India was the land "east of the Indus", as envisioned by most of the explorers of that time, my quotes justify this. 

Now that Pakistan decided to separate....too bad. We still retain the name.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> *Pliny: Position, Boundaries, and Physical Characteristics of India
> *
> BOOK VI. c. 17 (21). But where the chain of Hemodus rises the communities are settled, and the nations of India, which begin there, *adjoin not only the eastern sea but also the southern, which we have already mentioned under the name of the Indian Ocean.* That part which faces the east runs in a straight line to the bend where the Indian Ocean begins, and measures 1875 miles. *Then from this bend to the south up to the river Indus, which forms the western boundary of India,* the distance, as given by Eratosthenes, is 2475 miles. *But many authors have represented the total length of its coast as being a sail of forty days and forty nights, and its length from north to south as being 2850 miles*. Agrippa has estimated its length at 3300 miles, and its breadth at 2300. Poseidonios has measured it from north-east to south-east, placing it opposite to Gaul, which he was measuring from north-west to south-west, making the whole of India lie to west of Gaul. Hence he has shown by undoubted proofs that India being opposite to Gaul must be refreshed by the blowing of the west wind, and have in consequence a salubrious climate. Here the appearance of the heavens is entirely changed, and the stars rise differently; there are two summers in the year, and two harvests having winter between them, while the Etesian winds are prevalent; and during our winter the breezes there are light and the seas navigable. In this country the nations and cities are numberless should one attempt to reckon them all up. It was opened up to our knowledge not only by the arms of Alexander the Great and of the kings who succeeded him, Seleucus and Antiochus, as well as by their admiral Patrokles who sailed round even into the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, but also by certain Greek authors, who resided with Indian kings, such as Megasthenes, and Dionysius who was sent by Philadelphus, and have thus informed us of the power and resources of the Indian nations. However, there is no room for a careful examination of their statements, they are so diverse and incredible. The companions of Alexander the Great have written that in that *tract of India, which he subdued, there were 5000 towns, none less than Cos--that its nations were nine in number-*-that India was the third part of all the world, and that the multitude of its inhabitants was past reckoning. For this there was probably a good reason, since the Indians almost alone among the nations have never emigrated from their own borders. Their kings from Father Bacchus down to Alexander the Great are reckoned at 153 over a space of 6451 years and three months. The vast size of their rivers fills the mind with wonder. It is recorded that Alexander on no day had sailed on the Indus less than 600 stadia, and was unable to reach its mouth in less than five months and a few days, and yet it appears that it is smaller than the *Ganges*. Seneca, who was our fellow-citizen and composed a treatise on India, h*as given the number of its rivers at 60, and that of its nations at 118. *It would be as great a difficulty should we attempt to enumerate its mountains. The chains of Imavos, Hemodus, Paropanisus, and Caucasus are mutually connected, and from their base the whole country sinks down into a plain of immense extent and bears a great resemblance to Egypt. But that our account of the geography of these regions may be better understood, we shall tread in the steps of Alexander the Great, whose marches were measured by Diognetes and Baeton.
> 
> BooK II. c. 73 (75). In the same way they inform us that in the town of Syene, which is 5000 stadia south of Alexandria, no shadow is cast at noon on the day of the solstice, and that a well dug for the purpose of the experiment was completely illuminated, from which it appears that the sun is vertical at that place, and Onesicritus writes that in India this is the case at that time at the river Hypasis. . . . In the country of the Oretes, a people of India, is the mountain Maleus, near which shadows in the summer are cast to the south and in winter to the north. The stars of the Great Bear are visible there for fifteen days only.* In India also, at Patala, a celebrated port, the sun rises on the right hand and the shadows fall to the south.* It was observed, while Alexander was staying there the seven stars of the Bear were seen only at the early part of the evening. Onesicritus, one of his generals, states that in those parts of India where there are no shadows the Bear is not seen; these places, he says, are called 'ascia,' and time there is not reckoned by hours.
> 
> C. 108 (112). One part of the earth . . . stretches out to the greatest extent from east to west, that is, from India to the Pillars of Hercules at Gades, being a distance of 8578 miles according to Artemidorus, but according to Isidorus 9818 miles.
> 
> Book VI. c. 16 (18). This nation (the Bactrian) lies at the back of Mount Paropanisus over against the sources of the river Indus.
> 
> *From: McCrindle, J. W. Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature. Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1901, 107-110.*



^Who wrote each of those 4 quotes? Do you know, genius?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> ^Who wrote each of those 4 quotes? Do you know, genius?



I obviously do, since I have read it.

Now clearly, the Greeks knew India as the area approximately India+Pakistan.

I think I have made my point regarding the boundaries of ancient India.

Cheers

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Er....your "analysis" is highly suspect. Please provide quotes by ancient historians or writers clearly stating that India is comprised of merely the banks of the Indus.
> 
> I suspect that you will not find many.



All the historian's quotes from basically before 0 AD take "India" to mean Pakistan. Example, is Herodotus. 

[36] So far the whole expedition was over country known, if imperfectly, to the Greeks. Now we have to follow the conquering hero more closely as he leads us into an unknown land away to the east, known as "the farthest region of the inhabited world towards the east, beyond which lies the endless sandy desert void of inhabitants."* And all the while the great land of India (today's Bharat) lay beyond, and beyond again was China, and away far over the ocean sea lay America&#8212;and they knew it not. *
The Baldwin Project: A Book of Discovery by M. B. Synge 

There's actually references from Herodotus's books that show Pakistan was the "easternmost part of the world". Here's one quote where he describes modern India as a desolate land. 

"So much for the parts of Asia west of the Persians. But what is beyond the Persians, and Medes, and Saspires, and Colchians, east and toward the rising sun, this is bounded on the one hand by the Red Sea, and to the north by the Caspian Sea and the Araxes river, which flows toward the sun's rising. [2] As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the east is desolation, nor can anyone say what kind of land is there."
book_04

There are of couse more accurate quotes from Herodotus preceisly describing the Indus as the Eastern edge of the word, and referring to this as India. I will find them when I get the time. 

For Herodotus the Indus was not merely the boundary of Persian India, but the limit of the known world

Hecateus's map of the world (600 BC) (Indus River = India, no Ganges yet)
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hecateusji3.jpg

Herodotus's map of the world (450 BC) (Indus present, still not Ganges in India)  
http://img452.imageshack.us/my.php?image=herodotusic7.gif

Dicaearchus (300 BC) - NOW the Ganges appears and the classical Greeks are calling India the subcontinent!
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=111xp3.jpg

Look at all these maps. When the Indus River and Indus Valley were named, it was around 2500 BC. By 300 BC only foreigners started referring to the the subcontinent as India. What does this mean to you? It means that the initial 2,000 years of Indian history (Vedic, Indus Valley, Gandharan etc etc is ALL Pakistani history). The latter 2,000 years of Indian history is a combination of Indian and Pakistani histories in the foreign texts. You need to understand that the heyday of Indian history occurred in Pakistan. The Vedic period occurred in Pakistan. Vedic mathematics was predominantly Pakistani, Panini was an ancient Pakistan, Bhramagupta was an ancient Pakistani etc etc. 



> Er....silly argument.
> 
> Ancient India was the land "east of the Indus", as envisioned by most of the explorers of that time, my quotes justify this.
> 
> Now that Pakistan decided to separate....too bad. We still retain the name.



Not according to Herodotus as per my quote above. The land "east of the Indus" was desolate land according to him. Therefore all the history that Herodotus and everyone else before him writes on IVC, Vedism, Aryans, Gandharans, etc etc, is all Pakistani history. Nothing to do with India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Some questions I had-

All these quotes and descriptions from personalities in history, did they actually use the word "India" to describe the region the were referring to, or is it a translation by modern historians?

Secondly, even if the references did indeed use the word "India" to describe the sub-continent, and I realize that the discourse over whether that meant current Pakistan primarily or Pakistan *and* India is still continuing, would it not simply interpret to a general term describing a region?

After all, before the Arab States were created, the region was simply Arabia was it not, or Africa, before the colonial powers demarcated it. So shouldn't the word "India", as used before the British conquest, be taken as a general reference to the sub-continent, similar to references to Arabia, Asia, the orient etc.?

The other issue that keeps coming up, related to my second point, is the canard of "Pakistan separating from India" - a separation could only occur if there was ever a united nation called India, and the closest the region ever came to that, to my knowledge, would be under the British. But even that would be as a colony, not a "nation, country or state", and with several quasi-independent princely states and territories. Before that we had a divided land, with several independent kingdoms, territories, princely states etc. So there isn't really a question of "separation", since the land was already divided, but more of the different regions and peoples, that were colonized and occupied by the British, coming together to create two nations, where before many existed.

I am not a historian, so any clarifications of erroneous assumptions or statements I made is welcome

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Some questions I had-
> 
> All these quotes and descriptions from personalities in history, did they actually use the word "India" to describe the region the were referring to, or is it a translation by modern historians?



not sure, but good question. there could be something in the translation that's being missed. After all, why name the Ganges as part of "India"? It was referred to it as Gangetica for sure, as per some genuine map. 



> Secondly, even if the references did indeed use the word "India" to describe the sub-continent, and I realize that the discourse over whether that meant current Pakistan primarily or Pakistan *and* India is still continuing, would it not simply interpret to a general term describing a region?



Absolutely (see Churchill's quote). India was never a country. It was just a geographical reference to a region by foreigners. The only indigenous people to call their country Ind, were the Vedic Pakistanis. 



> After all, before the Arab States were created, the region was simply Arabia was it not, or Africa, before the colonial powers demarcated it. So shouldn't the word "India", as used before the British conquest, be taken as a general reference to the sub-continent, similar to references to Arabia, Asia, the orient etc.?



Yes



> The other issue that keeps coming up, related to my second point, is the canard of "Pakistan separating from India" - a separation could only occur if there was ever a united nation called India, and the closest the region ever came to that, to my knowledge, would be under the British. But even that would be as a colony, not a "nation, country or state", and with several quasi-independent princely states and territories. Before that we had a divided land, with several independent kingdoms, territories, princely states etc. So there isn't really a question of "separation", since the land was already divided, but more of the different regions and peoples, that were colonized and occupied by the British, coming together to create two nations, where before many existed.



Yes, exactly true. Pakistan has very little shared history with India, except the recent period of colonialization. There are huge differences in the ancestries of these people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Thanks Roadrunner. You've made some interesting observations




roadrunner said:


> All the historian's quotes from basically before 0 AD take "India" to mean Pakistan. Example, is Herodotus.



Lets start off by changing this date to 300BC, for the moment.



> [36] So far the whole expedition was over country known, if imperfectly, to the Greeks. Now we have to follow the conquering hero more closely as he leads us into an unknown land away to the east, known as "the farthest region of the inhabited world towards the east, beyond which lies the endless sandy desert void of inhabitants."* And all the while the great land of India (today's Bharat) lay beyond, and beyond again was China, and away far over the ocean sea lay America&#8212;and they knew it not. *




What do we know about Alexander's conquest of India? 

He reached what is now modern Pakistan, defeated Porus, and made him a satrap.

(327-326 BCE)

Then, he tried to conquer further east, but his army revolted against him, and he was forced to turn back.

As a result, he was forced to turn southwards and conquered the lands till the mouth of the Indus.

Here's an account of Alexander's meeting with Chandragupta Maurya:

"Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth." Plutarch 62-3

Plutarch, Plutarch, Alexander (English).: Alexander (ed. Bernadotte Perrin)

This proves that Alexander didn't think of the land beyond what he had conquered as "barren", but he knew of the existence of a powerful empire, which he dared not conquer.

These unknown lands couldn't be described, since he hadn't visited them, even though he had met their future ruler at Taxila.

So, Alexander never really conquered the real India. He just reached the northwestern part of it. 

Later on, around 300BCE, when Greeks saw the whole of India, they started showing it in their maps.




> There's actually references from Herodotus's books that show Pakistan was the "easternmost part of the world". Here's one quote where he describes modern India as a desolate land.
> 
> "So much for the parts of Asia west of the Persians. But what is beyond the Persians, and Medes, and Saspires, and Colchians, east and toward the rising sun, this is bounded on the one hand by the Red Sea, and to the north by the Caspian Sea and the Araxes river, which flows toward the sun's rising. [2] As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the east is desolation, nor can anyone say what kind of land is there."
> book_04



Yes, and as we know he probably didn't cross over the Thar desert, in what is now Rajasthan, so he didn't enter the region of modern India.





> Look at all these maps. When the Indus River and Indus Valley were named, it was around 2500 BC. By 300 BC only foreigners started referring to the the subcontinent as India.




It was after around 327BCE, when Alexander Invaded the region of modern Pakistan, did the the Greeks first contact the region of Modern India.

After that, Selucid and the Indo-Greeks maintained contact with the Mauryans and Sunga Dynasty, and established the Gandhara kingdom.

So, they discovered the whole of India and henceforth described the entire region of India+Pakistan as India.




> What does this mean to you? It means that the initial 2,000 years of Indian history (Vedic, Indus Valley, Gandharan etc etc is ALL Pakistani history).



Please limit the discussion to the suggested topic. The IVC and Gandhara can be discussed later.



> The latter 2,000 years of Indian history is a combination of Indian and Pakistani histories in the foreign texts. You need to understand that the heyday of Indian history occurred in Pakistan.



I don't understand what you mean by "heyday". There are several great periods of Indian history apart from the Gandhara kingdom and whichever others were based in Pak+Afg.

But once again, we are off topic. I guess we should stick to the nomenclature only.



> The Vedic period occurred in Pakistan. Vedic mathematics was predominantly Pakistani, Panini was an ancient Pakistan, Bhramagupta was an ancient Pakistani etc etc.



The Rigveda, the earliest veda, gives the most importance, and talks most about the Saraswati River. 
This river is present in both countries.

It mentions several rivers apart from them, including the Indus, the Yamuna and the Ganges.

So saying that the Rigvedic people were "Ancient Pakistanis" is simply not correct.





> Not according to Herodotus as per my quote above. The land "east of the Indus" was desolate land according to him.



That is because he never ventured beyond the deserts of Thar.




> Therefore all the history that Herodotus and everyone else before him writes on IVC, Vedism, Aryans, Gandharans, etc etc, is all Pakistani history. Nothing to do with India.



IVC....different discussion.....but still.....present in both India and Pakistan

Vedism: Earliest Veda Rigveda is centered around Saraswati, and mentions most major rivers of the subcontinent....so...no.

Aryans....???

Gandharans: Yes, the Gandharans are the only people you can claim to be part of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as central Asia.

Still, their religion/culture of Buddhism came from the East and their sculpture/art came from the Greeks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> All these quotes and descriptions from personalities in history, did they actually use the word "India" to describe the region the were referring to, or is it a translation by modern historians?



They used either India or variations of the word like Indou/Indike etc.



> Secondly, even if the references did indeed use the word "India" to describe the sub-continent, and I realize that the discourse over whether that meant current Pakistan primarily or Pakistan *and* India is still continuing, would it not simply interpret to a general term describing a region?



The Greeks described whatever region they knew east of Afghanistan and south of Caucusus as India.

Initially, they discovered only the region of Pakistan, so they named it India.
Later on, when they explored the whole subcontinent, they added these parts to India.

So, the complete description of India, as per the Greeks, is the entire subcontinent.

Most descriptions after 300BC describe India as the land "east of the Indus".



> After all, before the Arab States were created, the region was simply Arabia was it not, or Africa, before the colonial powers demarcated it. So shouldn't the word "India", as used before the British conquest, be taken as a general reference to the sub-continent, similar to references to Arabia, Asia, the orient etc.?



Exactly. That is how it is used in current historical texts.




> The other issue that keeps coming up, related to my second point, is the canard of "Pakistan separating from India" - a separation could only occur if there was ever a united nation called India, and the closest the region ever came to that, to my knowledge, would be under the British. But even that would be as a colony, not a "nation, country or state", and with several quasi-independent princely states and territories. Before that we had a divided land, with several independent kingdoms, territories, princely states etc. So there isn't really a question of "separation", since the land was already divided, but more of the different regions and peoples, that were colonized and occupied by the British, coming together to create two nations, where before many existed.



The idea of modern India is based on a more broad look at history, rather than kingdoms.

It is based on the fact that the subcontinent shares a heavily intertwined history, in which each and every part has influenced the other at some point of time.

This shared culture and history was what made India one, not the british conquest or any other conquest.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> What do we know about Alexander's conquest of India?
> 
> He reached what is now modern Pakistan, defeated Porus, and made him a satrap.
> 
> (327-326 BCE)
> 
> Then, he tried to conquer further east, but his army revolted against him, and he was forced to turn back.
> 
> As a result, he was forced to turn southwards and conquered the lands till the mouth of the Indus.
> 
> Here's an account of Alexander's meeting with Chandragupta Maurya:
> 
> "Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth." Plutarch 62-3
> 
> Plutarch, Plutarch, Alexander (English).: Alexander (ed. Bernadotte Perrin)
> 
> This proves that Alexander didn't think of the land beyond what he had conquered as "barren", but he knew of the existence of a powerful empire, which he dared not conquer.
> 
> These unknown lands couldn't be described, since he hadn't visited them, even though he had met their future ruler at Taxila.
> 
> So, Alexander never really conquered the real India. He just reached the northwestern part of it.



What does this show?  You're going off topic as usual. I was referring to Herodotus. You know that Alexander and Herodotus were two different people don't you? Later on after Herodotus, when Pakistan became a satrapy of the Greeks, they knew then there was more beyond Pakistan, but until that time, they considered modern Bharat as desolate with no history at all. 



> Later on, around 300BCE, when Greeks saw the whole of India, they started showing it in their maps.



300 BC! So that means all the Indian history prior to this time referred only to Pakistan. Well done, you finally got the point I've been trying to drill through your head! 



> Yes, and as we know he probably didn't cross over the Thar desert, in what is now Rajasthan, so he didn't enter the region of modern India.



Yes genius, so Herodotus's accounts do not refer to modern India. They are all Pakistani. Gold digging ants = part of Pakistan's history etc etc 



> It was after around 327BCE, when Alexander Invaded the region of modern Pakistan, did the the Greeks first contact the region of Modern India.



The Greeks did not contact India until around 200 BC. 



> After that, Selucid and the Indo-Greeks maintained contact with the Mauryans and Sunga Dynasty, and established the Gandhara kingdom.



Indo-Greeks didn't have anything to do with Gandhara and certainly didn't establish it. Sheesh. This isn't for you, you will never understand it. Gandhara was established well before Alexander's invasion. 



> The Rigveda, the earliest veda, gives the most importance, and talks most about the Saraswati River.
> This river is present in both countries.



Well, that's nonsense. The Rig Veda refers to the largest and mightiest river of them all as the Indus. 

*Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.*
2 Varu&#7751;a cut the channels for thy forward course, *O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.*Thou speedest o&#8217;er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!g&#257;, Yamun&#257;, O Sutudri, Paru&#7779;&#7751;&#299; *and Sarasvat&#299;*: 
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers. 

You'll notice the Indus (Sindhu) river is the mightiest of them all, the Saravasti (Ghaggar-Haraki River) or Saravati River is just mentioned as a smaller one in this verse above. 



> It mentions several rivers apart from them, including the Indus, the Yamuna and the Ganges.



The Ganges is mentioned once..the Indus about 100 times. The Ganges ia minor River to the Vedic people, just as most of modern Bharat was a minor part of the Vedic people's country. 



> So saying that the Rigvedic people were "Ancient Pakistanis" is simply not correct.



Look into the Rig Veda. The major Rivier is the Indus. The Saravasti is a smaller river, the Ganges is virtually non existent. Is it any surprise that the Vedic people talked most of the land in which they lived? (i.e. Pakistan). 



> That is because he never ventured beyond the deserts of Thar.



EXACTLY genius!! So all the pre 0 AD history of India refers to Pakistan. I thought you'd understood this by now!?!? 



> IVC....different discussion.....but still.....present in both India and Pakistan



MAINLY in Pakistan 70-80% imo. 



> Vedism: Earliest Veda Rigveda is centered around Saraswati, and mentions most major rivers of the subcontinent....so...no.



Majority of the Vedic people and country were in Pakistan. Only a part of Indian Punjab was additional. 



> Aryans....???
> 
> Gandharans: Yes, the Gandharans are the only people you can claim to be part of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as central Asia.



Aryans and Gandharans have nothing to do with modern India. 



> Still, their religion/culture of Buddhism came from the East and their sculpture/art came from the Greeks.



Buddhism was developed by the Gandharans. It was Gandharan Buddhism that gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism, Tantric Buddhism etc. From here it moved to East Asia. You don't seem to understand Gandhara was an advanced civilization, and developed many things on its own. It was important for Vedic Mathematics, which is more Pakistani than Indian. In fact it was Panini and Pingula that lived in Gandhara.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Exactly. That is how it is used in current historical texts.
> 
> The idea of modern India is based on a more broad look at history, rather than kingdoms.
> 
> It is based on the fact that the subcontinent shares a heavily intertwined history, in which each and every part has influenced the other at some point of time.
> 
> This shared culture and history was what made India one, not the british conquest or any other conquest.




So we are agreed then, in that context it doesn't refer to a "nation" or state", but a general region, that was comprised of several smaller states and peoples, with distinct political, cultural, physical and linguistic differences. In that sense, the reference to "India" today is highly unrelated to the use of the word "India" in the historical sense. 

With respect to "sharing history and influence", that is the case with almost all nations or regions that border each other. The South East Asian states also have a tremendous amount of intertwined history, as do the Arab countries, the European countries etc. So that is a fallacious argument to make for "India" being "united".

With respect to the accounts attributed to the ancients, do they not actually prove that there was never a "nation called India", since they devised the name, demarcated its boundaries, with the earlier travelers considering "India" to be primarily the region that is currently Pakistan, and then slowly, as they discovered today's Bharat (using this term to avoid confusion), they extended the name to cover more and more of the region, which was still composed of smaller nations. So even these accounts would indicate that the idea of a "United India" is a myth - the name itself was created by outsiders, who simply expanded it to cover more territory over hundreds of years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So we are agreed that in that context it doesn't refer to a "nation" or state", but a general region, that was comprised of several smaller states and peoples, with distinct political, cultural, physical and linguistic differences. In that sense, the reference to "India" today is highly unrelated to the use of the word "India" in the historical sense.



Historically it was referred to as a region.

But after being united under the Mughals for a long time, and the British, and the study of ancient pan-Indian kingdoms, the idea of an Indian nation began to develop.

This idea was well established at the time of Independence, when Hindus and Muslims had fought together to oust the foreigners.

Unfortunately, some muslim leaders did not believe in this vision of a modern, secular India.

Hence, they decided to separate.





> With respect to "sharing history and influence", that is the case with almost all nations or regions that border each other. The South East Asian states also have a tremendous amount of intertwined history, as do the Arab countries, the European countries etc. So that is a fallacious argument to make for "India" being "united".



Its not about arguments. Its about a vision, an Idea, a brilliant concept.

How many years did it take for the European Union to form? Imagine the advantages if this had been done earlier. 

Indians at the time of Independence shared the historical concept of the Indic civilization, along with the vision of a united secular India.





> With respect to the accounts attributed to the ancients, do they not actually prove that there was never a "nation called India", since they devised the name, demarcated its boundaries, with the earlier travelers considering "India" to be primarily the region that is currently Pakistan, and then slowly, as they discovered today's Bharat (using this term to avoid confusion), they extended the name to cover more and more of the region, which was still composed of smaller nations. So even these accounts would indicate that the idea of a "United India" is a myth - the name itself was created by outsiders, who simply expanded it to cover more territory over hundreds of years.



Noone denies that the name was created by outsiders.

But then isn't it outsiders who give us our identity?

Why do Punjabis, Sindhis and Pakhtoons call themselves Pakistani? Don't they all have different histories and ethnicities? 

*Its our ability to see similarities, rather than differences, that makes us a nation.*

Identity is formed when one people differentiate themselves from the others, while recognizing similarities among themselves.

The formation of an Indian identity has continued throughout history, starting with descriptions of the Greeks and Romans, and coming of age with the freedom struggle.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So we are agreed that in that context it doesn't refer to a "nation" or state", but a general region, that was comprised of several smaller states and peoples, with distinct political, cultural, physical and linguistic differences. In that sense, the reference to "India" today is highly unrelated to the use of the word "India" in the historical sense.
> 
> With respect to "sharing history and influence", that is the case with almost all nations or regions that border each other. The South East Asian states also have a tremendous amount of intertwined history, as do the Arab countries, the European countries etc. So that is a fallacious argument to make for "India" being "united".
> 
> With respect to the accounts attributed to the ancients, do they not actually prove that there was never a "nation called India", since they devised the name, demarcated its boundaries, with the earlier travelers considering "India" to be primarily the region that is currently Pakistan, and then slowly, as they discovered today's Bharat (using this term to avoid confusion), they extended the name to cover more and more of the region, which was still composed of smaller nations. So even these accounts would indicate that the idea of a "United India" is a myth - the name itself was created by outsiders, who simply expanded it to cover more territory over hundreds of years.




Very good summary AM, and exactly the point we're making in this thread. The last sentence, however, I would say, the name itself was created by the Vedic Pakistanis (from their country, Sindhu), and then foreigners such as Greeks who werent too good at geography then started expanding the territory (regardless of the wishes of the Vedic descendants whose ancestors coined the name) - but Ind was never a country as you say quite rightly, it was just a reference by foreigners to the region. The only time it was a geographical place was when it was Saptha Sindhu (or even today in the form of Sindh, Pakistan).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Historically it was referred to as a region.
> 
> But after being united under the Mughals for a long time, and the British, and the study of ancient pan-Indian kingdoms, the idea of an Indian nation began to develop.
> 
> This idea was well established at the time of Independence, when Hindus and Muslims had fought together to oust the foreigners.
> 
> Unfortunately, some muslim leaders did not believe in this vision of a modern, secular India.
> 
> Hence, they decided to separate.



Correction - they did not believe in the idea of a single Bharat - they did not believe in the assurances of equal status in a single Bharat, but it is egregious to suggest that they were against "modernization"; and Quaid-e-Azam's own words indicate a dream of a Nation where religion would have minimal impact on the affairs of state, so they were not against the idea of freedom and equality for all, irrespective of caste, color or creed.

The presence of an "Idea" does not indicate "existence" - that comment in fact bolsters the argument that a monolithic entity called India never existed. Just because some Muslims believe in the idea of a Pan Islamic Caliphate does not mean that it is either a very good idea, or that its presence (the idea's) somehow justifies in the future, if a caliphate were to become reality, the existence of such an entity while it was merely a concept. 

The idea of a Pakistani state obviously proved to be just as strong as that of creating Bharat.



> Its not about arguments. Its about a vision, an Idea, a brilliant concept.
> 
> How many years did it take for the European Union to form? Imagine the advantages if this had been done earlier.
> 
> Indians at the time of Independence shared the historical concept of the Indic civilization, along with the vision of a united secular India.



Yes, and for Pakistanis, the brilliant idea, concept and vision was Pakistan, a nation that was never a part of any "Indian" nation. 

The EU is not a good example of a "united India", it is an association/cooperative framework of several nations, all of whom retain their independence and sovereignty, and no EU member calls themselves an EUian, they are French, British German etc.. If I'm not mistaken, such a proposal for extensive autonomy for the Muslim majority States, was shot down by the congress leadership when discussions over the future of the subcontinent were going on. But SAARC could be a good example of such cooperation.



> Noone denies that the name was created by outsiders.
> 
> But then isn't it outsiders who give us our identity?
> 
> Why do Punjabis, Sindhis and Pakhtoons call themselves Pakistani? Don't they all have different histories and ethnicities?



I stand corrected on that one, apparently "India" derived from Indus from Sindhu etc.
We call ourselves Pakistanis because that is what we chose to name our nation. You named yours India, thats fine, but the argument is over whether that means that Bharat has any claim to suggest that "we were all once one", just because you chose a name that coincides with that used to describe a *region* composed of several nations.



> *Its our ability to see similarities, rather than differences, that makes us a nation.*
> 
> Identity is formed when one people differentiate themselves from the others, while recognizing similarities among themselves.
> 
> The formation of an Indian identity has continued throughout history, starting with descriptions of the Greeks and Romans, and coming of age with the freedom struggle.



Correct, and that process truly started in 1947 for both countries, before then, the "shared identity" was a result of a shared occupation and desire to rid ourselves of that occupation. Notice how quickly that "shared identity" fell apart, when the British decided to leave, and millions wanted a nation of their own. I doubt your claim of "a building of Indian identity over centuries" was a widespread ideal amongst the masses of the different nations of the subcontinent - such an idea is pretty much akin to that of a Caliphate - some intellectuals may talk of it, and may have envisioned it, but as history has shown, the people rejected it come crunch time. 

But SAARC is still there, once Kashmir is resolved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> We call ourselves Pakistanis because that is what we chose to name our nation. You named yours India, thats fine, but the argument is over whether that means that Bharat has any claim to suggest that "we were all once one", just because you chose a name that coincides with that used to describe a *region* composed of several nations.



....and the fact that a lot of Pakistani history comes under the banner of "Indian history". Personally I don't mind them calling themselves India, so long as they make it clear that Gandhara, IVC, Panini, Vedic civilization etc etc were not theirs. But they don't! Far from it, they create lots of websites claiming Panini was an Indian, like them! This all boils down to the "we were al once one" claim, and it's nonsense. Even genetics has disproved it. If I find some time, I'll mention it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> What does this show?  You're going off topic as usual. I was referring to Herodotus. You know that Alexander and Herodotus were two different people don't you? Later on after Herodotus, when Pakistan became a satrapy of the Greeks, they knew then there was more beyond Pakistan, but until that time, they considered modern Bharat as desolate with no history at all.



It shows that around 327 BC, the greeks learnt about the existence of a land 
beyond their current idea of India.


Alexander himself met Chandragupta Maurya, who later ruled the Mauryan empire and overthrew the Nandas.



> 300 BC! So that means all the Indian history prior to this time referred only to Pakistan. Well done, you finally got the point I've been trying to drill through your head!



Well done!! You have made another one of you sweeping and grossly incorrect statements!! 





> Yes genius, so Herodotus's accounts do not refer to modern India. They are all Pakistani. Gold digging ants = part of Pakistan's history etc etc



Herodotus lived in 440 BC, before Greek conquests.




> The Greeks did not contact India until around 200 BC.



327 BCE to be precise.

After that,

In 303 BCE, Seleucus I led an army to the Indus, where he encountered Chandragupta.
The confrontation ended with a peace treaty, and "an intermarriage agreement" , meaning either a dynastic marriage or an agreement for intermarriage between Indians and Greeks. Accordingly, Seleucus ceded to Chandragupta his northwestern territories, possibly as far as Arachosia(Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan) and received 500 war elephants (which played a key role in the victory of Seleucus at the Battle of Ipsus):

Around that time, Megasthenes described India in 300 BCE in the quote i gave earlier.

Megasthenes also travelled all around India as far as Pataliputra (Patna) and Madurai (Pandya Kingdom), and recorded descriptions of his travels.

Here's a quote about Megasthenes by Arrian:

"Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians." 

Clearly, he describes Chandragupta as the king of the Indians.


From the above, it is apparent that the Greeks knew of India as the land "east of the Indus" by the year 300BCE.



> Indo-Greeks didn't have anything to do with Gandhara and certainly didn't establish it. Sheesh. This isn't for you, you will never understand it. Gandhara was established well before Alexander's invasion.



Sheesh...the Indo Greeks ruled Gandhara for a nice period of time. Check your facts.




> Well, that's nonsense. The Rig Veda refers to the largest and mightiest river of them all as the Indus.




The verse you quoted is one one of many.

the Majority of the verses, especially the earlier ones, mention Saraswati in them and talk of it as the greatest river of all.

Later verses diminish the Saraswati and give more importance to the Indus. This is considered as an indication that the Saraswati river was drying up.




> The Ganges is mentioned once..the Indus about 100 times. The Ganges is minor River to the Vedic people,



The Indus is mentioned very less.

You perhaps mistake the word "saptasindhu" for Indus. 

Saptasindhu refers to the Saraswati and six other rivers, with Saraswati being the most prominent.

David Frawley mentions them as Sindhu, Ashikni, Parushni, Sarasvati, Yamuna, Ganga and Sarayu.

The Vedic descriptions match the region of modern Northern Punjab. 

Also, the people described are nomadic, so we can't really put a specific location to them.



> Look into the Rig Veda. The major Rivier is the Indus. The Saravasti is a smaller river, the Ganges is virtually non existent. Is it any surprise that the Vedic people talked most of the land in which they lived? (i.e. Pakistan).



That is incorrect. The Saraswati is given prime importance ,except toward later verses.

Indus and the Ganges is to a lesser extent.




> EXACTLY genius!! So all the pre 0 AD history of India refers to Pakistan. I thought you'd understood this by now!?!?



Er....no....you are wrong.

Pre circa 300 AD, the Greeks hadn't discovered the whole of Ancient India. thats all.



> MAINLY in Pakistan 70-80&#37; imo.



Highly debatable, in the light of newer excavations and the present view of historians.




> Majority of the Vedic people and country were in Pakistan. Only a part of Indian Punjab was additional.



Vedic people were nomadic. So, they can't be ascribed to any one side of the border.

They travelled as far as the Ganges.

Also, they seem to have regarded the Saraswati river as the most important, jjudging by the Rigveda.

More likely is the following map:









> Aryans and Gandharans have nothing to do with modern India.



I don't know what you mean by aryans. There is no civilization or people called aryans.

Gandharan is located geographically outside India. But its cultural center lay to the east.

I can't say much about their ethnicity of the Gandharans, though. 



> Buddhism was developed by the Gandharans. It was Gandharan Buddhism that gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism, Tantric Buddhism etc. From here it moved to East Asia.



I am not sure....I shall get back on this later.




> You don't seem to understand Gandhara was an advanced civilization, and developed many things on its own.



Of course, it was a great civilization, and a golden period of history of ancient India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

This map indicates the possible ancient course of the Saraswati (Of course some people consider the Helmand of Afghanistan to be the rigvedic Saraswati as well. Another question about the Saraswati, it is referred to as the "Great Sindhu" which would be the name of the Indus, so how does that fit in? Is the Saraswati actually the Indus? Their paths are almost parallel in this map.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> It shows that around 327 BC, the greeks learnt about the existence of a land
> beyond their current idea of India.



And before 300 BC, noone referred to the region of modern day India, as "India". India was a name given to the Indus Valley by foreigners at the tme, so when the ancient Greeks refer to "India" in their texts prior to 300 BC (eg, the Gandara civilization, the IVC, the Vedic period etc), all these referrals are to Pakistani history and not Bharati history. So why do your websites try and make out that these referrals are to Indian/Bharati history? Why in fact do your website try and refer to history that occurred within the borders of Pakistan as &#8220;Indian history&#8221;? Surely this is the history of Pakistan is it not? 



> Alexander himself met Chandragupta Maurya, who later ruled the Mauryan empire and overthrew the Nandas.



Right, this isn't the point. The point is that prior to Alexander, all the historical accounts of the Greeks, the Romans, or whoever, were of Pakistani history. None of it was Indian. Therefore, why refer to these as Indian? Let&#8217;s not get into the fact that later &#8220;Indian&#8221; history could also be Pakistani. 



> Well done!! You have made another one of you sweeping and grossly incorrect statements!!



What is incorrect about it? Prior to 300 BC, noone in the outside world knew of Bharat (modern India), the only thing they knew of India, was what happened within Pakistan's borders. How is this a "sweeping generalization that is grossly incorrect?" 



> Herodotus lived in 440 BC, before Greek conquests.



Yes, which is precisely why until Alexander's time, noone knew of modern day Bharat, and believed it to be a desolate land (Alexander did no step foot in India because he was nearly defeated within Pakistan). 



> 327 BCE to be precise.
> 
> After that,
> 
> In 303 BCE, Seleucus I led an army to the Indus, where he encountered Chandragupta.
> The confrontation ended with a peace treaty, and "an intermarriage agreement" , meaning either a dynastic marriage or an agreement for intermarriage between Indians and Greeks.
> 
> Accordingly, Seleucus ceded to Chandragupta his northwestern territories, possibly as far as Arachosia(Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan) and received 500 war elephants (which played a key role in the victory of Seleucus at the Battle of Ipsus):
> 
> Around that time, Megasthenes described India in 300 BCE in the quote i gave earlier.
> 
> Megasthenes also travelled all around India as far as Pataliputra (Patna) and Madurai (Pandya Kingdom), and recorded descriptions of his travels.
> 
> Here's a quote about Megasthenes by Arrian:
> 
> "Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians."
> 
> Clearly, he describes Chandragupta as the king of the Indians.



By your own accounts, when Magasthenes was writing his books, he was using the term "Indian" to mean anyone from within the Indus Valley (Pakistan), as well as those from within Northern India. Now what Megasthenes writes might be part of today's India's history, but it might also be a part of today's Pakistani history. However, before this, all the history including IVC, Vedic period, Gandara that was described (the real heyday of "Indian" history), all occurred within modern day Pakistan's borders. 



> From the above, it is apparent that the Greeks knew of India as the land "east of the Indus" by the year 300BCE.



And Gandhara was at its peak around 500 BC. Can you count chronologically? 



> The verse you quoted is one one of many.
> 
> the Majority of the verses, especially the earlier ones, mention Saraswati in them and talk of it as the greatest river of all.
> 
> Later verses diminish the Saraswati and give more importance to the Indus. This is considered as an indication that the Saraswati river was drying up.



Well, that&#8217;s a theory. The identity of the Saraswati could also be the Helmand, but let&#8217;s assume it&#8217;s the one running to the East of the Indus in parallel with it. If you read the Rig Veda, how many chapters refer to Indra? I hope you, even with your views, will accept that Indra is the main God of the Rig Veda. Where do you think the name &#8220;Indra&#8221; comes from? I&#8217;ll tell you. From the &#8220;INDus&#8221;, or the *Sindhu* River, as referenced in the Rig Veda. If the Saraswati was so prominent as you claim, the Vedic people would not have been quoting verses referring to Indra in 50&#37; of the chapters. There is a God, Saraswat or something, but this God receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda (perhaps a bit, but not comparable to Indra). So, what this boils down to, is your claim that Saraswati is most important to the Vedic people, despite Indra, the God of the Indus River being the most prominent being in the Rig Veda. I suspect some Hindutva fanatic, or previous Hindu extremist has added the 2 verses in chapter 7 in the Rig Veda, because it makes no sense to have a book devoted to the Indus (Indra), and then for two anomalous verses in chapter 7, you have the contradiction that the Saraswati was the most important. It does not make sense, and the Vedic people were obviously literate enough to think. 

But I should say that even the Saraswati, if indeed it is the parallel river system to the East of the Indus, runs mainly through Pakistan. If you include the whole of Punjab as part of Pakistan (which it should have been imo, then you get ZERO Indus or Saraswati running through India. Fact of the matter is without a shadow of a doubt, the Vedic people were MAINLY located in Pakistan, and the only place they might have overlapped into India would have been on the fringes of the Punjab. Even Afghanistan could claim IVC and Vedic history from Pakistan like this. Today&#8217;s borders are artificial, and each civilization overlaps to a certain extent. However, there can be little doubt that the majority of Pakistan was the home of the Vedic people, whilst only a minority of India (a fringe region) was home to the Vedic people. 




> The Indus is mentioned very less.
> 
> You perhaps mistake the word "saptasindhu" for Indus.
> 
> Saptasindhu refers to the Saraswati and six other rivers, with Saraswati being the most prominent.



I&#8217;m not mistaking anything. The references in the Rig Veda to &#8220;Sindhu&#8221; refer to the Indus. Here is the Rig Vedic quote on the Indus, clearly mentioning its prominence. 

1. THE singer, O ye Waters in Vivasv&#257;n's place, shall tell your grandeur forth that is beyond compare.
The Rivers have come forward triply, seven and seven. Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
2 Varu&#7751;a cut the channels for thy forward course, O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.
Thou speedest o&#8217;er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!g&#257;, Yamun&#257;, O Sutudri, Paru&#7779;&#7751;&#299; and Sarasvat&#299;:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O &#256;rj&#299;k&#299;ya with Susoma hear my call.
6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Ras&#257;, and Susartu, and with Svetya here,
With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati.
7 Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms,
Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.
8 Rich in good steeds is Sindhu, rich in cars and robes, rich in gold, nobly-fashioned, rich in ample wealth.
Blest Silamavati and young Urnavati invest themselves with raiment rich in store of sweets.
9 Sindhu hath yoked her car, light-rolling, drawn by steeds, and with that car shall she win booty in this fight.
So have I praised its power, mighty and unrestrained, of independent glory, roaring as it runs.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers. 

Why do you think that over half the Rig Veda has books on the God, Indra? A God that is named after the Indus River? 



> David Frawley mentions them as Sindhu, Ashikni, Parushni, Sarasvati, Yamuna, Ganga and Sarayu.



Bullshyt. The Ganga is a minor River. The 7 rivers are the Indus, its 5 tributaries, and the Saraswati most likely. Noone believes the Ganges to be one of the rivers of the Sapta Sindhu. 

Saraswati, Satadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Asikni (Chenab), Parosni (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus). 
The Saraswati:- Where lies the mystery 

The Ganges receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda. Frawley is a Hindu convert and avid Hindutva fanatic. It&#8217;s well known he has an institute on Hinduism and te main beneficiaries of such an institution would be Hindutva fanatics. He is not neutral, and noone (except Hindutva) would agree the Ganges to be a part of the 7 rivers. It&#8217;s an illogical theory. 



> The Vedic descriptions match the region of modern Northern Punjab.



The Vedic descriptions match the whole of Pakistan. Not a single bit of India in fact. Only a minority of India is described. The Kabul River is mentioned in there too. The main river systems however are centred on todays Pakistan. 



> Also, the people described are nomadic, so we can't really put a specific location to them.



Good grief, the Vedic people weren&#8217;t like gypsies living in caravans, you know!. They had a home, and whilst they did move around sometime, they were not shifting their homeland constantly. They were nomadic in the sense the Vedic people were immigrating and emigrating, North and South, into and out of the Vedic region. 



> That is incorrect. The Saraswati is given prime importance ,except toward later verses.



Except book 7, where else is the Saraswati given &#8220;prime importance&#8221;? Why do you think Indra is mentioned in almost every verse of the Rig Veda, and Saravaat is mentioned perhaps only once or twice? 



> Vedic people were nomadic. So, they can't be ascribed to any one side of the border.
> 
> They travelled as far as the Ganges.



Weak argument. One or two tribes did migrate to the Ganges and set up shop later in the Vedic period. But the Vedic homeland never went that far. The Vedic homeland is described pretty much as all of Pakistan, and up till the Yamuna as the Eastern border at the height of Vedic power. Basically the Eastern border of Punjab and all of Pakistan. This is the commonly accepted theory. Migration to the Ganges was negligible. You can see this by the way people look, and even their genetics. 



> Also, they seem to have regarded the Saraswati river as the most important, jjudging by the Rigveda.



The Saraswati references in the Rig Veda are most likely manipulated by later Hindus. You, and the Hindutva ned to come up with an explanation as to why Indra was the most popular God, and Sarasvaat receives only a passing mention. Why would the Vedic people name their most popular God after a weaker river? 



> More likely is the following map:



That map is bull. It&#8217;s made by someone off wiki. Cemetary H never went into India even. 



Anyhoe Cemetary H was not culturally Vedic, and not Rig Vedic. The Gandharan grave system was in fact Vedic. Gandhara never went into today&#8217;s Bharat in the slightest, so thankfully it&#8217;s something you guys cannot leech, and it&#8217;s good proof of Rig Vedic ancestry in Pakistan. (I totally acknowledge later Vedas being composed in Bharat by Bharatis, but not the Rig Veda, which is the Veda of the Rig Vedic Aryans). 

The Painted Gray Ware culture is correctly a fully Indian (Bharati) thing, but it is not a Rig Vedic culture. 



> I don't know what you mean by aryans. There is no civilization or people called aryans.
> 
> Gandharan is located geographically outside India. But its cultural center lay to the east.



Lol, so Gandharan culture lay in Bharat now? Joke. Gandharan culture, if anything came from the North and West. Much of the Buddhist stuff was not the same as the Buddhist stuff going on elsewhere because it was developed separately in Pakistan and led to the two schools of Buddhist though (the Pakistani developed one became the major one and travelled to China, Japan and so on) (Mahayana), the South Indian/Tamil/Sri Lankan thought travelled to Cambodia (Theravada).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Well done!! You have made another one of you sweeping and grossly incorrect statements!!
> 
> 
> 
> What is incorrect about it? Prior to 300 BC, noone in the outside world knew of Bharat (modern India), the only thing they knew of India, was what happened within Pakistan's borders. How is this a "sweeping generalization that is grossly incorrect?"
Click to expand...


So if I understand you correctly, we are referring to the history of the sub continent as reported by historians and travellers who visited "india", which at that time consisted only of the region that now makes up Pakistan, hence any reports from that era obviously describe the civilizations and culture that existed in what is know Pakistan.

Now a couple of arguments against this come to mind.

1. Just because the ancient outsiders did not travel to the remainder of India does not mean that the civilizations did not exist in India as well.

But if these civilizations did indeed stretch into India, why didn't the native people the foreign travellers interacted with communicate such a thing to them?
Instead there were hundreds of years before the maps, as RR posted, were changed to show a larger subcontinent. So even if other civilizations existed in what is now Bharat, the people of the India known at that time did not care for them much, or did not know of them, considering they didn't bother to tell the outsiders.

Does that argument make sense?

2. Even if the outsiders, and the people of "Pakistan", did not know of the existence of civilizations in "Bharat", wouldn't there still have been people living there? 
Who were these people then? 
Or was the rest of India mostly unpopulated, except by cultures similar to the neolithic cultures in the south?


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So if I understand you correctly, we are referring to the history of the sub continent as reported by historians and travellers who visited "india", which at that time consisted only of the region that now makes up Pakistan, hence any reports from that era obviously describe the civilizations and culture that existed in what is know Pakistan.



Yes. India was never a country after the Vedic period. Whenever travellers referred to India before about 0 AD, they meant Pakistan. Herodotus's visits to India, Huan Tsuang, all quote Pakistan's history, not India's, though some Bharati websites call it "Indian history" in the sense that it is their history. Basically, todays India has no claim on anything before 300 BC by travellers to "India", and has no claim on Gandhara, or the Rig Vedic people (the Yajur Vedic people were completely Bharati), but the true Vedic period was the Rig Vedic period. After this, you can tell the Yajur Veda has been written by some Bharati by its content. I don't believe Bharat has a claim on the IVC. These mysterious Bharati sites have not been excavated by any non Indians. My contention I suppose is that the most of the great "Indian civilizations" were in fact Pakistani (IVC, Gandhara, Vedic). If India had any it was like the Gupta Empire. How many "Indian" websites glorify the Gupta Empire, how many go on about the Vedic and IVC as their own? They all focus on Pakistani history and call it "Indian". 



> Now a couple of arguments against this come to mind.
> 
> 1. Just because the ancient outsiders did not travel to the remainder of India does not mean that the civilizations did not exist in India as well.



Agreed 



> But if these civilizations did indeed stretch into India, why didn't the native people the foreign travellers interacted with communicate such a thing to them?



Pakistan was the place where Herodotus described his gold digging ants. So perhaps the resources were plentiful there. Also the irrigation of the rivers was good in ancient Pakistan. Bharat was probably pretty arid in comparison. It's a good question. why didn't they go into Bharat? 



> Instead there were hundreds of years before the maps, as RR posted, were changed to show a larger subcontinent. So even if other civilizations existed in what is now Bharat, the people of the India known at that time did not care for them much, or did not know of them, considering they didn't bother to tell the outsiders.



True. Pakistan was part of Persian and Northern Empires. They obviously didn't bother to tell the Greeks and others about what lay beyond Pakistan. Wonder why. 



> 2. Even if the outsiders, and the people of "Pakistan", did not know of the existence of civilizations in "Bharat", wouldn't there still have been people living there?



Definitely 



> Who were these people then?



The ancestors of modern day Indians. 



> Or was the rest of India mostly unpopulated, except by cultures similar to the neolithic cultures in the south?



It was populated alright. Probably densely populated. But noone bothered to record the cultures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> And before 300 BC, noone referred to the region of modern day India, as "India". India was a name given to the Indus Valley by foreigners at the tme, so when the ancient Greeks refer to "India" in their texts prior to 300 BC (eg, the Gandara civilization, the IVC, the Vedic period etc), all these referrals are to Pakistani history and not Bharati history.



You are correct about the Greek description of India before 300 BC.

However, I would remind you, once again, that the location of the IVC lies on both sides of the border.
Also, the hypothetical location of the Vedic people extends from Afghanistan to the Ganges, centering around the Punjab region.



> So why do your websites try and make out that these referrals are to Indian/Bharati history? Why in fact do your website try and refer to history that occurred within the borders of Pakistan as &#8220;Indian history&#8221;? Surely this is the history of Pakistan is it not?



My websites? I don't remember hosting any website...

Yes, but since the term "Ancient India" is universally accepted to mean modern day India+Pakistan, the usage of "Ancient India" is totally acceptable.

However, to consider the history of Gandhara as the history of Modern India would be incorrect. 

I don't see why you are putting this point forward since I never referred to Gandharan kingdoms as the history of Modern India.




> Right, this isn't the point. The point is that prior to Alexander, all the historical accounts of the Greeks, the Romans, or whoever, were of Pakistani history. None of it was Indian. Therefore, why refer to these as Indian?



The Romans came after the Greeks.....

As far as Herodotus is concerned, as far as I know, no one can tell the exact extent of his travels.

There is no reason to believe that he didn't enter the region of modern Indian Punjab, or Haryana.

Remember, the present border was drawn by the British in a highly arbritrary manner, simply dividing on the basis Hindus/Muslims and not ethniticity. 




> Yes, which is precisely why until Alexander's time, noone knew of modern day Bharat, and believed it to be a desolate land (Alexander did no step foot in India because he was nearly defeated within Pakistan).



I am not sure about the defeated part, since the local king became his subordinate.

However, the currently accepted version of events is that Alexander's troops refused to march forth, deterred by the news of a powerful king to the east.

Perhaps this news was brought to him by spies, or perhaps the eastern king did a show of strength.

Due to this, Alexander limited his conquests along the Indus and conquered territory till the sea.




> By your own accounts, when Magasthenes was writing his books, he was using the term "Indian" to mean anyone from within the Indus Valley (Pakistan), as well as those from within Northern India. Now what Megasthenes writes might be part of today's India's history, but it might also be a part of today's Pakistani history.



I am not sure exactly what else he wrote, but he had certainly traveled to both modern India and Pakistan.




> However, before this, all the history including IVC, Vedic period, Gandara that was described (the real heyday of "Indian" history), all occurred within modern day Pakistan's borders.



Once again, IVC is on both sides of the border, and the location of the Vedic period is a vast one. 

Gandhara can certainly be called Pakistani history, or Ancient Indian history, whichever term is more preferable to you.

(I"m guessing its Pakistani )

However, as far as the "heyday" of Ancient India goes, there are several other "golden ages" as you might like to call them.

Once again I'd remind you, that the British drawn border is not the exact dividing line by a long shot.



> And Gandhara was at its peak around 500 BC. Can you count chronologically?



Gandhara under the Greeks was also known as Gandhara. I'm not sure which period was its peak....




> Well, that&#8217;s a theory. The identity of the Saraswati could also be the Helmand, but let&#8217;s assume it&#8217;s the one running to the East of the Indus in parallel with it. If you read the Rig Veda, how many chapters refer to Indra? I hope you, even with your views, will accept that Indra is the main God of the Rig Veda. Where do you think the name &#8220;Indra&#8221; comes from? I&#8217;ll tell you. From the &#8220;INDus&#8221;, or the *Sindhu* River, as referenced in the Rig Veda. If the Saraswati was so prominent as you claim, the Vedic people would not have been quoting verses referring to Indra in 50&#37; of the chapters.



Indra Means "possessing drops of rain" from Sanskrit &#2311;&#2344;&#2381;&#2342;&#2369; (indu) "a drop" and &#2352; (ra) "possessing". Indra is the name of the ancient Hindu warrior god of the sky and rain. He is the chief god in the Hindu text the Rigveda.

Let me remind you that "Indus" is the westernized version of the sanskrit name "Sindhu".




> There is a God, Saraswat or something, but this God receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda (perhaps a bit, but not comparable to Indra). So, what this boils down to, is your claim that Saraswati is most important to the Vedic people, despite Indra, the God of the Indus River being the most prominent being in the Rig Veda.



Indra is definitely the most prominent god in the Rigveda.

However, his association with the Sindhu river is not apparent.



> I suspect some Hindutva fanatic, or previous Hindu extremist has added the 2 verses in chapter 7 in the Rig Veda, because it makes no sense to have a book devoted to the Indus (Indra), and then for two anomalous verses in chapter 7, you have the contradiction that the Saraswati was the most important. It does not make sense, and the Vedic people were obviously literate enough to think.



Again, Indra has no apparent association with Sindhu river.

The ganges river is mentioned in the later versus. Scholars generally hold the opinion that this indicates the eastward migration of the Vedic people due to the drying up of the Saraswati.

There is also one important evidence of this migration. As you know, in ancient India, caste played a vital role. 

There is a particular caste of Saraswat Brahmins, who, have maintained their genetic "purity" if you will, since ancient times. They claim descent from the vedic people living near the Saraswati.

I am not sure whether these people exist in Pakistani anymore, since people have lost caste identity due to conversion to islam.

These brahmins are spread out in the states of Punjab, Maharashtra, UP, Kashmir etc. 

Several scrolls have been found that record this migration. Also Saraswat brahmins are mentioned in the Vedas, Mahabharata and Ramayana.

(I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to promote caste system, but simply stating the facts as they are)

Saraswati is indeed the most important river in the Rigveda.

The Rigveda is unchanged since antiquity, due to a unique code of verse memorization, and later, writing. The contention that it has been modified recently is simply laughable.




> But I should say that even the Saraswati, if indeed it is the parallel river system to the East of the Indus, runs mainly through Pakistan. If you include the whole of Punjab as part of Pakistan (which it should have been imo, then you get ZERO Indus or Saraswati running through India.



Exact path of Saraswati is indeed speculative.

However, current research by satellite mapping, groundwater analysis, analysis of present rivers etc. indicates that it originated somewhere in the Garhwal region of the Himalayas.

Scientific analysis also suggests that it is likely to have shifted westwards as the tectonic plates shifted, sea levels changed, and the region became hotter and dryer.

Here is a detailed article about recent studies done on the course of the Saraswati river:

Saraswati &#8211; the ancient river lost in the desert

Indian Punjab is part of India, and speculating it as part of Pakistan doesn't strenghten your arguments.





> Fact of the matter is without a shadow of a doubt, the Vedic people were MAINLY located in Pakistan, and the only place they might have overlapped into India would have been on the fringes of the Punjab.



I would have to disagree with that. With Sarswati as the most important river, the exact location of these people cannot be ascertained.

They might have roamed the plains of Punjab, Haryana, as well as the area of the Indus. 
There is absolutely no way of pinpointing where, especially not on the basis of a 20th century border.





> Even Afghanistan could claim IVC and Vedic history from Pakistan like this. Today&#8217;s borders are artificial, and each civilization overlaps to a certain extent. However, there can be little doubt that the majority of Pakistan was the home of the Vedic people, whilst only a minority of India (a fringe region) was home to the Vedic people.


 
The Afghanistan theory is a fringe one, and little support exists for it.

Again, your contention is highly debatable with the present evidence.




> I&#8217;m not mistaking anything. The references in the Rig Veda to &#8220;Sindhu&#8221; refer to the Indus. Here is the Rig Vedic quote on the Indus, clearly mentioning its prominence.



If you carefully study the Rigveda, the Saraswati is the chief river, mother of floods, the best goddess, etc. 

Below is a nice quote to sum it up:

"Sanskrit sindhu generically means "river, stream", probably from a root sidh "to keep off"; sindhu is attested 176 times in the Rigveda, 95 times in the plural, more often used in the generic meaning. Already in the Rigveda, notably in the later hymns, the meaning of the word is narrowed to refer to the Indus river in particular, for example in the list of rivers of the Nadistuti sukta. "

As you can see, Sindhu in the Rigveda is a generic word for river or stream, but in later verses, is narrowed down to mean the Indus river itself.

The quote that you gave was infact from the Nadistuti sukta, which is one of the later hymns. 
Verses 1,2,7,8,9 praise the Indus
Verse 5 lists the rivers from west to east, starting with Ganga, Yamuna and ending with Susoma.
Verse 6 lists the tributaries of the Indus right up to Afghanistan.

The Chronology of the Rigveda




> Why do you think that over half the Rig Veda has books on the God, Indra? A God that is named after the Indus River?



Again, Indra doesn't appear to have a connection with Sindhu.





> Bullshyt. The Ganga is a minor River. The 7 rivers are the Indus, its 5 tributaries, and the Saraswati most likely. Noone believes the Ganges to be one of the rivers of the Sapta Sindhu.
> 
> Saraswati, Satadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Asikni (Chenab), Parosni (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus).
> 
> 
> The Saraswati:- Where lies the mystery




This is also one of the arrangements, however, there is little support for or against either theory.

I would like to argue that the rivers in the saptasindhu, are said to be fluctuating, so the importance is given to the number 7, in relation to the saptarishi constellation. 

Also, it is likely that the bigger rivers would be given more importance, as compared to minor ones, so the contention that Ganges and Yamuna are part of saptasindhu is not untenable.

Additionally, the Saptasindhu reference is very common in the rigveda. This indicates that it has been present throughout its evolution. 
Now, the Saraswati too is given prominence throughout the Rigveda, and its origin is mentioned in one of the earliest books (book 7) as "the mountains".

This would indicate that the early vedic people knew about the origin of the saraswati, which is today considered to be in the Garhwal region of the Himalayas (Uttaranchal).

Because of this, these early vedic people can be considered to have lived closer to the Indian Punjab and Haryana region than the region to the east of the thar desert. 




> The Ganges receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda. Frawley is a Hindu convert and avid Hindutva fanatic. It&#8217;s well known he has an institute on Hinduism and te main beneficiaries of such an institution would be Hindutva fanatics. He is not neutral, and noone (except Hindutva) would agree the Ganges to be a part of the 7 rivers. It&#8217;s an illogical theory.



I am not to sure about that. Just because he is hindu, you cannot discount his theories. 

Perhaps you should read what he has to say and make up your own mind rather than dismiss him.

Infact, his books about the Vedic civilization and IVC have sparked a revolution of sorts in historical circles.



> The Vedic descriptions match the whole of Pakistan. Not a single bit of India in fact. Only a minority of India is described. The Kabul River is mentioned in there too. The main river systems however are centred on todays Pakistan.



I am not sure about that. Most, if not all of the rivers in the Saptasindhu that
you describe, originate in India and flow through Punjab and haryana, himachal pradesh.

So even if the ganges and yamuna are excluded, the region Punjab+Haryana
is the likely region for the composition of the earlier hymns, considering the arguments that I made earlier.

Whether "more" of it lay in Indian Punjab, or Pakistani Punjab, is debatable, but I would favour Indian Punjab considering that the earliest verses describe the source of the Saraswati.




> Good grief, the Vedic people weren&#8217;t like gypsies living in caravans, you know!. They had a home, and whilst they did move around sometime, they were not shifting their homeland constantly. They were nomadic in the sense the Vedic people were immigrating and emigrating, North and South, into and out of the Vedic region.



They didn't have caravans I'm sure.

However, they didn't cultivate land and perhaps moved frequently in search of wild plants and animals.

So it is entirely possible that they shifted their bases quite frequently, and over a period of a thousand years, this accounts to a lot of migration.




> Except book 7, where else is the Saraswati given &#8220;prime importance&#8221;? Why do you think Indra is mentioned in almost every verse of the Rig Veda, and Saravaat is mentioned perhaps only once or twice?



Saraswati is mentioned quite promently as the greatest of the seven rivers.
In addition, most of the Sindhu references are generic rather than specifically the Indus river.

Your Indra theory is bunk. 



> Weak argument. One or two tribes did migrate to the Ganges and set up shop later in the Vedic period.



Lol...one or two of the tribes?? How do you know so much about how many tribes were there and how many moved?



> But the Vedic homeland never went that far. The Vedic homeland is described pretty much as all of Pakistan, and up till the Yamuna as the Eastern border at the height of Vedic power.



I doubt there is anything called "vedic power" but still....

The "vedic homeland" is described on the basis of the rivers, and the region is Punjab and perhaps parts of Haryana.




> Basically the Eastern border of Punjab and all of Pakistan. This is the commonly accepted theory. Migration to the Ganges was negligible. You can see this by the way people look, and even their genetics.



Er....I doubt that. 

I don't see what genetics has to do with all of this. We don't know what the vedic people looked like or whether they were fair or dark.

Incidentally, herodotus's description of Indians describes them as "dark as ethiopians".



> The Saraswati references in the Rig Veda are most likely manipulated by later Hindus.



Lol...thats a fantastic theory. How do you think? The Rigveda remains unchanged since it was transmitted by oral word-by-word memorization by making word poems.



> You, and the Hindutva need to come up with an explanation as to why Indra was the most popular God, and Sarasvaat receives only a passing mention. Why would the Vedic people name their most popular God after a weaker river?



Again, Indra has nothing to do with Sindhu.

I don't know much about the Saraswaat you mention, but the vedic people definitely revered the Saraswati as a goddess.



> That map is bull. It&#8217;s made by someone off wiki. Cemetary H never went into India even.



Oh yes it did. Please check your sources and get the correct info.




> Anyhoe Cemetary H was not culturally Vedic, and not Rig Vedic. The Gandharan grave system was in fact Vedic. Gandhara never went into today&#8217;s Bharat in the slightest, so thankfully it&#8217;s something you guys cannot leech, and it&#8217;s good proof of Rig Vedic ancestry in Pakistan. (I totally acknowledge later Vedas being composed in Bharat by Bharatis, but not the Rig Veda, which is the Veda of the Rig Vedic Aryans).



Yes, the Gandharan civilization is one we can proudly claim to be an Ancient Indian civilization or Ancient Pakistani, whichever you prefer.

( For you, it will probably be ancient Pakistani, and you are free to use that term if you wish. I would however prefer the term Ancient Indian, like the rest of the world).



> Lol, so Gandharan culture lay in Bharat now? Joke. Gandharan culture, if anything came from the North and West. Much of the Buddhist stuff was not the same as the Buddhist stuff going on elsewhere because it was developed separately in Pakistan and led to the two schools of Buddhist though (the Pakistani developed one became the major one and travelled to China, Japan and so on) (Mahayana), the South Indian/Tamil/Sri Lankan thought travelled to Cambodia (Theravada).



I wasn't referring to its culture, but to its cultural centre.

I don't know about Gandharan buddhism So I'll reply to all that later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Will write a fuller response later..But I'm not letting you get away with this nonsense for now. 



Stealth Assassin said:


> Indra Means "possessing drops of rain" from Sanskrit &#2311;&#2344;&#2381;&#2342;&#2369; (indu) "a drop" and &#2352; (ra) "possessing". Indra is the name of the ancient Hindu warrior god of the sky and rain. He is the chief god in the Hindu text the Rigveda.
> 
> Let me remind you that "Indus" is the westernized version of the sanskrit name "Sindhu".



Point 1 
Sanskrit for Indra sounds like this (you will need some media software to listen to it) 

Arya Sanghata Sutra - How to Pronounce the Sanskrit Names in the Sanghata 

Clearly, it's just like the English spelling - Ind-ra. 

Indus is referred to as "S-Ind-hu" in Sanskrit (you can look this up yourself). 

You seem to be of the belief that the Sanskrit words, "Indra" and "Sindhu" are not related to one another, which is just nonsense. The commonly accepted derivation of Indus is from Sindhu (Indus is derived from Sanskrit), and to not see that Indra is also a derivation of Sindhu (and relates to the Indus is just denial). All you've mentioned is that Indra does not stem from "Indus", but you havent said why you believe this. I've given you the Sanskrit for both Indra and Indus. They're both remarkably similar. You seem to believe the similarity is coincidence. Why? Are you trying to deny the obvious name connection? So far you havent answered the very important question, "Why would the Rig Vedic people call their main God after a smaller river?" 

Point 2 


Stealth Assasin said:


> In addition, most of the Sindhu references are generic rather than specifically the Indus river.



Sindhu references are NOT generic. This is Hindutva proaganda. The Rig Veda is very clear the Sindhu was an single river. Refer to the verse given above 

1. THE singer, O ye Waters in Vivasv&#257;n's place, shall tell your grandeur forth that is beyond compare.
The Rivers have come forward triply, seven and seven. Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
2 Varu&#7751;a cut the channels for thy forward course, *O Sindhu*, when thou rannest on to win the race.
Thou speedest o&#8217;er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, *O Gan!g&#257;, Yamun&#257;, O Sutudri, Paru&#7779;&#7751;&#299; and Sarasvat&#299;:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O &#256;rj&#299;k&#299;ya with Susoma* hear my call.
6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Ras&#257;, and Susartu, and with Svetya here,
*With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati.*
7 Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms,
Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.
8 Rich in good steeds is Sindhu, rich in cars and robes, rich in gold, nobly-fashioned, rich in ample wealth.
Blest Silamavati and young Urnavati invest themselves with raiment rich in store of sweets.
9 Sindhu hath yoked her car, light-rolling, drawn by steeds, and with that car shall she win booty in this fight.
So have I praised its power, mighty and unrestrained, of independent glory, roaring as it runs.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers.

Why would this verse mention Sindhu, and also Yamuna, Ganga, Kabul etc etc if Sindhu was generic for river? This verse clearly suggests Sindhu was one river, and then the Yamuna, the Sarasvati were smaller, and different, rivers.This phrase gives it away "*and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati*". So with all these rivers (Yamuna, Saravasti etc), Sindhu seeks in its course Krumu (Kurram) and Gomati (Gomal..joins the Indus at the Frontier). It is clear if you take off your Hindutva-tinted spectacles. 

Point 3
The Rig Veda is the complete opposite of Hinduism. Indra even ate cows and beef (legend-wise of course). 


I will reply in full when I get the time of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Will write a fuller response later..But I'm not letting you get away with this nonsense for now.



Its been a pleasure to debate with you too!! 



> Point 1
> Sanskrit for Indra sounds like this (you will need some media software to listen to it)
> 
> Arya Sanghata Sutra - How to Pronounce the Sanskrit Names in the Sanghata
> 
> Clearly, it's just like the English spelling - Ind-ra.
> 
> Indus is referred to as "S-Ind-hu" in Sanskrit (you can look this up yourself).
> 
> You seem to be of the belief that the Sanskrit words, "Indra" and "Sindhu" are not related to one another, which is just nonsense. The commonly accepted derivation of Indus is from Sindhu (Indus is derived from Sanskrit), and to not see that Indra is also a derivation of Sindhu (and relates to the Indus is just denial). All you've mentioned is that Indra does not stem from "Indus", but you havent said why you believe this. I've given you the Sanskrit for both Indra and Indus. They're both remarkably similar. You seem to believe the similarity is coincidence. Why? Are you trying to deny the obvious name connection? So far you havent answered the very important question, "Why would the Rig Vedic people call their main God after a smaller river?"



Your only explanation for the derivation is that "they sound remarkably similar", which is a poor one.

Even this isn't true since only the first syllable _in_ is common.

Not to mention that the word Indus itself is a corruption by westerners.

Sindhu (original)>>>>Hindu (arabs)>>>>Indos(Greek)>>>Indus (latin) is the transition.

The word 'Indra' is not derived from 'Indus'. Kindly get that straight.



> Point 2
> Sindhu references are NOT generic. Refer to the verse given above
> 
> 1. THE singer, O ye Waters in Vivasv&#257;n's place, shall tell your grandeur forth that is beyond compare.
> The Rivers have come forward triply, seven and seven. *Sindhu* in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
> 2 Varu&#7751;a cut the channels for thy forward course, O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.
> Thou speedest oer precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
> 3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
> Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
> 4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
> Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
> 5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!g&#257;, Yamun&#257;, O Sutudri, Paru&#7779;&#7751;&#299; and Sarasvat&#299;:
> With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O &#256;rj&#299;k&#299;ya with Susoma hear my call.
> 6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Ras&#257;, and Susartu, and with Svetya here,
> With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati.
> 7 Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms,
> Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.
> 8 Rich in good steeds is Sindhu, rich in cars and robes, rich in gold, nobly-fashioned, rich in ample wealth.
> Blest Silamavati and young Urnavati invest themselves with raiment rich in store of sweets.
> 9 Sindhu hath yoked her car, light-rolling, drawn by steeds, and with that car shall she win booty in this fight.
> So have I praised its power, mighty and unrestrained, of independent glory, roaring as it runs.
> Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers.
> 
> 
> Why would this verse mention Sindhu, and also Yamuna, Ganga, Kabul etc etc if Sindhu was generic for river? This verse clearly suggests Sindhu was one river, and then the Yamuna, the Sarasvati were smaller, and different, rivers. It is clear if you take off your Hindutva-tinted spectacles.



*You haven't bothered to read my post carefully.*

Most verses use the word "sindhu" as a generic term, except the latter ones.
The above verse is one of those exceptions.

This verse belongs to one of the newest sections of the rigveda ( usage of newest is kinda weird because the rigveda is so damn old) which describes all the rivers from afghanistan to ganges.

I have explained all this clearly in my earlier post. Kindly read it carefully.




> Point 3
> The Rig Veda is the complete opposite of Hinduism. Indra even ate cows and beef (legend-wise of course).



What does that have to do with anything? Kindly elaborate.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Your only explanation for the derivation is that "they sound remarkably similar", which is a poor one.
> 
> Even this isn't true since only the first syllable _in_ is common.



Why is it a poor one? You think it's just coincidence that Indra happened to be named the same as the Indus - yes it might be the first syllable, but the "Ind" part is from where even the word "India" is derived. All these "-Ind-" words come from the Sanskrit for the Rig Vedic homeland, "Sindhu". 



> Not to mention that the word Indus itself is a corruption by westerners.



Whether it's corrupt or not is irrelevant. I derived it from the Sanskrit. Both Indra and Indus are derived from the Sanskrit. 



> Sindhu (original)>>>>Hindu (arabs)>>>>Indos(Greek)>>>Indus (latin) is the transition.
> 
> The word 'Indra' is not derived from 'Indus'. Kindly get that straight.



The word "Indra" sounds remarkbly like Indus. I'm sure if we had a poll something along the lines of "do you think it's possible Indra comes from the same origins as Indus", most neutral voters would pick "yes"! 



> *You haven't bothered to read my post carefully.*
> 
> Most verses use the word "sindhu" as a generic term, except the latter ones.
> The above verse is one of those exceptions.
> 
> This verse belongs to one of the newest sections of the rigveda ( usage of newest is kinda weird because the rigveda is so damn old) which describes all the rivers from afghanistan to ganges.



The Rig Veda is one book. The Vedic people wrote everything contextually. In the case I pointed out above, it's clear the Sindhu refers to the Indus. But there are plenty of other instances where the Sindhu is mentioned as the Indus. Most neutral authors translate it without bias. Of course it doesn't fit the Hindutva agenda so they translate it differently, but it makes no sense then. Much like what your saying, "Sindhu means one thing in this part of the Rig Veda, but in another part of the Rig Veda it means another thing". Nonsense. Indra's connections with the Indus are well documented. Here is one example. 

"Indra is the only God in India to have special connections with the Indus. It is often told how he crossed the river e.g in the company of Yadu and Turvasa (Rig Veda 7, 33. 3), how he caused the waters of the Indus to flow northwards (Rig Veda 2, 15. 6). - Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A Study in Motives and Types, page 128. 
Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A ... - Google Book Search 

Even by logic, you can see that if "Sindhu", which is a name for the Indus as I've shown and you've agreed above, means "the river", then the *Indus is THE river *of the Rig Veda, suggesting it is the main one. If it is the main one, then the Indus is the Rig Vedic homeland. This is more proof that the Rig Vedic homeland was Pakistan (in addition to the fact that the systems of burial from Rig Vedic times were similar to the grave cultures found in Pakistan- though I've no doubt some Indian archaeologist will make a stunning find soon suggesting the Vedic grave culture exists within Bharat!  ). This is all proof that the main river of the Rig Veda is the Indus. Your proof goes against logic, even the denial that Indra, India, Indus have the same origin. I doubt you'll find many neutral people agreeing with this logicless piece of fundamental propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Why is it a poor one? You think it's just coincidence that Indra happened to be named the same as the Indus - yes it might be the first syllable, but the "Ind" part is from where even the word "India" is derived. All these "-Ind-" words come from the Sanskrit for the Rig Vedic homeland, "Sindhu".
> 
> 
> Whether it's corrupt or not is irrelevant. I derived it from the Sanskrit. Both Indra and Indus are derived from the Sanskrit.
> 
> 
> 
> The word "Indra" sounds remarkbly like Indus. I'm sure if we had a poll something along the lines of "do you think it's possible Indra comes from the same origins as Indus", most neutral voters would pick "yes"!


*
man how hard is this to understand!! Let me try to explain in simpler words:*

For one word to be derived from the other, the original word has to be older than the derived word! 

Because the word "Indra" is much older than the word "Indus", It could have not beed derived from "Indus". Get it?

Indus is a latin term that is introduced a long long time after the vedas are written down even.

Also, I doubt that etymology is decided by a vote of so called "neutral" people. (Also, your estimation of what constitutes neutral is highly suspect)



> The Rig Veda is one book. The Vedic people wrote everything contextually. In the case I pointed out above, it's clear the Sindhu refers to the Indus. But there are plenty of other instances where the Sindhu is mentioned as the Indus. Most neutral authors translate it without bias. Of course it doesn't fit the Hindutva agenda so they translate it differently, but it makes no sense then. Much like what your saying, "Sindhu means one thing in this part of the Rig Veda, but in another part of the Rig Veda it means another thing". Nonsense. Indra's connections with the Indus are well documented. Here is one example.



Its not nonsense. The Vedas have been passed on for the last 3000 years fairly unchanged, and so has their interpretation.

The standard interpretation of the vedas has been used by me. I hope you can understand that the interpretation done by hindus carries the most weight, since its they who have been passing it on for the last 3000 years.

Try replacing the word "Vedas" with "Quran" and "Hindus" with "Muslims" and you will understand what I am saying.



> "Indra is the only God in India to have special connections with the Indus. It is often told how he crossed the river e.g in the company of Yadu and Turvasa (Rig Veda 7, 33. 3), how he caused the waters of the Indus to flow northwards (Rig Veda 2, 15. 6). - Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A Study in Motives and Types, page 128.
> Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A ... - Google Book Search



It mentions the special connection of Indra with the Indus, apparently in the sense that Indra had some effects upon it.

It doesn't say anything about the origin of the word. Also, refer to the timeline of the word "Indra" and "Indus", as I explained earlier.





> Even by logic, you can see that if "Sindhu", which is a name for the Indus as I've shown and you've agreed above, means "the river", then the *Indus is THE river *of the Rig Veda, suggesting it is the main one. If it is the main one, then the Indus is the Rig Vedic homeland. This is more proof that the Rig Vedic homeland was Pakistan (in addition to the fact that the systems of burial from Rig Vedic times were similar to the grave cultures found in Pakistan- though I've no doubt some Indian archaeologist will make a stunning find soon suggesting the Vedic grave culture exists within Bharat!  ). This is all proof that the main river of the Rig Veda is the Indus.



Ah, once again, you astound me!! 

the word Sindhu is used as a generic term for anything from "a body of water" to "a river" to even "the ocean" in the Rigveda, if you care to inspect it carefully.

Also, any Vedic scholar, as I pointed out earlier, agrees that the Saraswati is the more revered, feared, worshipped and largest river in the Rigveda.

In addition, historians confirm the above.

You are simply trying to force the issue by making Indus the most important. 

Here is a nice map showing the spread of cemetary-H culture:


Cultures that arose after the decline of the Indus civilization




> Your proof goes against logic, even the denial that Indra, India, Indus have the same origin. I doubt you'll find many neutral people agreeing with this logicless piece of fundamental propaganda.



Simply terming everything you disagree with as "propaganda" ain't gonna help you!! 

I have explained my case quite clearly I think, and unless you can come up with a more credible theory, I consider this debate as closed.


Thanks!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

^^ Stealth, try and make sure you use the quote feature, or quotation marks, when pasting arguments from other sites, along with references to those sites. 


Also, with reference to your argument that the word Sindhu is used "generically" in the earlier chapters of the Rig Veda, can you post the verses please, so the context of the usage can be looked at to determine if that is the case.


----------



## bhangra12345

By the way, was nt the sakuni mamasri in mahabharata, was a gandhara prince right. And his sister the wife of the blind king Dhritarashtra was known as "gandhari", i.e. the princess from gandhar.

Shakuni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

anybody interested in watching the whole of 90s mahabharat? it is available at
Rajshri.com. India's #1 Broadband Entertainment Destination.
its a 94 episodes of approx 45-50 min each and though to properly understand it, you need to have a good command of hindi, there are english subtitles available.

P.S.: The other place where you will here "bharat" more than roadrunner is here.


----------



## bhangra12345

I tried searching for that, but my searching skills do not seem to be sufficient. However, I found out another "hindu" scripture, whose translation of sindhu was water/ocean.
The Devi Bhagavatam: The First Book: Chapter 5


> Or is it, O Bhagavat&#238;! that Thou wert very eagerly interested to see Visnu's headless body and therefore Thou hast seen thus! O Prime Force! Is it that Thou art angry on the daughter of the Sindhu (ocean); Laksm&#238; Dev&#238;! Else, why hast Thou deprived Her of Her husband? Laksm&#238; is born as a part of Thine; So Thou oughtest to forgive Her offence.



lakshmi is the daughter of the ocean/waters, here it is interpreted as oceans though even water wouldnt be wrong.

Even now, "ganga" i.e. ganges is used as a synonym for water in temples and speaking in older type languages


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> ^^ Stealth, try and make sure you use the quote feature, or quotation marks, when pasting arguments from other sites, along with references to those sites.
> 
> 
> Also, with reference to your argument that the word Sindhu is used "generically" in the earlier chapters of the Rig Veda, can you post the verses please, so the context of the usage can be looked at to determine if that is the case.



Sorry about that.....it took a long time to reply and I didn't bother adding too many sources or making it easier to read.

Here is my source for the geography and chronology of the Vedic people. I encourage you to read it with a neutral mind and ascertain the facts for yourself, rather than being presumptuous.

The Chronology of the Rigveda

The Geography of the Rigveda

I don't claim that all this is as the certain truth, just worth considering.

There are other scholars who contend that the Vedas were infact composed in 3000 BC, but since this is a relatively new development, I shall disregard it for now.

The Aryan invasion theory itself is under serious challenge, and most historians have changed their minds about the fair aryans conquering the dark dravidians.

In addition, after so much reading, one does realize the futility of trying to divide history between India and Pakistan into watertight compartments.
There is so much speculation and so much "crossing of the border" as I like to call it, that it is laughable to even try.

These people had no concept of the modern nation state, so it would be rather unfair to chop up our history just because of the current political scenario.


----------



## Flintlock

bhangra12345 said:


> By the way, was nt the sakuni mamasri in mahabharata, was a gandhara prince right. And his sister the wife of the blind king Dhritarashtra was known as "gandhari", i.e. the princess from gandhar.
> 
> Shakuni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yeah....the Mahabharat's earliest parts are believed to have been composed in the 9th or 8th century BC. 
The story is centered around the Gangetic plain, but the references of kingdoms go as far as Afghanistan.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> *
> man how hard is this to understand!! Let me try to explain in simpler words:*



Putting this in bold isn't going to change the truth..so why do so? 



> For one word to be derived from the other, the original word has to be older than the derived word!
> 
> Because the word "Indra" is much older than the word "Indus", It could have not beed derived from "Indus". Get it?
> 
> Indus is a latin term that is introduced a long long time after the vedas are written down even.
> 
> Also, I doubt that etymology is decided by a vote of so called "neutral" people. (Also, your estimation of what constitutes neutral is highly suspect)



You clearly haven't followed my explanation. "Indra" and "Indus" are both derivations from "Sindhu". Yes, Indus is a corruption, and probably occurred after Indra, but why does this matter if they are both derived from the root word, "Sindhu"? It's perfectly easy to understand. Yes, it is only one syllable, "-Ind-", but this syllable appears to be the most important syllable (for whatever reason), that forms a part of India, Indus, Indra. There's no question of the similarity between these three words, unless you choose to be in denial of them. Ask a statistician professor (non Indian), about the likelihood of obtaining three syllabalic similarities between INDia, INDus, INDra, sINDhu, and you will find there's virtually nill probability these names are not all related to each other from the same origin. 



> Its not nonsense. The Vedas have been passed on for the last 3000 years fairly unchanged, and so has their interpretation.



I disagree it has been unchanged. Bits of it don't make sense. 



> The standard interpretation of the vedas has been used by me. I hope you can understand that the interpretation done by hindus carries the most weight, since its they who have been passing it on for the last 3000 years.



Hinduism is a relatively new religion. In fact, the word "Hindu" was given to describe the people of a geographic region, rather than a religion at first. When Hindu started being using as a religion, it was only recently, perhaps in the last 400 years. That is when the religion changed into what it is today. Vedic religion had ritualistic slaughter of the cow, no cow urine drinking or worshipping of minor rodents. Compare Vedism to Hinduism today, and they are completely seperate religions. 



> Try replacing the word "Vedas" with "Quran" and "Hindus" with "Muslims" and you will understand what I am saying.



You're welcome to point out what does not make sense to you Qu'ranically. I find it all makes perfect sense when you look at the context. *Your basic argument is that Sindhu means one thing in one area of the Vedas, it has another meaning in another area of the Vedas.* Nonsense. This is wishful thinking. The Vedic people were not so illiterate they didn't know how to express themselves clearly in their historical accounts. 



> It mentions the special connection of Indra with the Indus, apparently in the sense that Indra had some effects upon it.
> 
> It doesn't say anything about the origin of the word. Also, refer to the timeline of the word "Indra" and "Indus", as I explained earlier.



Your "Timeline" argument has nothing to do with countering my argument. My argument is something which you have failed to understand. My argument is that INDia, INDus, INDra, sINDhu all are derived from a common origin (Sapta INDhu). This being the case, why would the Vedic people then name their major God, Indra, after a minor river (Indus). They would, if anything name their God after the biggest river..Indus, Sindhu - lit. trans. "THE River". 



> Ah, once again, you astound me!!
> 
> the word Sindhu is used as a generic term for anything from "a body of water" to "a river" to even "the ocean" in the Rigveda, if you care to inspect it carefully.



I've already shown you the verse that demonstrates quite clearly, that "Sindhu" is the name of the river Indus in chapter 10 of the Rig Veda. You now have to show me why, in your own words, you have reason to believe that earlier chapters refer to the Sindhu generically. You haven't so far (i'm not asking for opinions of HIndutva fanatics here, I want plain fact. I have given you a plain fact and proved in chapter 10 of the Rig Veda, that "Sindhu" refers to the Indus). You now prove to me it also refers to rivers generically



> Also, any Vedic scholar, as I pointed out earlier, agrees that the Saraswati is the more revered, feared, worshipped and largest river in the Rigveda.



Vedic scholars that are Indian agree with this. There is an agenda to it. Most independent researchers don't agree. I quoted Alan Dilqvist before from his book. He translates Sindhu as Indus throughout. 



> In addition, historians confirm the above.
> 
> You are simply trying to force the issue by making Indus the most important.
> 
> Here is a nice map showing the spread of cemetary-H culture:
> 
> 
> Cultures that arose after the decline of the Indus civilization



Cemetary H did not spread into India. What do you think the "H" in Cemetary H stands for? HARRAPA. It was centred around Harrappa which is well within Pakistan. For its exact dimensions, see here 

The Late Harappan Cemetery H is located between Cemetery R37 and Mound AB on a slightly raised plain *at Harappa *(Rao, 1973). *It covered more than 3000sqm* with two distinct layers (Rao, 1973). 
The Harappan Tradition 

3000 sq miles is roughly 55 * 55 miles around Harappa. In no way would this even reach into India, even if Harappa were at the extreme fringe of Cemetary H. Besides this, Cemetary H has nothing to do with the Rig Vedic Period!. 



> Simply terming everything you disagree with as "propaganda" ain't gonna help you!!



Quoting only Indian researchers on this is essentially just being non objective. Almost every non Indian researcher does their research in Pakistan, unless they're an avid Hindu fanatic like Frawley. I'm looking for objectivity, not propaganda. Also logic and reason will do for me, all of which you have not offered up. I will show you what neutral research is in my next post. 



> I have explained my case quite clearly I think, and unless you can come up with a more credible theory, I consider this debate as closed.
> 
> Thanks!!



Let's hope so. You obviously are clutching at straws when you dont present any fact as to why you think what you think, except that a Hindutva website says it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

Here is a Russian guy offering up proof Cemetary H was not Vedic. 


*The Vedic Aryans' burial rites and their archaeological parallels*
E. Kuzmina: Institute for Cultural Research, Russian Academy of Sciences

*These burial rites have nothing in common *with the burial rites in Baluchistan and in the Harappan civilization (Marshall 1931; Wheeler 1947; 1953; 1968; Singh 1970; Possehl 2002) and postHarappan *cemeteries H*, R3, Jhukar and Chanhudaro in India and RanaGhundai, ShahiTump, Khurab in neighbouring lands. The total combination of all specific burial rites characterizes only the Vedic tradition and the Andronovo culture, especiallyin North Bactria. There are a lot of cenotaphs in Bactria (Vinogradova 2004). They may belong to Aryans who migrated to India. (Read Pakistan). 




Even Asko Perpola (Finnish), thinks Gandhara was the Rig Vedic homeland initially 

*The face urns of Gandh&#226;ra and the cult of the N&#226;satyas*
Prof. Asko Parpola: Department of Asian & African Studies University of Helsinki

The Gandh&#226;ra Graves represent the first archaeological culture in the Sw&#226;t Valley region to have the domesticated horse. *The two successive cultural phases beginning about 1600 BC and 1300 BC, respectively, probably reflect the arrival of the earlier and later wave of the IndoAryan speakers associated with the Rigveda*. *On the basis of river names* and other indications, the K&#226;nvas of the earlier wave and the Atris of the later wave *mainly resided in the Sw&#226;t area*. These singer families are preeminent in praising the N&#226;satyas or Ashvins, the divine horseman twins who drive a heavenly chariot, and in offering them gharma, a drink of heated milk. I suggest that the &#8216;face urn&#8217; characteristic of the Gandh&#226;ra Graves is related to the gharma vessel of the Ashvin cult. According to Vedic texts, the gharma pot represents the severed head (which flew off to become the sun) of a heroic deity, and thus it is not unlikely that the pot was fashioned to resemble human head. The ShatapathaBr&#226;hmana (14,1,2,17) in fact specifies that this clay vessel was to have a nose (n&#226;sik&#226. Several things including their name associate the N&#226;satyas with the nose in the Veda. If accepted, the proposed link between the Vedic religion and archaeological evidence would have important implications. However, it poses some further questions. In particular, did the N&#226;satyas and the gharma vessel have a funerary function? Can other traces of the N&#226;satya cult be found in the Gandh&#226;ra Grave culture?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/southasianarchaeology/Aryans.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Putting this in bold isn't going to change the truth..so why do so?



The truth that you didn't understand my point?



> You clearly haven't followed my explanation. "Indra" and "Indus" are both derivations from "Sindhu". Yes, Indus is a corruption, and probably occurred after Indra, but why does this matter if they are both derived from the root word, "Sindhu"? It's perfectly easy to understand. Yes, it is only one syllable, "-Ind-", but this syllable appears to be the most important syllable (for whatever reason), that forms a part of India, Indus, Indra. There's no question of the similarity between these three words, unless you choose to be in denial of them. Ask a statistician professor (non Indian), about the likelihood of obtaining three syllabalic similarities between INDia, INDus, INDra, sINDhu, and you will find there's virtually nill probability these names are not all related to each other from the same origin.



Er, sorry I disagree. The words Indra and Sindhu are unrelated. 

They might both have come from a common word, but it hasn't been proved.

Also, I explained the origin of indra as 'indu' meaning drop and 'ra' meaning possessing. It has does not originate from the word 'sindhu'.



> I disagree it has been unchanged. Bits of it don't make sense.


 
Oh and you are the great Rigvedic expert, to tell the world that 'bits of it don't make sense'.

Either elaborate or don't insult a book revered by millions.



> Hinduism is a relatively new religion. In fact, the word "Hindu" was given to describe the people of a geographic region, rather than a religion at first. When Hindu started being using as a religion, it was only recently, perhaps in the last 400 years. That is when the religion changed into what it is today.



LOL...you crack me up!! 

400 years? 

Kindly get your facts straight!! You don't know even the basic facts about the evolution of Hinduism.




> Vedic religion had ritualistic slaughter of the cow, no cow urine drinking or worshipping of minor rodents. Compare Vedism to Hinduism today, and they are completely seperate religions.



How is that related to our topic of discussion? 



> You're welcome to point out what does not make sense to you Qu'ranically. I find it all makes perfect sense when you look at the context. *Your basic argument is that Sindhu means one thing in one area of the Vedas, it has another meaning in another area of the Vedas.* Nonsense. This is wishful thinking. The Vedic people were not so illiterate they didn't know how to express themselves clearly in their historical accounts.




ErThe Rigveda composed over a period of many centuries.

You clearly haven't read the Rigveda, understood it or analyzed it.

Those who have done so, both the historians and the priests, realize that the meaning, even pronuciations of several words change through the Rigveda.




> Your "Timeline" argument has nothing to do with countering my argument. My argument is something which you have failed to understand. My argument is that INDia, INDus, INDra, sINDhu all are derived from a common origin (Sapta INDhu). This being the case, why would the Vedic people then name their major God, Indra, after a minor river (Indus). They would, if anything name their God after the biggest river..Indus, Sindhu - lit. trans. "THE River".



Indra is not derived from Sindhu. There is no record of such a thing happening. I have explained the etymology of Indra earlier. Kindly leave the determination of word origins to those who understand Sanskrit, and not your imagination.




> I've already shown you the verse that demonstrates quite clearly, that "Sindhu" is the name of the river Indus in chapter 10 of the Rig Veda. You now have to show me why, in your own words, you have reason to believe that earlier chapters refer to the Sindhu generically. You haven't so far (i'm not asking for opinions of HIndutva fanatics here, I want plain fact. I have given you a plain fact and proved in chapter 10 of the Rig Veda, that "Sindhu" refers to the Indus). You now prove to me it also refers to rivers generically



In my previous post, I gave links to a detailed analysis of the chronology and geography of the Rigveda.

Have you bothered to read it? 

Every one of my contentions are explained in detail, very logically.

If you haven't, then there is no point of debating.



> Vedic scholars that are Indian agree with this. There is an agenda to it. Most independent researchers don't agree. I quoted Alan Dilqvist before from his book. He translates Sindhu as Indus throughout.



Vedic scholars have kept their interpretation consistent from the time it was first codified.
Naturally, this is the most correct one because it has been passed on in an unmodified form.

Westrern scholars, without this essential background, are liable to make mistakes in the interpretation of the vedas.





> Cemetary H did not spread into India. What do you think the "H" in Cemetary H stands for? HARRAPA. It was centred around Harrappa which is well within Pakistan. For its exact dimensions, see here
> 
> The Late Harappan Cemetery H is located between Cemetery R37 and Mound AB on a slightly raised plain *at Harappa *(Rao, 1973). *It covered more than 3000sqm* with two distinct layers (Rao, 1973). The Post Harappan Cemetery H is characterized by a total lack of Harappan ceramics. The lower Stratum II (H2) consisted of about out two dozen extended burials with heads to east and flexed knees. The burials contained a somewhat crude red ware apparently unrelated to Mature Harappan ceramics. The ceramics are similar to that recovered at Lurewata and Ratha Theri in *Bahawalpur State* (Pakistan). The upper Stratum I (H1) consisted of pot/jar burials. These fractional burials were of urns containing skulls and a few long bones. The urns and associated ceramics were a more elaborate form of the red ware from Stratum II.
> The Harappan Tradition
> 
> 3000 sq miles is roughly 55 * 55 miles around Harappa. In no way would this even reach into India, even if Harappa were at the extreme fringe of Cemetary H. Besides this, Cemetary H has nothing to do with the Rig Vedic Period!.



This report dates back to 1973, when most of the Harappan sites in India were not excavated properly.
Only recently has the ASI taken interest in excavating these sites.

Today, we know that the cemetary-H culture extended well into the Gangetic plains.




> Quoting only Indian researchers on this is essentially just being non objective. Almost every non Indian researcher does their research in Pakistan, unless they're an avid Hindu fanatic like Frawley. I'm looking for objectivity, not propaganda. Also logic and reason will do for me, all of which you have not offered up. I will show you what neutral research is in my next post.



Quoting Indian researchers, (mind you, not politicians but researchers) is perfectly objective.

You should look at what a researcher has written, rather than where he is from.

If you can present some research on the subject, then kindly do so.

In the meantime, please try to read the sources I gave you with some semblance of objectivity, before dismissing it as propaganda.





> Let's hope so. You obviously are clutching at straws when you dont present any fact as to why you think what you think, except that a Hindutva website says it.



That does not make sense.

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "Hindutva website".

Secondly, I am not a historian. I will definitely get my opinion from another source and present it here.

Kindly try to remember that we are not doing any new research here, simply comparing existing literature.

*
Frankly, your tone has been rude and condescending throughout our discussion. If you cannot stick to the facts and present some established opinions rather than your own, I suggest we discontinue.*

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Flintlock

There have been several recent publications that have taken into account, the views of Indian scholars and compared them with the Aryan Invasion theories.


Bryant, Edwin Lecturer in Indology, Committee for the Study of Religion, Harvard University
The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture.

This book takes a very important step in analyzing both viewpoints in an evenhanded manner.

Excerpts from each chapter of this book are presented on this website:

Oxford Scholarship Online: The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture

I am planning to buy this book and read it, and I suggest that you do so as well.

The origin of the IVC and Vedic Civilization is far from certain, and work is still going on in this field. It seems to have picked up some pace in the last 10 years or so.

I suggest we keep our discussion on hold till we gain some more knowledge about the various theories.

Cheers
Stealth

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

It appears we are digressing from the topic, the "name India", what it referred to etc. I believe that question has been answered relatively well. 

I am unsure how the discussion of the usage of the word "Sindhu", in the rigveda relates to this.

Perhaps we should start a different thread, with a specific question, to discuss that? Your thoughts?


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> The truth that you didn't understand my point?



The most important "points" you make that you highlight in bold seem to be irrelevant, unrelated personal rants directed at posters. That's all that was meant to mean. 



> Er, sorry I disagree. The words Indra and Sindhu are unrelated.
> 
> They might both have come from a common word, but it hasn't been proved.



Well, at least you admitted to the possibility they might have come from a common word, it's not total denial. Much of archaeology is guesswork and trying to fit pieces together. Very rarely will you have a 100% full proof answer. However if you calculate the probability that totally unrelated words have the same pronunciation by chance in the same language and culture, you will find that the chance is extremely small. The probability you will have "Indra" and "Indus" or "India" or "Sindhu" coming from totally unrelated origins is extremely small. 



> Also, I explained the origin of indra as 'indu' meaning drop and 'ra' meaning possessing. It has does not originate from the word 'sindhu'.



You explaining the MEANING of Indra, not the origin. You can even see that if "Indu" means "drop", ten the "-indu" in Sindhu will also mean drop. These are similar words with different suffixes to indicate person or tense, but they do not alter the meaning of the words. Even this statement of yours underlines what I've said. Indra coming from Indu, and Sindhu coming from Indu. They are all from the same origin. It's no rocket science. 



> Oh and you are the great Rigvedic expert, to tell the world that 'bits of it don't make sense'.
> 
> Either elaborate or don't insult a book revered by millions.



We were told by experts that Iraq had WMD, I didn't believe it. If your logic (depending on whether you have any or not), tells you something does not make sense, and the "experts" say something illogical that does not make sense, then it's clear they have agendas, much of what the Indian archaeologists have. The AIS (Archaeological Survey of India) is a governmental organization that comes under the Ministry of Culture. As such there is a political bias in the conclusions and results they come out with 

"The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), under the Ministry of Culture, is the premier organization for the archaeological researches and protection of the cultural heritage of the nation." 
About Archaeological Survey of India 

When the Hindutva was in power (BJP), you think they didn't push the Indocentric theories for the ASI to come out with. That's why a lot of what the ASI comes out with, I don't believe in the slightest. I don't think most non Indian archaeologists believe it either. 



> LOL...you crack me up!!
> 
> 400 years?
> 
> Kindly get your facts straight!! You don't know even the basic facts about the evolution of Hinduism.



Hinduism was not a religion initially. It was the term given to the people of Sapta Sindhu by the Persian who pronounced Sindhu as Hindu. They called the area Hindustan, and th people Hindus. In this respect, it was not a religious term initially. It only became a relgious term under I believe perhaps the Mughals or the British, when the religion had evolved into its current form which included cow and rodent worship. You can see th differences between modern day Hinduism and Vedism. The Vedic people had no respect for the cow, they ate it happily, the horse was sacred to them. In Hinduism it's the complete opposite. They are totally different religions at odds with one another, and there was no such things as "Hindu religion" until 400 or 500 years ago - It was just a word to describe the people of Sindh, or Hind as the Persians called it. 



> ErThe Rigveda composed over a period of many centuries.
> 
> You clearly haven't read the Rigveda, understood it or analyzed it.
> 
> Those who have done so, both the historians and the priests, realize that the meaning, even pronuciations of several words change through the Rigveda.



Just because it was composed over centuries, does not mean the linguistical meaning of words change. I've proven Sindhu to mean Indus on one occasion in the Rig Veda. So far, you have not proved that Sindhu means river in any of the earlier verses. If you do believe this, explain why you do in your own words so I can understand it (I don't waste time reading Hindutva website). 

Even Edwin Bryant, who you refer to later, has ascribed "Indra", "Indus", and "Indura" to the same stem. 

"A number of Baltic river names have the form "Indus", "Indura", "Indra", and so on, which are explainable by comparison with the Sanskrit, "_indu_", drop. (Mallory, 1975, 169). These hydromic etymologies have been accepted as signs of Indo-Aryans". 
The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate By Edwin Bryant
p. 133. 

Even Edwin Bryant would agree with me. Why would the main God of the Rig Veda, Indra, have a common stem with a more insignificant river? The argument that the Saraswati was more important falls flat on its face when you consider that the personification of th Saraswati, Sarasvaat, is virtually irrelevant in the Rig Veda. 

This argument anyhow is irrelevant. I've already proved with articles by foreign, neutral researchers that the home of the Rig Vedic people was somewhere in Gandhara, for sure it was nowhere inside India. Take it up with the researchers I quoted like Perpola and so on. 



> Indra is not derived from Sindhu. There is no record of such a thing happening. I have explained the etymology of Indra earlier. Kindly leave the determination of word origins to those who understand Sanskrit, and not your imagination.



Edwin Bryant sure seems to think that Indus and Indra have a common etymology. It's pretty obvious to anyone that they are related. Ask a statistician professor if you dont believe me (non Indian again). 



> In my previous post, I gave links to a detailed analysis of the chronology and geography of the Rigveda.
> 
> Have you bothered to read it?



No, because your links are all by Indians, who I consider to be biased in their analysis of history, not to mention some proven lies that the Indian archaeologists and researchers have come out with. Notice I don't quote Pakistani researchers (who at least don't have a government agenda to propagate myths). 



> Every one of my contentions are explained in detail, very logically.
> 
> If you haven't, then there is no point of debating.



It is not logical to claim that Indra cannot have the same origin as Indus, India, or Sindhu, by saying that "Ind" means drop. If anything this just proves they have the same origin. They all contain "Ind"! 



> Vedic scholars have kept their interpretation consistent from the time it was first codified.
> Naturally, this is the most correct one because it has been passed on in an unmodified form.
> 
> Westrern scholars, without this essential background, are liable to make mistakes in the interpretation of the vedas.



Oh please. Indian researchers have already been found to have made up lies in their research of the IVC. Not just lies, but they've invented stuff, and put altered the data. It's the most grotesque abuse of archaeology I've seen. Why should I trust anything that is government sponsored, when the government is composed of fundamentalists? I would much rather trust a neutral foreign, Western observer who is an eminent name with a good reputation in the field, like Perpola. To quote Frawley, who runs a Hindutva institute is not being objective. 



> This report dates back to 1973, when most of the Harappan sites in India were not excavated properly.
> Only recently has the ASI taken interest in excavating these sites.
> 
> Today, we know that the cemetary-H culture extended well into the Gangetic plains.



Well, this isn't important. I showed that Cemetary H is located only in Pakistan. Having a cultural flow into India (Bharat) is a possibility. What does it indicate? Absolutely nothing, it does not even mean the people associated with Cemetary H (which is not a Rig Vedic culture), moved into Bharat, just the culture. I've proven with references from the most eminent archeologists from a reputable website (ucl.ac.uk), that the Rig Vedic people were associated with Gandhara, evidenced by Swat burial systems. 



> Quoting Indian researchers, (mind you, not politicians but researchers) is perfectly objective.



You don't know the meaning of objectivity then. Indian researchers researching on Indian history are anything but objective. I've already quoted one example, the "horseplay in harrapa" article, where the Indian researchers just invented data to suit their own agenda (which was to dravidianize the whole issue if i recall correctly). 



> You should look at what a researcher has written, rather than where he is from.



Whilst that is true, I know what the track record is of Indian archaeologists and I know how much influence Hindutva fanatics have over them. It is one of the purposes of Hindutva to prove to the world man originated from India, and they hold sway over Indian government and its institutes (such as AIS)..its heyday was probably Vajpayee. 



> If you can present some research on the subject, then kindly do so.
> 
> In the meantime, please try to read the sources I gave you with some semblance of objectivity, before dismissing it as propaganda.



I've quoted Asko Perpola!! The article I quoted clearly states that Gandhara was the home of the Rig Veda and the Rig Vedic people!. 



> That does not make sense.
> 
> Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "Hindutva website".
> 
> Secondly, I am not a historian. I will definitely get my opinion from another source and present it here.
> 
> Kindly try to remember that we are not doing any new research here, simply comparing existing literature.
> 
> *
> Frankly, your tone has been rude and condescending throughout our discussion. If you cannot stick to the facts and present some established opinions rather than your own, I suggest we discontinue.*



ALL my links have been by foreign researchers. None by Indian or Pakistani. They've all said exactly what I say. I'm not going to believe Frawley, someone who converted to Hinduism and owns a Hindu Institute to make money. These are all vested interests. I'm going with neutral people. 

If you want to discontinue it, I'm quite happy, I've noticed you don't seem to get the point I'm making, and don't quote any facts. You do spam, you do deny fact, by saying it's not fact without reason. Continue, discontinue I don't really care.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> It appears we are digressing from the topic, the "name India", what it referred to etc. I believe that question has been answered relatively well.
> 
> I am unsure how the discussion of the usage of the word "Sindhu", in the rigveda relates to this.



Basically, he's saying that the Rig Vedic homeland was in Bharat. His "evidence" is that the Saraswati is the main river, and since half of it is in Bharat (even if it is the extrem fringe of Bharat), then the Rig Vedic homeland must have been there. I have proved now that most of the eminent researchers in the field such as Perpola, have articles stating that Gandhara was the Rig Vedic homeland. It's made the discussion of Sindhu irrelevant, but just using logic, I could tell that sINDhu, INDra, INDus, INDia have the same common origins. To cut a long story, Indra being the main God of the Rig Veda would not be named after a minor river, and Sarasvaat, one of the minor Gods of the Rig Veda would not be named after the major river. It does not make sense, so I suspect some verses to have been altered. It's irrelevant now as I said. Just read Perpola, he's very balanced, and the most eminent archaeologist in the field.


----------



## roadrunner

Here's the Perpola article. There's excellent evidence Gandhara was the Rig Vedic homeland. 

*The face urns of Gandh&#226;ra and the cult of the N&#226;satyas*
Prof. Asko Parpola: Department of Asian & African Studies University of Helsinki

The Gandh&#226;ra Graves represent the first archaeological culture in the Sw&#226;t Valley region to have the domesticated horse. *The two successive cultural phases beginning about 1600 BC and 1300 BC, respectively,* *probably reflect the arrival of the earlier and later wave of the IndoAryan speakers associated with the Rigveda.* *On the basis of river names and other indications, the K&#226;nvas of the earlier wave and the Atris of the later wave mainly resided in the Sw&#226;t area.* These singer families are preeminent in praising the N&#226;satyas or Ashvins, the divine horseman twins who drive a heavenly chariot, and in offering them gharma, a drink of heated milk. I suggest that the &#8216;face urn&#8217; characteristic of the Gandh&#226;ra Graves is related to the gharma vessel of the Ashvin cult. According to Vedic texts, the gharma pot represents the severed head (which flew off to become the sun) of a heroic deity, and thus it is not unlikely that the pot was fashioned to resemble human head. The ShatapathaBr&#226;hmana (14,1,2,17) in fact specifies that this clay vessel was to have a nose (n&#226;sik&#226. Several things including their name associate the N&#226;satyas with the nose in the Veda. If accepted, the proposed link between the Vedic religion and archaeological evidence would have important implications. However, it poses some further questions. In particular, did the N&#226;satyas and the gharma vessel have a funerary function? Can other traces of the N&#226;satya cult be found in the Gandh&#226;ra Grave culture?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/southasianarchaeology/Aryans.pdf 

And here is confirmation that cemetary H was nothing to do with the Rig Vedic people. 

*The Vedic Aryans' burial rites and their archaeological parallels*
E. Kuzmina: Institute for Cultural Research, Russian Academy of Sciences

*These burial rites have nothing in common with the burial rites in Baluchistan and in the Harappan civilization (Marshall 1931; Wheeler 1947; 1953; 1968; Singh 1970; Possehl 2002) and postHarappan cemeteries H,* R3, Jhukar and Chanhudaro in India and RanaGhundai, ShahiTump, Khurab in neighbouring lands. The total combination of all specific burial rites characterizes only the Vedic tradition and the Andronovo culture, especiallyin North Bactria. There are a lot of cenotaphs in Bactria (Vinogradova 2004). They may belong to Aryans who migrated to India. (Read Pakistan). 

From the same link.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The most important "points" you make that you highlight in bold seem to be irrelevant, unrelated personal rants directed at posters. That's all that was meant to mean.



...





> Well, at least you admitted to the possibility they might have come from a common word, it's not total denial. Much of archaeology is guesswork and trying to fit pieces together. Very rarely will you have a 100&#37; full proof answer. However if you calculate the probability that totally unrelated words have the same pronunciation by chance in the same language and culture, you will find that the chance is extremely small. The probability you will have "Indra" and "Indus" or "India" or "Sindhu" coming from totally unrelated origins is extremely small.



Each of the three word you mentioned have their own etymology and origin.

The word Indra, is derived from "Indu"+"ra" in Sanskrit meaning "possessor of rain".

The word Sindhu comes from Sanskirt root "Sidh", meaning to "keep off". It is the generic word for "river or stream", although archaic.

The word Indus arrives very late and cannot be related to either of these two.


Even if we do suppose that the word Indra came from Sindhu, it doesn't change the location of the composition of the Rigvrda. (Note: I am not endorsing your view, but simply supposing it)

The location of the Rigveda is centered around Places, not Gods. Since the Saraswati is the most prominent river, and indeed the river of the vedic homeland, not to mention that the location of the source of Saraswati is mentioned in one of the earliest chapters, is tenable proof that the rigvedic homeland was the punjab region.





> You explaining the MEANING of Indra, not the origin. You can even see that if "Indu" means "drop", ten the "-indu" in Sindhu will also mean drop. These are similar words with different suffixes to indicate person or tense, but they do not alter the meaning of the words. Even this statement of yours underlines what I've said. Indra coming from Indu, and Sindhu coming from Indu. They are all from the same origin. It's no rocket science.



So? I have explained my position above.

But even if we do suppose for a moment, that all Sanskrit dictionaries, literature, interpretations done in India for 3000 years are wrong, the common origin for the words "Indra" and "Sindhu" don't indicate a place for the Rigveda at all.
If anything, they lend credence to the aryan migration theory.





> We were told by experts that Iraq had WMD, I didn't believe it. If your logic (depending on whether you have any or not), tells you something does not make sense, and the "experts" say something illogical that does not make sense, then it's clear they have agendas, much of what the Indian archaeologists have. The AIS (Archaeological Survey of India) is a governmental organization that comes under the Ministry of Culture. As such there is a political bias in the conclusions and results they come out with



Oh of course they are!! Didn't they just manage to pass off a "disguised slum" , in your own words, as an ancient harappan city?

I"m sure they're all a bunch of trishul-toting goons with no education!!!

ITs obvious that you don't have a semblance of objectivity about you. In such circumstances, it is silly for me to keep debating.



> When the Hindutva was in power (BJP), you think they didn't push the Indocentric theories for the ASI to come out with. That's why a lot of what the ASI comes out with, I don't believe in the slightest. I don't think most non Indian archaeologists believe it either.



No I don't think so. They can favour the "out of India theory" a bit more, but thats about it.

It doesn't come down to artificially creating historical sites to prove their point.

This is India, not Pakistan, where mythology is passed off as history.

Indian archaeologists like S R Rao, B B Lal, V N Misra and S P Gupta are well renowned and respected in their field. If you like, you can read up their details yourself.
If you want to dismiss their theories because of your hatred for Hindus and Hinduism (I am not supposing this, it kinda obvious from your posts), then too bad. I am not going to press the point any further.




> Hinduism was not a religion initially. It was the term given to the people of Sapta Sindhu by the Persian who pronounced Sindhu as Hindu. They called the area Hindustan, and th people Hindus. In this respect, it was not a religious term initially. It only became a relgious term under I believe perhaps the Mughals or the British, when the religion had evolved into its current form which included cow and rodent worship. You can see th differences between modern day Hinduism and Vedism. The Vedic people had no respect for the cow, they ate it happily, the horse was sacred to them. In Hinduism it's the complete opposite. They are totally different religions at odds with one another, and there was no such things as "Hindu religion" until 400 or 500 years ago - It was just a word to describe the people of Sindh, or Hind as the Persians called it.



I know about the origin of the word "Hindu" very well. There is no need to lecture on it. Apart from being completely off topic, your post is rude, condescending and downright wrong.
I am not going to waste my time correcting each one of your irresponsible sentences, because i don't have the patience to do it.




> Just because it was composed over centuries, does not mean the linguistical meaning of words change. I've proven Sindhu to mean Indus on one occasion in the Rig Veda. So far, you have not proved that Sindhu means river in any of the earlier verses. If you do believe this, explain why you do in your own words so I can understand it (I don't waste time reading Hindutva website).



Maybe you should try wasting some of that precious time of yours. 

I am not going to quote each of the 176 mentions of the word Sindhu and explain individually how the word is used generically.

Perhaps a standard english translation of the Rigveda with explanations for each verse would help you.

For your information, I have studied sanskirt, I understand the language, and I have read the Rigveda before.

Just for your Info, all the rivers in the Rigveda are feminine gender, described as goddesses. 
The word "Sindhu" however, is an exception, being of male gender. Thus, in the later parts of the Rigveda, especially the important Nadistuti Sukta, which you quote so often, the usage of the word "Sindhu" to mean a particular river is a very strange anomaly, since it was used more in a generic fashion earlier and was later changed to mean a particular river.

Also, out of the 176 mentions, 95 are in the prural.

I don't really support the theory that counting the number of times a river is mentioned proves beyond doubt the location of the Rigveda, but just for the record, the word Saraswati is mentioned a total of 72 times in all the books except book 4, and is recognized as the &#225;mbitame n&#225;d&#299;tame d&#233;vitame s&#225;rasvati or "best mother, best river, best goddess saraswati"



> Even Edwin Bryant, who you refer to later, has ascribed "Indra", "Indus", and "Indura" to the same stem.
> 
> "A number of Baltic river names have the form "Indus", "Indura", "Indra", and so on, which are explainable by comparison with the Sanskrit, "_indu_", drop. (Mallory, 1975, 169). These hydromic etymologies have been accepted as signs of Indo-Aryans".
> The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate By Edwin Bryant
> p. 133.



Yes, that would be some evidence to use for the Aryan migration theory. It doesn't ascertain the location of the Rigveda in the least.



> Even Edwin Bryant would agree with me. Why would the main God of the Rig Veda, Indra, have a common stem with a more insignificant river? The argument that the Saraswati was more important falls flat on its face when you consider that the personification of th Saraswati, Sarasvaat, is virtually irrelevant in the Rig Veda.



Let us not presume what Edwin Bryant would agree to without first reading his version of events.

I have never heard of this Saraswaat. the Saraswati itself is prominently personified as a goddes in the Rigveda.



> This argument anyhow is irrelevant. I've already proved with articles by foreign, neutral researchers that the home of the Rig Vedic people was somewhere in Gandhara, for sure it was nowhere inside India. Take it up with the researchers I quoted like Perpola and so on.



No, I am afraid you haven't proved it.

Simply flouting a researcher as "neutral" and dismissing another's as "hindutva", without reading what each one has to say is not what I would call a sincere analysis.

If you want to somehow force the conclusion that the Rig Veda was composed in Pakistan, then you are doing the right thing by disregarding all sources that don't support your viewpoint.

However, if you sincerely intend to ascertain the truth, then you are way off track.




> Edwin Bryant sure seems to think that Indus and Indra have a common etymology. It's pretty obvious to anyone that they are related. Ask a statistician professor if you dont believe me (non Indian again).



Edwin Bryant was just mentioning the probable origin of the words as a support for Aryan migration theory.
He didn't link the finding to the Rigveda, and neither is it logical to do so.




> No, because your links are all by Indians, who I consider to be biased in their analysis of history, not to mention some proven lies that the Indian archaeologists and researchers have come out with. Notice I don't quote Pakistani researchers (who at least don't have a government agenda to propagate myths).



Which lies? The Indian researchers I mentioned are some of the most prominent in the field. If you continue to disregard them, I'm afraid you will be missing out on a lot.




> It is not logical to claim that Indra cannot have the same origin as Indus, India, or Sindhu, by saying that "Ind" means drop. If anything this just proves they have the same origin. They all contain "Ind"!



Note: "Indu" translates as "drop", not "Ind". Additionally it may indicate "Moon", depending on the context.

Your analysis is crude and, well, wrong.






> please. Indian researchers have already been found to have made up lies in their research of the IVC. Not just lies, but they've invented stuff, and put altered the data. It's the most grotesque abuse of archaeology I've seen. Why should I trust anything that is government sponsored, when the government is composed of fundamentalists? I would much rather trust a neutral foreign, Western observer who is an eminent name with a good reputation in the field, like Perpola. To quote Frawley, who runs a Hindutva institute is not being objective.



Which lies? Kindly be more specific. 

Once again, and I am tired of repeating this, simply dismissing a whole body of work as propaganda isn't going to help your case.
Especially since Indian archaeological finds are changing esblished views about the IVc.





> Well, this isn't important. I showed that Cemetary H is located only in Pakistan. Having a cultural flow into India (Bharat) is a possibility. What does it indicate? Absolutely nothing, it does not even mean the people associated with Cemetary H (which is not a Rig Vedic culture), moved into Bharat, just the culture. I've proven with references from the most eminent archeologists from a reputable website (ucl.ac.uk), that the Rig Vedic people were associated with Gandhara, evidenced by Swat burial systems.



Here is a para from your source:

The burial rite of the Vedic Aryans has been reconstructed on the basis of Rigveda
(X: 14 18),
Atharvaveda (XVIII: 1 4),
Shatapathabrahmana
(XIII, 8), and later
texts (Caland 1896; Pandey 1982; Smirnov 1997).

Both Atharvaveda and Shatpathabhramana come later than Rigveda.
The author is referring to Vedic burial practices after the Rigveda was codified, which is later than the period that we are discussing. 
Also, the version of the Rigveda being referred to is Mandala 10, which is the newest portion of the Rigveda, and is the one in which the Ganges river is mentioned.

Obviously, the people of Atharvaveda and Shatpathbhramana were in the gangetic plains.

SO naturally, the burial practices of these people are difference from Cemetary-H ones.




> You don't know the meaning of objectivity then. Indian researchers researching on Indian history are anything but objective. I've already quoted one example, the "horseplay in harrapa" article, where the Indian researchers just invented data to suit their own agenda (which was to dravidianize the whole issue if i recall correctly).




This is getting irritating. the guy in the "Horseplay in Harappa" article is not a well known researcher or archaeologist. He was pretty much unheard of till his sensational claims.
Several failed attempts have been made to decipher the script by westerners as well, much much more than the Indians. Why don't you consider them as propaganda and then label all western researchers as propagandists?





> I've quoted Asko Perpola!! The article I quoted clearly states that Gandhara was the home of the Rig Veda and the Rig Vedic people!.



Here's another quote from Perpola from the same article:

If accepted, the proposed link between the Vedic religion and archaeological evidence
would have important implications. However, it poses some further questions. In
particular, did the N&#226;satyas and the gharma vessel have a funerary function? Can
other traces of the N&#226;satya cult be found in the Gandh&#226;ra Grave culture?

Clearly, this is merely speculation. It is a long shot from conclusively being accepted. Equally credible theories exist for the Punjab-Haryana region as the vedic homeland.
How can you be so sure? Atleast read his book before jumping to conclusions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## roadrunner

> The word Indra, is derived from "Indu"+"ra" in Sanskrit meaning "possessor of rain".
> 
> The word Sindhu comes from Sanskirt root "Sidh", meaning to "keep off". It is the generic word for "river or stream", although archaic.
> 
> The word Indus arrives very late and cannot be related to either of these two.


You never apply logic to what you write. Like a parrot, you don't question propagandist websites, just accept them. 

If Sanskrit "Sidh" means to "keep off", what does this have to do with a river or water? Why on earth would they name a river the "Keep off River"? You think the Rig Vedic people were stupid or something? You have to apply reason to understand the naming of these rivers when there is a pluralistic array of meanings to the names. Since it's a body of water, Edwin Bryant's explanation is obviously the most likely. 

"A number of Baltic river names have the form "Indus", "Indura", "Indra", and so on, which are explainable by comparison with the Sanskrit, "indu", drop. (Mallory, 1975, 169). These hydromic etymologies have been accepted as signs of Indo-Aryans". 
The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate By Edwin Bryant
p. 133. 

Interestingly I've come across all these definitions of Sidh.. 

The term had been derived from the Sanskrit root sidh meaning "fulfillment" or "achievement," so the noun came to refer to one who had attained perfection.
the_tamil_siddhas 

"All our creative energy is spent on &#8220;sidh&#8221; which is a Sanskrit word meaning &#8220;to prove&#8221;. 
Offshore 3d modeling, 3d animation, 2d animation, Architectural,Renderings,Raster to Vectors,Game environments,WEBDESIGN. 

Which makes the best sense to you? The Tamil definition of Sanskrit is a possibility "The Perfect River", but more likely it is a hydromenic etymology from the stem "Ind" means drop. How you believe it means "The Keep Off River" is just lacklustre reasoning I can only think. 

Something that you need to consider is each of these rivers were personified as Gods and Goddesses. The River Saravasti was personified as the Goddess Saravasti. Now who was the personification of the Sindhu? Indra is the only one that comes to mind. 

I'll also point out that I've found hundreds of other references to the Indus without question in the Rig Veda. 
"18 This river with his lucid flow attracts you, more than all the streams,&#8212;
Even Sindhu (Indus) with his path of gold."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 8: HYMN XXVI. A&#347;vins.

In the initial part of the Rig Veda, the personification of the Sarasvati appears 

"9 I&#7735;&#257;, Sarasvat&#299;, Mah&#299;, three Goddesses who bring delight,
Be seated, peaceful, on the grass." 
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda Book 1: HYMN XIII. Agni 

As you can see yourself, the Saraswati river has been personified, AS HAVE ALL THE RIVERS OF THE RIG VEDA. How many times is the Saraswati mentioned, and how many times is Indra mentioned. Indra is by far the most important God of the Rig Veda. If you don't think Indra is the personification of the River Indus, who is Indra?

This is a quote from wiki, which i don't usually quote from. 
In the 1 and 10 of the Rigveda, the Sarasvati is mentioned in 13 hymns (1.3, 13, 89, 164; 10.17, 30, 64, 65, 66, 75, 110, 131, 141). Only two of these references are unambiguously to the river, 10.64.9 calling for the aid of three "great rivers", Sindhu, Sarasvati and Sarayu, and the geographical Nadistuti list (10.75.5) discussed above. The others invoke Sarasvati as a goddess without direct connection to a specific river. In 10.30.12, her origin as a river goddess may cause the rishi invokes her as protective deity as he composes a hymn to the celestial waters. Similarly, in 10.135.5, as Indra drinks Soma he is described as refreshed by Sarasvati. The invocations in 10.17 address Sarasvati as a goddess of the forefathers as well as of the present generation. In 1.13, 1.89, 10.85, 10.66 and 10.141, she is listed with other gods and goddesses, not with rivers. In 10.65, she is invoked together with "holy thoughts" (dh&#299 and "munificence" (pura&#7747;dhi), consistent with her role as the goddess of both knowledge and fertility.
You are welcome to check each of these references. Just as you doubt the Rig Vedic "Sindhu" refers to the Indus, there is equal room for doubt that the Rig Vedic "Saraswati" refers to the river. Not only this, the meaning of "Saraswati" can also be river or stream in Sanskrit. 

"It comes from the Sanskrit roots "saras", which means a lake or other body of water (also implying the flowing movement of water), and "vati", meaning a female associated with the former. Therefore, Sarasvati can be taken to mean something like "she of the stream" or "she who flows."
A Shrine of Sarasvati Devi: Her Other Names 

Based on this, just as you apply your reasoning that Sanskrit Sindhu can mean River generically, you can apply the meaning that Sanskrit Saraswati can mean River generically. If you look at the context, you will find that only in TWO instances is the Saraswati mentioned definitely as a river in chapter 10 of the Rig Veda, and each of these times, the Indus (Sindhu) is mentioned as the chief river, the Saraswati along with teYamuna and so on. 



> So? I have explained my position above.
> 
> But even if we do suppose for a moment, that all Sanskrit dictionaries, literature, interpretations done in India for 3000 years are wrong, the common origin for the words "Indra" and "Sindhu" don't indicate a place for the Rigveda at all.
> If anything, they lend credence to the aryan migration theory.



I actually agree with Frawley on this..there was no Aryan migration into India/Bharat. That much is pretty obvious. But the evidence indicates a definite Aryan migration into at least parts of Pakistan. This much is unquestionable. 



> Oh of course they are!! Didn't they just manage to pass off a "disguised slum" , in your own words, as an ancient harappan city?
> 
> I"m sure they're all a bunch of trishul-toting goons with no education!!!
> 
> ITs obvious that you don't have a semblance of objectivity about you. In such circumstances, it is silly for me to keep debating.



Objectivity would be if non Indian and neutral researchers were allowed to take samples of whatever they wanted from the Indian sites, to carbon date them (it's not accurate but a start), and perhaps do more accurate analysis. When the main archaeological body falls under the governmental Ministry of Culture, and that Ministry is a part of a fundamentalist Hindutva BJP government, then the results obtained are no objective. I'm sure that even the ministry of culture under Hitler was ordered to stick to an agenda. It's better that independent researchers also contribute to the archaeology, such as what has happened in Pakistan, even in Saudi it seems. 



> I know about the origin of the word "Hindu" very well. There is no need to lecture on it. Apart from being completely off topic, your post is rude, condescending and downright wrong.
> I am not going to waste my time correcting each one of your irresponsible sentences, because i don't have the patience to do it.



You've been saying you're not going to respond to my posts for the last 4 days, but you still do  . Anyhow, it's fine, I'm finding out stuff. How was my post rude. Let me post it again. I wonder if anyone else finds it "rude and condescending", or perhaps you just can't answer  

Hinduism was not a religion initially. It was the term given to the people of Sapta Sindhu by the Persian who pronounced Sindhu as Hindu. They called the area Hindustan, and th people Hindus. In this respect, it was not a religious term initially. It only became a relgious term under I believe perhaps the Mughals or the British, when the religion had evolved into its current form which included cow and rodent worship. You can see th differences between modern day Hinduism and Vedism. The Vedic people had no respect for the cow, they ate it happily, the horse was sacred to them. In Hinduism it's the complete opposite. They are totally different religions at odds with one another, and there was no such things as "Hindu religion" until 400 or 500 years ago - It was just a word to describe the people of Sindh, or Hind as the Persians called it. 



> Maybe you should try wasting some of that precious time of yours.
> 
> I am not going to quote each of the 176 mentions of the word Sindhu and explain individually how the word is used generically.
> 
> Perhaps a standard english translation of the Rigveda with explanations for each verse would help you.
> 
> For your information, I have studied sanskirt, I understand the language, and I have read the Rigveda before.
> 
> Just for your Info, all the rivers in the Rigveda are feminine gender, described as goddesses.
> The word "Sindhu" however, is an exception, being of male gender. Thus, in the later parts of the Rigveda, especially the important Nadistuti Sukta, which you quote so often, the usage of the word "Sindhu" to mean a particular river is a very strange anomaly, since it was used more in a generic fashion earlier and was later changed to mean a particular river.
> 
> Also, out of the 176 mentions, 95 are in the prural.
> 
> I don't really support the theory that counting the number of times a river is mentioned proves beyond doubt the location of the Rigveda, but just for the record, the word Saraswati is mentioned a total of 72 times in all the books except book 4, and is recognized as the &#225;mbitame n&#225;d&#299;tame d&#233;vitame s&#225;rasvati or "best mother, best river, best goddess saraswati"



The same what you've said above applies to the Saraswati. It only unequivally refers to the River Saraswtai in the last chapter. Prior to this, it refers to the Goddess Saraswati. If you count the number of times the Saraswati appears in the Rig Veda, you must count the number of time the Sindhu appears in the Rig Veda, plus the number of times Indra appears in the Rig Veda, since this is the most likely personification of the Indus. 



> Yes, that would be some evidence to use for the Aryan migration theory. It doesn't ascertain the location of the Rigveda in the least.



It does show that the three are related though, which is the purpose of the quote, nothing to do with Aryan migration theory. The three being hydromcally related means that they have the same origin and are related to one another. This ties Indra in with the Indus. This is one of the lines of reasoning as to why the Indus is the main river of the Rig Veda..Because its personification as a deity is the main God of the Rig Veda. 



> No, I am afraid you haven't proved it.
> 
> Simply flouting a researcher as "neutral" and dismissing another's as "hindutva", without reading what each one has to say is not what I would call a sincere analysis.
> 
> If you want to somehow force the conclusion that the Rig Veda was composed in Pakistan, then you are doing the right thing by disregarding all sources that don't support your viewpoint.
> 
> However, if you sincerely intend to ascertain the truth, then you are way off track.



How am I supposed to know which Indian researcher is being objective and which is a Hindutva fanatic bent on getting notoriety and a healthy paycheck from some BJP affiliated politician? You have to remember Bharati history is currently politically sensitive, and the Hindutva in government have an agenda. It's difficult for Westerners perhaps to understand since government does not have such a lot of fundamentalist fanatics in government, but these are the problems associated with Indian archaeology currently. The whole scenario is different. 



> Which lies? The Indian researchers I mentioned are some of the most prominent in the field. If you continue to disregard them, I'm afraid you will be missing out on a lot.



Which lies you say. Here's one big one for a start. 

Horseplay in Harappa - Details for: Science: Archaeology: Periods and Cultures: Harappan: Language and Script: Horseplay in Harappa 

HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA

The attempt to Hinduise the system of education had, however, begun much before the BJP gained access to government power. As early as 1942 the RSS had initiated steps to organise its own educational network. 
In the process, history is turned into myth which tends to inculcate in the young minds a false sense of religious pride and hostility to the members of other denominations. 
On the whole, there is a tendency to control the intellectual and cultural life in conformity with a fundamentalist view. In the way such a view is implemented, irrationally and aggressively, there are unmistakable signs of fascist tendencies. 
Therefore the current debate about history in India is as much about the integrity of the discipline as about the future well-being of the country. 

Outsider as enemy

N.S. Rajaram typifies the worst of the "revisionist" movement, and obviously fails on all counts. The Deciphered Indus Script is based on *blatantly fake data* (the "horse seal," the free-form "decipherments"); disregards numerous well-known facts ( the dates of horses and chariots, the uses of Harappan seals, etc.); rejects evidence from whole scientific fields, including linguistics (a strange exclusion for a would-be decipherer!); and is driven by obvious religious and political motives in claimi ng impossible links between Harappan and Vedic cultures. 

HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA 



> This is India, not Pakistan, where mythology is passed off as history.
> 
> Indian archaeologists like S R Rao, B B Lal, V N Misra and S P Gupta are well renowned and respected in their field. If you like, you can read up their details yourself.
> If you want to dismiss their theories because of your hatred for Hindus and Hinduism (I am not supposing this, it kinda obvious from your posts), then too bad. I am not going to press the point any further.



Well this is a blatant attempt at insulting Pakistan without any proof that a Pakistani archaeologist has been behind ANY manipulation of history (if so quote one, don't accuse). I have proved (and it's common knowledge as my articles show outside of India), that Indian archaeologist and Hindutva fanatics work very closely with one another because history in that part of the world is politically charged and has an agenda. 

From the articles quoted above by Witzel (a Harvard University Indologist). 

You quote Gupta as world renowned, here is what Witzel says about him and other Indian researchers. 

They find allies in a broader assortment of home-grown nationalists including university professors, bank employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K.D. Sethna, S.P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A. Shourie, S.R. Goel). They have even gained a small but vo cal following in the West among "New Age" writers or researchers *outside mainstream scholarship*, including D. Frawley 
HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA 

Obviously Frawley was outside of mainstream scholarship, that much was obvious, but at least I have a Harvard University Professor of Indology supporting my points of view about some Indian archaeologists and their blatant faking of history. Even SP Gupta is another one quoted by him. Why should I believe the others. Now Parpola, has a clean reputation, and I believe what he says. He does not have an agenda, he is not Hindu, and does not live in India or run a Hindu Institute like the ones you quote such as Frawley. That is the difference between the strength of credibility I quote and what you quote. 



> Note: "Indu" translates as "drop", not "Ind". Additionally it may indicate "Moon", depending on the context.
> 
> Your analysis is crude and, well, wrong.



The suffix shows the person/tense, the stem is (like all languages) the same, Ind is a stem, it can be shorter or longer. You would know this if you knew anything about linguistics. 



> Here is a para from your source:
> 
> The burial rite of the Vedic Aryans has been reconstructed on the basis of Rigveda
> (X: 14 18),
> Atharvaveda (XVIII: 1 4),
> Shatapathabrahmana
> (XIII, 8), and later
> texts (Caland 1896; Pandey 1982; Smirnov 1997).
> 
> Both Atharvaveda and Shatpathabhramana come later than Rigveda.
> The author is referring to Vedic burial practices after the Rigveda was codified, which is later than the period that we are discussing.
> Also, the version of the Rigveda being referred to is Mandala 10, which is the newest portion of the Rigveda, and is the one in which the Ganges river is mentioned.
> 
> Obviously, the people of Atharvaveda and Shatpathbhramana were in the gangetic plains.
> 
> SO naturally, the burial practices of these people are difference from Cemetary-H ones.



Dude, please. First, this is the whole quote 
"*The burial rite of the Vedic Aryans has been reconstructed *on the basis of Rigveda (X: 14 18), Atharvaveda (XVIII: 1 4), Shatapathabrahmana (XIII, 8), and later texts (Caland 1896; Pandey 1982; Smirnov 1997)." 

This guy has reconstructed the burial rites of the Vedic Aryans and found that under no circumstances does cemetary H or any of the other cultures in todays Bharat correspond to the same culture. He did however mention that the Vedic Aryan burials have something in common with the cenotaphs of Bactria (which formed a part of Afghanistan, and I believe the Northwestern edge of Pakistan which would correspond with the Gandhara area). Anyhow the same cenotaphs have been found all over the Northwest of Pakistan. 

These northern areas are generally considered to be the region of the Rig Vedic people, some evidence in this respect may be found in the ancient cemeteries of Swat, Dir and Peshawar indicating a widespread distinct burial practice. This Gandhara grave culure, as it is usually termed is amongst the earliest to possess the horse; this animal is also prominent in the Rig Veda. Inhumation in the graves is the predominant mode of disposal of the dead, but *cenotaphs* and cremation ritual also appear for the first time in south Asia : *both methods are known from the Rig Veda*. 
American Institute of Vedic Studies - Vedic Heritage of Northwest Pakistan 

There is little question that the early Rig Vedic homeland was Gandhara. And we know that in the latter stages of the Rig Veda the Indus was 100&#37; the main river. So I don't see any shift of the homeland at all. 



> This is getting irritating. the guy in the "Horseplay in Harappa" article is not a well known researcher or archaeologist. He was pretty much unheard of till his sensational claims.
> Several failed attempts have been made to decipher the script by westerners as well, much much more than the Indians. Why don't you consider them as propaganda and then label all western researchers as propagandists?



Dude, NS Rajaram was the co author of many books sold in Bharat. He's even got backing from the AIS. He even has the backing of political friends, so he's hardly unheard of of weak..

"In a recent online exchange, Rajaram dismissed criticisms of his faked "horse seal" and pointed to political friends in high places, boasting that the Union government had recently "advised" the "National Book Trust to bring out my popular book, From Sarasvati River to the Indus Script, in English and thirteen other languages." 
HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA 

The reason his failed attempt was different from Westerners was because he faked his data. He invented it. Read the article. 



> Here's another quote from Perpola from the same article:
> 
> If accepted, the proposed link between the Vedic religion and archaeological evidence
> would have important implications. However, it poses some further questions. In
> particular, did the N&#226;satyas and the gharma vessel have a funerary function? Can
> other traces of the N&#226;satya cult be found in the Gandh&#226;ra Grave culture?
> 
> Clearly, this is merely speculation. It is a long shot from conclusively being accepted. Equally credible theories exist for the Punjab-Haryana region as the vedic homeland.
> How can you be so sure? Atleast read his book before jumping to conclusions.



Dude, READ the bits I quote. It does not say "if accepted" for the bits I quoted. It says that the commonly held view, (and presumably Parpola's view, remembering no archaeological theory can be treated as a fact), is that.. 

"*The Gandh&#226;ra Graves represent the first archaeological culture in the Sw&#226;t Valley region to have the domesticated horse. The two successive cultural phases beginning about 1600 BC and 1300 BC, respectively, probably reflect the arrival of the earlier and later wave of the IndoAryan speakers associated with the Rigveda.* On the basis of river names and other indications, the K&#226;nvas of the earlier wave and the Atris of the later wave mainly resided in the Sw&#226;t area"

This means the belief (or perhaps his belief) is that Gandhara was the site of the Rig Vedic homeland and the first culture to domesticate the horse. It is his view that the IndoAryans associated with the Rig veda produced the cultural phases that lasted over centuries (around the time the Rig Veda was written).


----------



## roadrunner

Even that Harvard Professor believes there is a political agenda to some Indian/IVC/Vedic archaeologists, so I'm not alone in thinking this. 



_*History and Hindutva Propaganda * 

It might be tempting to laugh off the Indus script hoax as the harmless fantasy of an ex-engineer who pretends to be a world expert on everything from artificial intelligence to Christianity to Harappan culture. 

What belies this reading is the ugly subtext of Rajaram's message, which is aimed at millions of Indian readers. That message is *anti-Muslim, anti-Christian*, anti-Indological, and (despite claims to the opposite) intensely anti-scientific. Those views pr esent twisted images of India's past capable of inflicting severe damage in the present. 

*Rajaram's work is only one example of a broader reactionary trend in Indian history*. Movements like this can sometimes be seen more clearly from afar than nearby, and we conclude with a few comments on it from our outside but interested perspective. 

In the past few decades, a new kind of history has been propagated by a vocal group of Indian writers, few of them trained historians, who lavishly praise and support each other's works. *Their aim is to rewrite Indian history from a nationalistic and rel igious point of view.* Their writings have special appeal to a new middle class confused by modern threats to traditional values. *With alarming frequency their movement is backed by powerful political forces, lending it a mask of respectability that it do es not deserve. * 

Unquestionably, all sides of Indian history must be repeatedly re-examined. But any massive revisions must arise from the discovery of new evidence, not from desires to boost national or sectarian pride at any cost. Any new historical models must be cons istent with all available data judged apart from parochial concerns. 

The current "revisionist" models contradict well-known facts: they introduce horse-drawn chariots thousands of years before their invention; imagine massive lost literatures filled with "scientific" knowledge unimaginable anywhere in the ancient world; p roject the Rigveda into impossibly distant eras, compiled in urban or maritime settings suggested nowhere in the text; *and imagine Vedic Sanskrit or even Proto Indo-European rising in the Panjab or elsewhere in northern India, ignoring 150 years of evide nce fixing their origins to the northwest.* Extreme "out-of-India" proponents even fanaticise an India that is the cradle of all civilisation, angrily rejecting all suggestions that peoples, languages, or technologies ever entered prehistoric India from f oreign soil - as if modern concepts of "foreign" had any meaning in prehistoric times. 

Ironically, many of those expressing these anti-migrational views are emigrants themselves, engineers or technocrats like N.S. Rajaram, S. Kak, and S. Kalyanaraman, who ship their ideas to India from U.S. shores. They find allies in a broader assortment of home-grown nationalists including university professors, bank employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K.D. Sethna, S.P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A. Shourie, S.R. Goel). They have even gained a small but vo cal following in the West among "New Age" writers or researchers outside mainstream scholarship, including D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Klostermaier, and K. Elst. Whole publishing firms, such as the Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan, are devoted to pr opagating their ideas. 

*There are admittedly no universal standards for rewriting history. But a few demands must be made of anyone expecting his or her scholarship to be taken seriously. A short list might include: (1) openness in the use of evidence; (2) a respect for well-es tablished facts; (3) a willingness to confront data in all relevant fields; and (4) independence in making conclusions from religious and political agendas. *

N.S. Rajaram typifies the worst of the "revisionist" movement, and obviously fails on all counts. *The Deciphered Indus Script is based on blatantly fake data (the "horse seal," the free-form "decipherments"); disregards numerous well-known facts ( the dates of horses and chariots, the uses of Harappan seals, etc.); rejects evidence from whole scientific fields, including linguistics (a strange exclusion for a would-be decipherer!); and is driven by obvious religious and political motives in claimi ng impossible links between Harappan and Vedic cultures. * 

Whatever their pretensions, *Hindutva propagandists *like Rajaram do not belong to the realm of legitimate historical discourse. They perpetuate, in twisted half-modern ways, medieval tendencies to use every means possible to support the authority of relig ious texts. In the political sphere, *they falsify history to bolster national pride. In the ethnic realm, they glorify one sector of India to the detriment of others.* 

*It is the responsibility of every serious researcher to oppose these tendencies with the only sure weapon available - hard evidence. If reactionary trends in Indian history find further political support, we risk seeing violent repeats in the coming deca des of the fascist extremes of the past. *

The historical fantasies of writers like Rajaram must be exposed for what they are: *propaganda issuing from the ugliest corners of the pre-scientific mind.* The fact that many of the most unbelievable of these fantasies are the product of highly trained e ngineers should give Indian educational planners deep concern. 

*In a recent online exchange, Rajaram dismissed criticisms of his faked "horse seal" and pointed to political friends in high places, boasting that the Union government had recently "advised" the "National Book Trust to bring out my popular book, From Sarasvati River to the Indus Script, in English and thirteen other languages." *

We fear for India and for objective scholarship. To quote Rajaram's Harappan-Vedic one last time: "A great disgrace indeed!" _

HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

And here is another REPUTABLE quote from a Harvard Professor of Indology 

_"The current "revisionist" models contradict well-known facts: they introduce horse-drawn chariots thousands of years before their invention; imagine massive lost literatures filled with "scientific" knowledge unimaginable anywhere in the ancient world; project the Rigveda into impossibly distant eras, compiled in urban or maritime settings suggested nowhere in the text; and *imagine Vedic Sanskrit or even Proto Indo-European rising in the Panjab or elsewhere in northern India, ignoring 150 years of evide nce fixing their origins to the northwest.* Extreme "out-of-India" proponents even fanaticise an India that is the cradle of all civilisation, angrily rejecting all suggestions that peoples, languages, or technologies ever entered prehistoric India from foreign soil - as if modern concepts of "foreign" had any meaning in prehistoric times. _
HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA 

Vedic Sanskrit did not arise in the Punjab (which makes it impossible for it to have arisen along the Saraswati). It arose in the Northwest. That is where Vedism arose..the Northwest of Pakistan. These are the words of Harvard University Professors. But you will still not believe them because they do not fit your Hindutva centric viewpoint. Why do you think the most emininent, neutral names in IVC/Vedic archaeology state that Gandhara was the Vedic homeland or the place of Vedic Sanskrit development (which must have coincided with the Vedic homeland). Why do you think the archaeology points to Gandhara being the Vedic homeland as Parpola has said is most likely? ALL the evidence points to the North of Pakistan as being the Vedic homeland, as does even the genetics! Choosing illogic over logic is not the right option to fulfill your wet fantasies of Hindutva glory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

Nice find RR  

Imo western scholarly sources are the most neutral, and are always backed up with actual research.


----------



## Neo

Excellent job RR!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bull

Neo said:


> Excellent job RR!



You mean this.



roadrunner said:


> Choosing illogic over logic is not the right option to fulfill your wet fantasies of Hindutva glory.



'Wet fantasies if Islamic glory'...how does that sound?

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

Bull said:


> You mean this.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wet fantasies if Islamic glory'...how does that sound?



Will u ever make sense in something or u want to follow route of ur troller buddy abux?


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> And here is another REPUTABLE quote from a Harvard Professor of Indology
> 
> _"The current "revisionist" models contradict well-known facts: they introduce horse-drawn chariots thousands of years before their invention; imagine massive lost literatures filled with "scientific" knowledge unimaginable anywhere in the ancient world; project the Rigveda into impossibly distant eras, compiled in urban or maritime settings suggested nowhere in the text; and *imagine Vedic Sanskrit or even Proto Indo-European rising in the Panjab or elsewhere in northern India, ignoring 150 years of evide nce fixing their origins to the northwest.* Extreme "out-of-India" proponents even fanaticise an India that is the cradle of all civilisation, angrily rejecting all suggestions that peoples, languages, or technologies ever entered prehistoric India from foreign soil - as if modern concepts of "foreign" had any meaning in prehistoric times. _
> HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA
> 
> Vedic Sanskrit did not arise in the Punjab (which makes it impossible for it to have arisen along the Saraswati). It arose in the Northwest. That is where Vedism arose..the Northwest of Pakistan. These are the words of Harvard University Professors. But you will still not believe them because they do not fit your Hindutva centric viewpoint. Why do you think the most emininent, neutral names in IVC/Vedic archaeology state that Gandhara was the Vedic homeland or the place of Vedic Sanskrit development (which must have coincided with the Vedic homeland). Why do you think the archaeology points to Gandhara being the Vedic homeland as Parpola has said is most likely? ALL the evidence points to the North of Pakistan as being the Vedic homeland, as does even the genetics! Choosing illogic over logic is not the right option to fulfill your wet fantasies of Hindutva glory.




Acutally, even I have been reading up a lot of stuff thanks to this debate, and I have found some interesting material. 

I'll get back to you on this!! 

Lots of reading to do!!


----------



## Neo

Bull said:


> You mean this.
> 
> 'Wet fantasies if Islamic glory'...how does that sound?



Actually I was referring to RR's post nr 54 and 55, the report by a Harvard Professor...he's a neutral source.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Neo said:


> Actually I was referring to RR's post nr 54 and 55, the report by a Harvard Professor...he's a neutral source.



One thing is clear, from what sources I have, there is a growing rift between the Indian researchers and western ones. There also seems to be a clear lack of communication, and both sides suspect each other of "propaganda". I hope this gets resolved quickly because things like this are very politically charged in India.


----------



## Neo

Bring it on...I'm eager to know what you found.


----------



## Flintlock

Neo said:


> Bring it on...I'm eager to know what you found.



Well, here are a few updates:

*Aryan Invasion theory is no longer accepted, and the Indegenous Aryan Theory is widely believed to be propaganda. Rather the accepted theory is an Aryan Migration and syncretism over several centuries.

*The Sanskrit language appears to have several layers of "loanwords" from Urals, Central Asia (BMAC) and Balochistan, and later from Preexisting languages in the Northern India as per linguistic evidence.

*The core of the Rigveda is considered to be composed in the "Greater Punjab"
region or the area P.Punjab + I.Punjab + Haryana + Himachal Pradesh. However, the stories and rituals are borrowed from elsewhere. There seems to be a clear distinction between the "geographical center" and the "cultural center".

*There is a an apparent shifting of location as the earlier parts of the Rigveda are composed in the western part of this region and the later parts in the east.

*The Balochistan region seems to be where the horse, which is very important in rigvedic culture, first arrived in South Asia. The Horse is not an indegenous animal to South asia.

*Both Early Iranian religion and Vedism are highly influenced by the Proto-Indo-Iranian culture whose exact location is still highly speculative.


To Summarize: The language, rituals, gods, godesses and legends of the rigveda are a progressive mix of legends and beliefs all the way from central asia to northern India. The actual composition of the rigveda and standardization of its verses happens in the "greater punjab" region.


P.S. There is lots more coming.....I"ll give my sources later...but all this is the opinion of Dr. Witzell (Harvard), Dr. Steve Farmer and other western archaeologists.

Cheers.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Well, here are a few updates:
> 
> *Aryan Invasion theory is no longer accepted, and the Indegenous Aryan Theory is widely believed to be propaganda. Rather the accepted theory is an Aryan Migration and syncretism over several centuries.
> 
> *The Sanskrit language appears to have several layers of "loanwords" from Urals, Central Asia (BMAC) and Balochistan, and later from Preexisting languages in the Northern India as per linguistic evidence.
> 
> *The core of the Rigveda is considered to be composed in the "Greater Punjab
> region or the area P.Punjab + I.Punjab + Haryana + Himachal Pradesh. However, the stories and rituals are borrowed from elsewhere. There seems to be a clear distinction between the "geographical center" and the "cultural center".
> 
> *There is a an apparent shifting of location as the earlier parts of the Rigveda are composed in the western part of this region and the later parts in the east.
> 
> *The Balochistan region seems to be where the horse, which is very important in rigvedic culture, first arrived in South Asia. The Horse is not an indegenous animal to South asia.
> 
> *Both Early Iranian religion and Vedism are highly influenced by the Proto-Indo-Iranian culture whose exact location is still highly speculative.
> 
> 
> To Summarize: The language, rituals, gods, godesses and legends of the rigveda are a progressive mix of legends and beliefs all the way from central asia to northern India. The actual composition of the rigveda and standardization of its verses happens in the "greater punjab" region.
> 
> 
> P.S. There is lots more coming.....I"ll give my sources later...but all this is the opinion of Dr. Witzell (Harvard), Dr. Steve Farmer and other western archaeologists.
> 
> Cheers.



All of that does seem to fit in with with the theory that the Vedic civilization was in NorthWest/West Pakistan? 



> *Suggestions for the identity of the early Rigvedic Sarasvati River include the Helmand River in Afghanistan*, separated from the watershed of the Indus by the Sanglakh Range. The Helmand historically besides Avestan Haetumant bore the name Haraxvaiti, which is the Avestan form corresponding to Sanskrit Sarasvati. The Old Persian form is Hara[h]uvati, in Achaemenid times the name of the Arghandab River, the chief tributary of the Helmand. This name was in turn Hellenized to Arachosia. The 1st century CE geographer Isidore of Charax referred to Arachosia, the land where the Arghandab (Sarasvati) and Helmand (Setumanta) flow, as White India.
> 
> *The Avesta extols the Helmand in similar terms to those used in the Rigveda with respect to the Sarasvati: "the bountiful, glorious Haetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious flood" (Yasht 10.67).* Kocchar (1999) argues that the Helmand is identical to the early Rigvedic Sarasvati of suktas 2.41, 7.36 etc., and that the Nadistuti sukta (10.75) was composed centuries later, after an eastward migration of the bearers of the Rigvedic culture to the western Gangetic plain some 600 km to the east. The Sarasvati by this time had become a mythical "disappeared" river, and the name was transferred to the Ghaggar which disappeared in the desert, which under the influence of the early hymns was made into an invisible river joining the Ganga and Yamuna.





> There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities between the Rigveda and the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo culture of ca. 2000 BC....
> 
> The Andronovo culture is actually a collection of similar local Bronze Age cultures that flourished ca. 2300&#8211;1000BCE in western Siberia and the west Asiatic steppe.



Since there are both linguistic and cultural and geographical ties to the Andronovo, it would be logical to conclude that the civilization existed in close proximity to them, which bolsters the argument that RR is making for their location.

I am confused about the purported migration to the Gangetic plains - why would that occur, if the Indus was in close proximity to the "Sarasvati of later years" that petered out? Would it not be logical to assume that the civilization simply moved a little West, to the fertile Indus plains, rather than several hundred KM east?

Perhaps the "migration" was one of beliefs, and culture, not of people?


----------



## roadrunner

Bull said:


> 'Wet fantasies if Islamic glory'...how does that sound?



You're welcome to open up a thread on the subject. Hindutva and Islamic extremists are basically the same types of people, different beliefs. The difference is the Hindutva extremists have much power in India to manipulate history, the Islamic extremists have been sidelined since Zia's time. Anyway, I'm not sure what Islamic history Pakistan is claiming it has aside from the ones known to have occurred? If you have an example, do quote it, else your quote makes little sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> All of that does seem to fit in with with the theory that the Vedic civilization was in NorthWest/West Pakistan?



Am too am confused about this part actually. The Core of the rigveda verses seems to have been composed in "greater punjab" progressively from west to east.

However, the culture, stories, legends, and some critical loanwords indicate influences all the way from the Urals to pre-existing languages in Gangetic plains.

There is a lot of speculation going on actually, and the verdict is far from out.





> Since there are both linguistic and cultural and geographical ties to the Andronovo, it would be logical to conclude that the civilization existed in close proximity to them, which bolsters the argument that RR is making for their location.



That is the whole confusing part. 

the verses themselves are not watertight, but consist of several layers of influences. 




> I am confused about the purported migration to the Gangetic plains - why would that occur, if the Indus was in close proximity to the "Sarasvati of later years" that petered out? Would it not be logical to assume that the civilization simply moved a little West, to the fertile Indus plains, rather than several hundred KM east?



I have no idea actually. But that is what the archaeologists are saying based on linguistic/archaeological evidence.

Also, I am digressing, but the Indus Valley people seem to be Dravidians after all. They were apparently pushed back over several centuries, and also, some of them assimilated with the Aryans:


"It also is clear that the remnant agricultural people of the Indus
moved upstream (apparently for want of sufficient water in some areas
and as to exploit monsoon rains not found in the Indus area), to
Haryana/Delhi and eastwards to Saurastra and Gujarat. Indeed, we find
non-Aryan (prefixing, Para-Munda) river/place names concentrated in the
Haryana (Kuruksetra) area Witzel 1999), and Dravidian ones in Gujarat
(Southworth 2005), while most of the NW and then the western Gangetic
valley has been overlaid by IA names." (Dr. Witzell again)




> Perhaps the "migration" was one of beliefs, and culture, not of people?



Its not that simple. Infact, its insanely complicated.

Apparently the Aryans did roam all around North India, both assimilating with the locals, and the same time pushing some of them them south.


Here is a nice quote from Dr. Witzell:

In sum. We have clear linguistic, religious/ritual data, some
archeological ones (horses, Gandhara Grave Culture), and incipient
genetic ones. They all point to a limited immigration into the
subcontinent. An immigration, however, that had great direct and
indirect impact on the rest of North India and later on in all of
S.Asia -- *by osmosis/acculturation and acceptance of an ``elite kit``
(Ehret) by the various local elites*.


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am confused about the purported migration to the Gangetic plains - why would that occur, if the Indus was in close proximity to the "Sarasvati of later years" that petered out?



No migration occurred. One or two of the Vedic people migrated and tried to rule the Gangetic plains through manipulation and cunning. They succeeded, one of the products is the caste system you see today, initially a colour based, racial system that got transformed into a politically correct job-based system that retained the colour segmentation to this day. Basically the Vedics were quickly overthrown and the indiigenous Gangetic inhabitants took over the leadership metamorphizing the culture over centuries with successive Vedas and finally the Mahabharata. Sometime after this the present Hindu religion was created. 



> Would it not be logical to assume that the civilization simply moved a little West, to the fertile Indus plains, rather than several hundred KM east?



Why assume it moved anywhere in the first place? The Rig Vedic people had one homeland in all likelihood, Gandhara. No need to move to the Saraswati - there is no evidence for it (Based on the Kusmina article). None of the post-Harrapan cultures discovered in the Saraswati/Punjab area resemble Rig Vedic culture. One theory is that Harappa was invaded by the Rig Vedic people, corresponding to sometime in the Rig Veda. But even so, I doubt their homeland would have shifted. 



> Perhaps the "migration" was one of beliefs, and culture, not of people?



Precisely! Beliefs and culture did shift to the Gangetic plains, and then it morphed into Hinduism in the Ganges, which is why the Ganges is the most sacred river there. But people did not migrate this far.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Am too am confused about this part actually. The Core of the rigveda verses seems to have been composed in "greater punjab" progressively from west to east.



What do you mean by "composed in Greater Punjab"? If the Rig Veda bears strong linguistic ties to North Western Western Pakistan/Iran/Afghanistan, and the earlier parts of it indicate geographical features in Aghanistan (Helmand), then wouldn't the "composition" be in that region too? 



> Also, I am digressing, but the Indus Valley people seem to be Dravidians after all. They were apparently pushed back over several centuries, and also, some of them assimilated with the Aryans.
> 
> e.g.:
> Words like "Indra" "Gandharva" etc which are very dear to the Rig Veda see their roots in the BMAC, which is south of the Urals.



There is a very strong argument against this, that the Dravidians were a neolithic culture (used stone etc) and it seems illogical that the IVC would devolve into a more primitive civilization, as they moved south, there would be some semblance of their culture in the south as well.

What did you come across that indicates a strong connection? The script itself has not been completely deciphered yet, and if there was a strong linkage, the connections would be obvious I would imagine.



> In addition to Elamite, unsuccessful attempts have also been made to link the family with the Japonic languages, Basque, Korean, Sumerian, the Australian Aboriginal languages and the unknown language of the Indus Valley civilisation. The theory that the Dravidian languages display similarities with the Uralic language group, suggesting a prolonged period of contact in the past,[4] is popular amongst Dravidian linguists and has been supported by a number of scholars, including Robert Caldwell,[5] Thomas Burrow,[6] Kamil Zvelebil,[7] and Mikhail Andronov[8] This theory has, however, been rejected by specialists in Uralic languages,[9] and has in recent times also been criticised by other Dravidian linguists like Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.[10]


Dravidian languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

There are reference links to most of those statements. So even the Uralic link is strongly disputed.



> Its not that simple. Infact, its insanely complicated.
> 
> Apparently the Aryans did roam all around North India, both assimilating with the locals, and the same time pushing some of them them south.
> 
> 
> Here is a nice quote from Dr. Witzell:
> 
> In sum. We have clear linguistic, religious/ritual data, some
> archeological ones (horses, Gandhara Grave Culture), and incipient
> genetic ones. They all point to a limited immigration into the
> subcontinent. An immigration, however, that had great direct and
> indirect impact on the rest of North India and later on in all of
> S.Asia -- *by osmosis/acculturation and acceptance of an ``elite kit``
> (Ehret) by the various local elites*.



Actually, "limited immigration" would point to a diffusion of culture and beliefs rather than people. Similar to the Arabs into Pakistan - there wasn't a huge influx of Arab immigrants, but they left a permanent imprint on the areas they were in. So it could have been a similar situation.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Am too am confused about this part actually. The Core of the rigveda verses seems to have been composed in "greater punjab" progressively from west to east.



There's no archaeological evidence, or even textual evidence that the Rig Veda was composed anywhere in the Punjab. The Northwest of Pakistan for sure, plenty of evidence. Just because there are ambiguous references to the Saraswati (which as has been pointed out could be referring to the Helmand, and this is what the Avesta also points to), does not mean the Rig Veda was composed along the banks of the River Saraswati (which we don't even know for sure when or indeed if it existed). It's not evidence, it's very speculative that it was composed anywhere in the Punjab. 



> However, the culture, stories, legends, and some critical loanwords indicate influences all the way from the Urals to pre-existing languages in Gangetic plains.



Pre-exisiting languages in the Gangetic plains? There are NO COMMON critical loanwords between the pre-Indo European languages of the Gangetic plains, and the Urals. The only common loan words are because the language has a common origin, the Indo-European language. Again this is a spread of language rather than people. I don't know what cultures, stories and legends you're talking about. 



> Also, I am digressing, but the Indus Valley people seem to be Dravidians after all. They were apparently pushed back over several centuries, and also, some of them assimilated with the Aryans:
> 
> 
> "It also is clear that the remnant agricultural people of the Indus
> moved upstream (apparently for want of sufficient water in some areas
> and as to exploit monsoon rains not found in the Indus area), to
> Haryana/Delhi and eastwards to Saurastra and Gujarat. Indeed, we find
> non-Aryan (prefixing, Para-Munda) river/place names concentrated in the
> Haryana (Kuruksetra) area Witzel 1999), and Dravidian ones in Gujarat
> (Southworth 2005), while most of the NW and then the western Gangetic
> valley has been overlaid by IA names." (Dr. Witzell again)



What's the reference for this Witzel quote? 

The people of the IVC were not Dravidian. Skull measurements have been performed and they resemble the current people of Pakistan. 



> Its not that simple. Infact, its insanely complicated.
> 
> Apparently the Aryans did roam all around North India, both assimilating with the locals, and the same time pushing some of them them south.
> 
> 
> Here is a nice quote from Dr. Witzell:
> 
> In sum. We have clear linguistic, religious/ritual data, some
> archeological ones (horses, Gandhara Grave Culture), and incipient
> genetic ones. They all point to a limited immigration into the
> subcontinent. An immigration, however, that had great direct and
> indirect impact on the rest of North India and later on in all of
> S.Asia -- *by osmosis/acculturation and acceptance of an ``elite kit``
> (Ehret) by the various local elites*.



I don't disagree with this. There was an indirect spread of culture, not Vedic people into North India. Again where's the reference?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> What do you mean by "composed in Greater Punjab"? If the Rig Veda bears strong linguistic ties to North Western Western Pakistan/Iran/Afghanistan, and the earlier parts of it indicate geographical features in Aghanistan (Helmand), then wouldn't the "composition" be in that region too?



By "composed" i mean all the legends and rituals were assimilated, localized, and placed into organized verses which were then transmitted through rote learning.

This process, according to Farmer and Witzell seems to have taken place in the "Greater Punjab" region.




> There is a very strong argument against this, that the Dravidians were a neolithic culture (used stone etc) and it seems illogical that the IVC would devolve into a more primitive civilization, as they moved south, there would be some semblance of their culture in the south as well.



Its far more complicated than that. Apparently the Dravidian languages developed later as an indigenous innovation.

Also, there is a huge borrowing of sanskrit terms into classical tamil etc. although they are structurally different from Indo-Iranian languages.




> What did you come across that indicates a strong connection? The script itself has not been completely deciphered yet, and if there was a strong linkage, the connections would be obvious I would imagine.



The script is a myth. Apparently the harappan "script" was just a loose pictorlal sign system that changed frequently depending upon the ruler, etc.

This is accoriding to Dr.Farmer's book, The Myth of the Harappan Script.




> Actually, "limited immigration" would point to a diffusion of culture and beliefs rather than people. Similar to the Arabs into Pakistan - there wasn't a huge influx of Arab immigrants, but they left a permanent imprint on the areas they were in. So it could have been a similar situation.



The Limited migration means a migration of elites rather than a mass settlement.

Also, the limited migration from my quote refers to the subcontinent, not the gangetic plain, incase you misunderstood it.

However, over a period of time these elites seem to have mixed with the local populations to give a distinctly south asian genetic type.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> There's no archaeological evidence, or even textual evidence that the Rig Veda was composed anywhere in the Punjab.



Well thats the opinion of Witzell and Farmer from the year 2007. Apparently they know something you don't.





> Pre-exisiting languages in the Gangetic plains? There are NO COMMON critical loanwords between the pre-Indo European languages of the Gangetic plains, and the Urals. The only common loan words are because the language has a common origin, the Indo-European language. Again this is a spread of language rather than people. I don't know what cultures, stories and legends you're talking about.



Not the Urals!!! How could gangetic languages spread to the Urals?? 

The Indo European language, upon reaching the gangetic plains with Aryan migrants, borrowed some loanwords from the gangetic people's languages.

I"ll prove my sources when I have enough data to write a nice long post explaining the current views (2007) of western researchers.





> I don't disagree with this. There was an indirect spread of culture, not Vedic people into North India. Again where's the reference?



Don't worry I'll get my references. Solid ones, not from websites but from books.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> There is a very strong argument against this, that the Dravidians were a neolithic culture (used stone etc) and it seems illogical that the IVC would devolve into a more primitive civilization, as they moved south, there would be some semblance of their culture in the south as well.
> Its far more complicated than that. Apparently the Dravidian languages developed later as an indigenous innovation.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there is a huge borrowing of sanskrit terms into classical tamil etc. although they are structurally different from Indo-Iranian languages.
Click to expand...


I am referring to the use of stone and more primitive building materials/techniques, vs the brick etc. used by the people of the IVC as being evidence of no migration to the south. 

You can cut and paste this onto the IVC thread though, so the discussion can continue there.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Well thats the opinion of Witzell and Farmer from the year 2007. Apparently they know something you don't.



 Dude, you saying that "The Core of the rigveda verses seems to have been composed in "greater punjab" progressively from west to east." does not mean that Wiztel agrees with it. I can assure you, there has been no shift in thinking that Gandhara is the homeland of the Rig Vedic people. 

The UCL papers quotes the Rig Vedic burial rites having sites in common with Gandharan ones from the last couple of years. I await your links and evidence of this amazing find. 



> Not the Urals!!! How could gangetic languages spread to the Urals??



Out of India is a theory believed by many Indians, even though it's rubbish. 



> The Indo European language, upon reaching the gangetic plains with Aryan migrants, borrowed some loanwords from the gangetic people's languages.



Right, now I can agree with you here. What's your point? You did not say this before? _"However, the culture, stories, legends, and some critical loanwords indicate influences all the way from the Urals to pre-existing languages in Gangetic plains.".._in other words, you were quoting "out of India" theory while trying to act like you hadnt heard about it before  



> I"ll prove my sources when I have enough data to write a nice long post explaining the current views (2007) of western researchers.
> 
> Don't worry I'll get my references. Solid ones, not from websites but from books.



You do that. I can assure you that Witzel has not changed his mind on the site of he Rig Vedic homeland, even if you do quote statements of yourself, implying "Greater Punjabs" and the Rig Vedic homeland suddenly shifting or Dravidians occupying the IVC. Proof should come before the statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Dude, you saying that "The Core of the rigveda verses seems to have been composed in "greater punjab" progressively from west to east." does not mean that Wiztel agrees with it. I can assure you, there has been no shift in thinking that Gandhara is the homeland of the Rig Vedic people.



Well he did say so, so I"m assuming he agrees with it too. My quote is from 2006, so maybe you have some older data.





> The UCL papers quotes the Rig Vedic burial rites having sites in common with Gandharan ones from the last couple of years. I await your links and evidence of this amazing find.



The UCL papers you quoted are about a presentation about the possible links between the Gandhara Grave culture and Vedic people.

By Vedic people it means people with Vedic culture, and not necessarily the "composition of the rigveda". We will need something more specific than that.





> Right, now I can agree with you here. What's your point? You did not say this before? _"However, the culture, stories, legends, and some critical loanwords indicate influences all the way from the Urals to pre-existing languages in Gangetic plains.".._in other words, you were quoting "out of India" theory while trying to act like you hadnt heard about it before



Er no, by that quote I meant a progressive layering of influences starting from the oldest layers in the Urals to the newest layers in the gangetic plains, not the other way around.



> You do that. I can assure you that Witzel has not changed his mind on the site of he Rig Vedic homeland, even if you do quote statements of yourself, implying the Rig Vedic homeland has shifted all of a sudden. Proof should come before the statement.



There is a difference between the "Vedic Homeland" and the "formalization of the Rigveda" this is something I just learnt about today.

Definitely Aryan migrants entered the Subcontinent and settled at Gandhara. 
But did they compose the verses then? They definitely had most of the traits that the rigveda indicates, meaning that they were the same people. 

However, the composition of the rigveda was done later, when the Aryan people had spread deeper into the Subcontinent.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> The UCL papers you quoted are about a presentation about the possible links between the Gandhara Grave culture and Vedic people.
> 
> By Vedic people it means people with Vedic culture, and not necessarily the "composition of the rigveda". We will need something more specific than that.



The composition of the Rig Veda can only be localized to Pakistan, the Eastern most extreme being Delhi, the Western most fringe being near the Bolan Pass, Pak/Afghanistan. This really is a direct quote from Witzel, 2007 with link. 

ON THE LOCALISATION OF VEDIC TEXTS AND SCHOOLS
(Materials on Vedic &#346;&#229;kh&#229;s, 7)
1. RIGVEDA
The geographical area of the Rgveda is quickly characterised11 by mentioning some of the major rivers this texts knows of: The Kubh&#229;, Krumu, Gomati&#299; in the West (= Kabul, Kurram, Gomal in E. <176> Afghanistan and Pakistan); the seven rivers of the Panjab in the center; the Yamun&#229; and the Gag&#229; in the East (only in a late passage). The Northern limits are perhaps indicated by the mentioning of the Ras&#229; as a small tributary of the Sindhu, somewhere in the Himalayas, which are known to the RV as himavant. The Southern fringe of geographical knowledge, though probably not of actual settlement, is the ocean (samudra)12, and -- if the localisation has remained the same -- the Bolan pass, represented by the Bhal&#229;nas tribe in RV. It is also important to note that the tiger and rice are still unknown to the RV, which excludes the areas, roughly speaking. East of Delhi: the Gag&#229;-Yamun&#229; Doab, and the tracts of land South of it.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Localisation.pdf 

This only demonstrates te geography of the Rig Veda. The Rig Vedic homeland, where the Vedic people lived would have been Gandhara initially, and then later on in the Rig Veda, will probably have spread to the rest of Pakistan, at some later point during the Rig Vedic period entering the extreme Northwestern fringe of todays Bharati Punjab, perhaps (there's no evidence for this though). 



> There is a difference between the "Vedic Homeland" and the "formalization of the Rigveda" this is something I just learnt about today.
> 
> Definitely Aryan migrants entered the Subcontinent and settled at Gandhara.
> But did they compose the verses then? They definitely had most of the traits that the rigveda indicates, meaning that they were the same people.
> 
> However, the composition of the rigveda was done later, when the Aryan people had spread deeper into the Subcontinent.



The Aryan people didn't enter the subcontinent according to your Witzel quote. I don't believe they entered Bharat either. Just their culture did, carried forth by one or two adventurous Aryans, who eventually got swarmed by the Gangetic inhabitants. 

On where the Rig Veda was written, what's 100&#37; sure is that it was written somewhere in Pakistan. There's no detailed references to Bharati places (noone even knows where the Saraswati was for sure) or tribes in it. Gandharvas are pretty important though. As are (from Book 7). 
Pakthas (VII.18.7) = Pakhtoons
Bhalanas (VII.18.7) = Baluchis
Sivas (VII.18.7) = Khivas
Alinas = (VII.18.7) = Hellenes?
Visanins (VII.18.7) = Pishachas (Dardic)


----------



## Flintlock

Here's a quote from Megasthenes (300C BC)

"India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of H&#275;m&#333;dus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."


A map to help interpret the paragraph:


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> "India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of H&#275;m&#333;dus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."



That does not imply the name was intentioned to mean 'East' - Megasthenes is merely articulating his understanding of the geography of the region.

On a slightly different point, his quote does validate the point about India being a 'region' vs a country, as Megasthenes also refers to all of East Asia as the 'orient', and we know that the 'orient' is not a nation.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Herodutus on India, before Megasthenes:



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



Which 'sands' mark the Eastern boundary of India here? The Thar desert?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That does not imply the name was intentioned to mean 'East' - Megasthenes is merely articulating his understanding of the geography of the region.



Yes, that's kinda obvious. Its also obvious (I hope) that we are concerned with the usage rather than the etymology.

For example, the term "demagogue" if interpreted literally means "leader of people", but it is used as a negative term to mean a bad or self-serving leader.



> On a slightly different point, his quote does validate the point about India being a 'region' vs a country, as Megasthenes also refers to all of East Asia as the 'orient', and we know that the 'orient' is not a nation.



Well I doubt there were any nation states in 300 BC, only small kingdoms and vast empires. In any case Megasthenes has not mentioned the political situation of the region in that quote.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Herodutus on India, before Megasthenes:
> 
> 
> 
> Which 'sands' mark the Eastern boundary of India here? The Thar desert?



That is the older definition. The newer one would supercede it obviously. 

As you know, the Greeks explored India from West to East, and their definition of India expanded over time, till it covered the entire Indian Subcontinent.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

In any case, Pakistan has been on the periphery of the Indian history for the longest time.

The center of Indian civilization was Magadha even in the times of Alexander. Porus was a small frontier kingdom.

In Mahabharata too The center of the civilization is deep in the Gangetic plains.

Why this fascination with foreign invaders to define what India means or should mean? our own scriptures carry enough details.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> That is the older definition. The newer one would supercede it obviously.
> 
> As you know, the Greeks explored India from West to East, and their definition of India expanded over time, till it covered the entire Indian Subcontinent.



So we know that the 'definition' was changing, but at the heart of the discussion is the original meaning of the word. The meaning of India today is also different from that of Megasthenes.

It would seem then that the understanding of what the word India referred to changed from the original reference to the regions comprising Pakistan, to the regions comprising South Asia today. But the original reference still seems to have been to the regions comprising Pakistan, and then its usage became similar to references to the 'Orient', as being descriptive of a region.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> In any case, Pakistan has been on the periphery of the Indian history for the longest time.
> 
> The center of Indian civilization was Magadha even in the times of Alexander. Porus was a small frontier kingdom.
> 
> In Mahabharata too The center of the civilization is deep in the Gangetic plains.
> 
> Why this fascination with foreign invaders to define what India means or should mean? our own scriptures carry enough details.



Pakistan was the original India.

Since the earliest usage of the word 'India' seems to have been found in Greek writings, that is where we woudl have to go to understand the origins of the word.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So we know that the 'definition' was changing, but at the heart of the discussion is the original meaning of the word. The meaning of India today is also different from that of Megasthenes.
> 
> It would seem then that the understanding of what the word India referred to changed from the original reference to the regions comprising Pakistan, to the regions comprising South Asia today. But the original reference still seems to have been to the regions comprising Pakistan, and then its usage became similar to references to the 'Orient', as being descriptive of a region.



Its "original reference" was the region of eastern Pakistan, which quickly expanded eastwards to its current usage. Its that simple. 

I don't understand why the original reference is so important. What is important is the most widespread meaning of the word. 

Also worth mentioning that its original reference was also to a region, and not to a country named Pakistan.
*
Ultimately, the clinching fact is that as early as 300 BC, the word was being used to describe the entire subcontinent, so there should be absolutely no doubt that the adoption of the term by modern India is neither dishonest nor incorrect. *


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Pakistan was the original India.



That makes no sense since the term 'Pakistan' originated in the 20th century.

The most accurate statement would be: "Some of the areas which make up modern Eastern Pakistan were first described as India, and within the next couple of centuries, as early as 300 BC, the term was used to describe the entire subcontinent".



> Since the earliest usage of the word 'India' seems to have been found in Greek writings, that is where we woudl have to go to understand the origins of the word.



The origins of the word have nothing to do with their correct usage. 

For example, the word "shampoo" originates from sanskrit "capayati" meaning "to knead", and was later corrupted to "shampoo" which meant to wash hair.


----------



## Flintlock

Also, nowhere between 300 BC and today was the term used exclusively for Pakistan. *For the last 2300 years, it has been used to refer to the entire subcontinent, and that is what matters. 
*


----------



## Flintlock

Vinod2070 said:


> Why this fascination with foreign invaders to define what India means or should mean? our own scriptures carry enough details.



That's not the point. The thread is about the term 'India' and the reasons why we used it as our country's name. 

Some Pakistani members were arguing that the "India' should be used for modern Pakistan since the earliest available definition of it only describes a region situated in that country.

However, it is clear that from 300 BC onwards till today, "India" has been used for the entire subcontinent. 

The other name of our country, 'Bharat', has indigenous origins so obviously we would refer to our own scriptures for that. 

In any case, Pakistanis are free to name their country "India" if they feel it belongs to them too. I would be more than happy


----------



## jeypore

If the word India really described Pakistan, then at the time of partition, why did jinnah or his advisors not argued for the name India for there newly formed country? Why he concocted the name of Pakistan, which he knew really well it was not in the history books?


----------



## Flintlock

jeypore said:


> If the word India really described Pakistan, then at the time of partition, why did jinnah or his advisors not argued for the name India for there newly formed country? Why he concocted the name of Pakistan, which he knew really well it was not in the history books?



Well if Pakistan was named "India", it would defeat the purpose of highlighting the differences between Pakistan and the rest of India. 

Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours. 

For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Goodperson

Flintlock said:


> Well if Pakistan was named "India", it would defeat the purpose of highlighting the differences between Pakistan and the rest of India.
> 
> Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours.
> 
> For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.



India has chosen its name what is the problem ? India did not have
objection when Pakistan (Land of Pure) chose its name, Nor India has problems when East Bengal chose its name as Bangladesh (Country of Bengalis).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Its "original reference" was the region of eastern Pakistan, which quickly expanded eastwards to its current usage. Its that simple.
> 
> I don't understand why the original reference is so important. What is important is the most widespread meaning of the word.
> 
> Also worth mentioning that its original reference was also to a region, and not to a country named Pakistan.
> *
> Ultimately, the clinching fact is that as early as 300 BC, the word was being used to describe the entire subcontinent, so there should be absolutely no doubt that the adoption of the term by modern India is neither dishonest nor incorrect. *



The original reference is by herodutus is it not? Does he articulate his understanding of India to be East of the Indus?

The wisespread meaning of the word continued to be a reference to a region, not a nation, so while the useage of the word India for the contemporaray Republic is not dishonest by any means (Name yourselves what you wish) it is incorrect, in the sense that a nation calling itself 'Asia' or Europe would be incorrect.

Secondly, I do not believe any Pakistanis want to rename Pakistan as India here - just that the roots and the origin of the name referred to 'a large part of the lands comprising modern Pakistan'.


> The most accurate statement would be: "Some of the areas which make up modern Eastern Pakistan were first described as India, and within the next couple of centuries, as early as 300 BC, the term was used to describe the entire subcontinent".



Herodutus does not make that distinction from what I can tell, but Megasthenes does, so I would exclude the "east of the Indus" part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Goodperson said:


> India has chosen its name what is the problem ? India did not have
> objection when Pakistan (Land of Pure) chose its name,



"Land of Pure" is only one interpretation of the word, an acronym representing the various provinces making up Pakistan formed a strong basis for coining that name as well.


----------



## jeypore

Flintlock said:


> Well if Pakistan was named "India", it would defeat the purpose of highlighting the differences between Pakistan and the rest of India.
> 
> Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours.
> 
> For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.




Flint the reason i asked this question was at the time of partition, Jinnah wanted no association with India, sinces he wanted a Muslim state and he correlated India with Hindu states. Hence, majority of India's history is controlled by the Hindu culture.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours.
> 
> For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.



Pakistanis are doing nothing different than Indians in creating the narrative of the "Indian civilization' and the 'ancient Indian nation' (an analogy to Ummah really).

You are seeing this now as the literacy rates rise in Pakistan, and technology and easier access to information allow for more thought and introspection into the roots of Pakistan and its people. Its a natural process ocurring as a nation gets more invovled in a discourse over matters of social, historical and political import.

The only issue with 'History of India' is that it confuses the contemporary republic with the ancient region of India. Personally I prefer 'History of South Asia' for clarity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

jeypore said:


> Flint the reason i asked this question was at the time of partition, Jinnah wanted no association with India, sinces he wanted a Muslim state and he correlated India with Hindu states. Hence, majority of India's history is controlled by the Hindu culture.



Jinnah was surprised by the choice of "India" by Nehru - he assumed it would be Hindustan or Bharat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Pakistan was the original India.
> 
> Since the earliest usage of the word 'India' seems to have been found in Greek writings, that is where we woudl have to go to understand the origins of the word.



Sir why don't you decide once and for all!

Are you India or are you "not India"?

The second one seems to be the predominant identity that Pakistan chose for itself.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The original reference is by herodutus is it not? Does he articulate his understanding of India to be East of the Indus?



Well the assumption is that the definition of the word expanded , and did not contract, so it is likely that Herodotus himself thought of India as the land eastwards of the Indus.

Obviously, I may be wrong, but common sense dictates that the definition would not contract.



> The wisespread meaning of the word continued to be a reference to a region, not a nation, so while the useage of the word India for the contemporaray Republic is not dishonest by any means (Name yourselves what you wish) it is incorrect, in the sense that a nation calling itself 'Asia' or Europe would be incorrect.



If most of Europe merges into a single nation, they would undoubtedly name themselves 'Europe' and there is nothing incorrect about that.

is the EU incorrectly named, even though it includes only a part of Europe?




> Secondly, I do not believe any Pakistanis want to rename Pakistan as India here - just that the roots and the origin of the name referred to 'a large part of the lands comprising modern Pakistan'.



Sure, but that does not in any way make it exclusively refer to Pakistan. 

To think that would be totally absurd.


----------



## Vinod2070

If a guy comes to your house and sees only the varandah and mistakes that for your house, that does not make it a reality.

The Greeks coming from the West would obviously first come in contact with the Western parts and only later with the real thing.

They sure missed the real thing for a long time it seems!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Well the assumption is that the definition of the word expanded , and did not contract, so it is likely that Herodotus himself thought of India as the land eastwards of the Indus.
> 
> Obviously, I may be wrong, but common sense dictates that the definition would not contract.
> 
> 
> If most of Europe merges into a single nation, they would undoubtedly name themselves 'Europe' and there is nothing incorrect about that.
> 
> is the EU incorrectly named, even though it includes only a part of Europe?
> 
> Sure, but that does not in any way make it exclusively refer to Pakistan.
> 
> To think that would be totally absurd.



The reason I beleive the definition incorrectly contracted to the West and expanded to the East is because the lands around the Indus, West and East, (until you get to the drier parts of Baluchistan and the Afghan border) would have been pretty much the same geographically, and also likely inhabited by the same people. So the definition does not make sense when taken literally, unless it marked some sort of boundary for a Kingdom.

The EU is an organization comprising various European nations who chose the name through consensus. Thats different from 'merging into a nation' - whether other nations that consider themsleves 'European', but are not part of Europe, would object to such usage remains to be seen.

However, I doubt that woudl be an issue, since European history is pretty well demarcated by nation. The lines are not so clear cut in South Asia, especially with the history and lingering doubts over Indian irredentism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Sir why don't you decide once and for all!
> 
> Are you India or are you "not India"?
> 
> The second one seems to be the predominant identity that Pakistan chose for itself.



Hence the quibbles with the usage of the word 'India' by the contemporary Republic of India. China is a part of Asia, now just becasue a nation names herself "Asia" does not make China a part of that nation. That is the confusion I refer to when references are made to 'Indian hsitory'.

Pakistan is a part of South Asia/Ancient India(region)/Indian Subcontinent - it isn't a part of the Republic of India/Bharat/Hindustan.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> If a guy comes to your house and sees only the varandah and mistakes that for your house, that does not make it a reality.
> 
> The Greeks coming from the West would obviously first come in contact with the Western parts and only later with the real thing.
> 
> They sure missed the real thing for a long time it seems!



Its just a name, based on a river encountered by Greeks, that they then progressively used to apply to more and more of the region as they discovered it. It does not mean that there was ever a 'house' to begin with, just lots of small houses that they discovered and kept including in the same 'neighborhood' and referring to by the same name.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Hence the quibbles with teh usage of the word 'India' by the contemporary Republic of India. China is a part of Asia, now just becasue a nation names herself "Asia" does not make China a part of that nation. That is the confusion I refer to when references are made to 'Indian hsitory'.
> 
> Pakistan is a part of South Asia/Ancient India (region)/Subcontinent - it is nt a part of the Republic of India/Bharat/Hindustan.



100 % agreed. And there is no confusion about any of this. We are saying the same thing it seems. 

We all share the same ancient history of the region and have a different history after 1947.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> 100 % agreed. And there is no confusion about any of this. We are saying the same thing it seems.
> 
> We all share the same ancient history of the region and have a different history after 1947.



See the problems arise when the 'sharing of history' is juxtaposed with 'Modern India being a continuation of an 'ancient Indic civilization', then it starts to seem irredentist and expansionist - especially in the light of the Indian leadership's reluctant acceptance of Pakistan, and teh subsequent hostility we underwent.

In an atmosphere that was not so poisoned, I doubt we would have so many issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The reason I beleive the definition *incorrectly *contracted to the West and expanded to the East is because the lands around the Indus, West and East, (until you get to the drier parts of Baluchistan and the Afghan border) would have been pretty much the same geographically, and also likely inhabited by the same people. So the definition does not make sense when taken literally, unless it marked some sort of boundary for a Kingdom.



Sorry, but you cannot simply decide what is the "correct" definition and what is "incorrect". 

I could claim that Herodotus definition is "incorrect" while Megasthenes one is "correct", and but that would not make any sense.

I cannot say why the later definitions did not include the regions west of the Indus, perhaps it was inhabited by different tribes.



> The EU is an organization comprising various European nations who chose the name through consensus. Thats different from 'merging into a nation' - whether other nations that consider themsleves 'European', but are not part of Europe, would object to such usage remains to be seen.



Well the non-EU European countries did not have a say in the choosing of the name, so I don't see what the difference is between India and Europe in this context.

As far as I am concerned, the analogy fits perfectly.



> However, I doubt that woudl be an issue, since European history is pretty well demarcated by nation. The lines are not so clear cut in South Asia, especially with the history and lingering doubts over Indian irredentism.



Not really - European history is insanely complicated - and there are thousands of unresolved disputes. 
However, because of a more honest understanding of history (and less nationalistic interpretation and hyperbole), these disputes are not so important anymore.

Perhaps the dispute between Macedonia and Greece would be a useful example.


----------



## Vinod2070

Frankly to me the name doesn't matter so much. Its the idea that counts.

If Pakistan didn't chose the name India for itself may be it suggests that it wanted to go away from that history and embrace another one for itself.

Kind of the moving on that you talk about. And now it seems that some people are feeling they left something important back while they moved on, and that something has been taken over entirely by others. So they need it back now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jeypore

Vinod2070 said:


> Frankly to me the name doesn't matter so much. Its the idea that counts.
> 
> If Pakistan didn't chose the name India for itself may be it suggests that it wanted to go away from that history and embrace another one for itself.
> 
> Kind of the moving on that you talk about. And now it seems that some people are feeling they left something important back while they moved on, and that something has been taken over entirely by others. So they need it back now.



My point exactly.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> See the problems arise when the 'sharing of history' is juxtaposed with 'Modern India being a continuation of an 'ancient Indic civilization', then it starts to seem irredentist and expansionist - especially in the light of the Indian leadership's reluctant acceptance of Pakistan, and teh subsequent hostility we underwent.
> 
> In an atmosphere that was not so poisoned, I doubt we would have so many issues.



Happily the issues are confined to the chat rooms and internet forums. I don't see much action outside.

That means its a storm in the tea cup.

The feeling of reluctance to accept the other (by the other party of course) is mutual. Many in India feel Pakistan thinks itself as the inheritors of the Muslim rule. You surely have had terror groups that promote the thinking.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Sorry, but you cannot simply decide what is the "correct" definition and what is "incorrect".
> 
> I could claim that Herodotus definition is "incorrect" while Megasthenes one is "correct", and but that would not make any sense.
> 
> I cannot say why the later definitions did not include the regions west of the Indus, perhaps it was inhabited by different tribes.



I can indeed state that a definition is incorrect, provided I give reasons for it, which I did. You can however counter my reasons for contradicting the definition, and therefore point out why my contention is incorrect.



> Well the non-EU European countries did not have a say in the choosing of the name, so I don't see what the difference is between India and Europe in this context.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, the analogy fits perfectly.
> 
> Not really - European history is insanely complicated - and there are thousands of unresolved disputes.
> However, because of a more honest understanding of history (and less nationalistic interpretation and hyperbole), these disputes are not so important anymore.
> 
> Perhaps the dispute between Macedonia and Greece would be a useful example.


 European history is indeed complicated, but what I am pointing out is that it is delineated on a national basis, that affirms every nations disticnt identity, and does not purport to push them all into one large mass. They may indeed fight over what part is whose, but that is the point - in that fighting they are reaffirming their distinct nationalities.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Happily the issues are confined to the chat rooms and internet forums. I don't see much action outside.
> 
> That means its a storm in the tea cup.
> 
> The feeling of reluctance to accept the other (by the other party of course) is mutual. Many in India feel Pakistan thinks itself as the inheritors of the Muslim rule. You surely have had terror groups that promote the thinking.



Welll, Pakistan does have astrong affinity with Islam, since the population is Muslim. I think in that sense the identity has indeed become distinct from modern India's. You just cannot expect Pakistanis to disown that aspect of history, especially since it is so large a part of their current identity through their faith.

But there is a difference in considering Pakistan to be a legacy of the Muslim rulers of South Asia, and thinking of conquering all of South Asia - unless you belong to an extremist organization ofcourse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I can indeed state that a definition is incorrect, provided I give reasons for it, which I did. You can however counter my reasons for contradicting the definition, and therefore point out why my contention is incorrect.



That makes no sense whatsoever because you accept historical names "as they are" and not argue over whether they are correct.

It is absurd to consider one historical name as correct and another as incorrect on flimsy "if-then" reasoning. 



> European history is indeed complicated, but what I am pointing out is that it is delineated on a national basis, that affirms every nations disticnt identity, and does not purport to push them all into one large mass. They may indeed fight over what part is whose, but that is the point - in that fighting they are reaffirming their distinct nationalities.



Not necessarily. The history of the Roman Empire, for example, includes most of modern Europe. It would be considered European as well as Italian, and every country which was ever part of that empire would consider it part of their history. 

Even ancient history cannot be restricted within national boundaries - consider Britain for example - they were occupied by the Vikings, the Celts, the Normans, the Romans. Its hardly clear- cut.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever because you accept historical names "as they are" and not argue over whether they are correct.
> 
> It is absurd to consider one historical name as correct and another as incorrect on flimsy "if-then" reasoning.


I am not saying the name is incorrect, just that Megantheles's 'definition' does not make sense due to the reasons I gave, but that coudl have been due to the political situation at the time.

On a somewhat different note, it seems Wiki has moved onto more neutral territory, as their entry on 'The History of India' refers to the History of South Asia, with a disclaimer and a link to a seperate page for the "history of the republic of India".

All history pages on SOuth Asia are also marked with 'History of South Asia', that carries the flags of all the South Asian nations.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Not necessarily. The history of the Roman Empire, for example, includes most of modern Europe. It would be considered European as well as Italian, and every country which was ever part of that empire would consider it part of their history.
> 
> Even ancient history cannot be restricted within national boundaries - consider Britain for example - they were occupied by the Vikings, the Celts, the Normans, the Romans. Its hardly clear- cut.



But we similarly have the Mughal Empire, the Mauryan Empire, the Durrani Empire etc. classified under the specific groups who led them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am not saying the name is incorrect, just that Megantheles's 'definition' does not make sense due to the reasons I gave, but that coudl have been due to the political situation at the time.



Well you used the word "incorrect" so I'm assuming that you typed what you meant. 



> On a somewhat different note, it seems Wiki has moved onto more neutral territory, as their entry on 'The History of India' refers to the History of South Asia, with a disclaimer and a link to a seperate page for the "history of the republic of India".



That's been there for a long time - for as long as I can remember actually.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> But we similarly have the Mughal Empire, the Mauryan Empire, the Durrani Empire etc. classified under the specific groups who led them.



So are they part of Indian history or Pakistani history?

They are the history of "Ancient/Medieval India" if you ask me.

I can understand if you have an objection to that definition, but that is not my concern


----------



## jeypore

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Pakistan was the original India.
> 
> Since the earliest usage of the word 'India' seems to have been found in Greek writings, that is where we woudl have to go to understand the origins of the word.




I do disagree that Pakistan was the original India. Since the Alexander days, Socrates taught Alexander that in approching India he needed to get the ganghis river to back Athens. 

So even in History India was considered a larger part of Southeast Asia and not only part of Pakistan.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Well you used the word "incorrect" so I'm assuming that you typed what you meant.
> 
> That's been there for a long time - for as long as I can remember actually.


Well I did mean what I typed, that the definition of Megantheles is incorrect, not that the word India itself is incorrect.

Ahh, never been to that page before, so I did not know. But I do like the disclaimer they have, clarifying the context in which "History of India" is being used.



Flintlock said:


> So are they part of Indian history or Pakistani history?
> 
> They are the history of "Ancient/Medieval India" if you ask me.
> 
> I can understand if you have an objection to that definition, but that is not my concern



Indeed they are a part of ancient Indian/South Asian history. No quarrels over that - but I imagine the Afghans would claim the Durrani empire over Pakistan, since it was governed form there, and Durrani was from Afghanistan, though the majority of the empire comprised modern day Pakistan - similar to the Greek empires (most of whose territory was outside of Greece).

Similarly, I imagine Maurya would be considered Bengali history, and a Bengali empire, were Bengal to be an independent nation. Bengal is a part of contemporary India (not sure how much he impacted modern Bangladesh), so the empire is correctly a part of Modern India's history. 

Now, I am not going to go as far as some others in claiming that one nation has no claim over certain portions of history. But I think that similar to European and Asian history, we have a broader classification of South Asian history, and we can then delineate it into the history of the regions comprising our nations - so each nation shares South Asian history, since it overlapped as in Asia and Europe, but each nation also has greater claim over different aspects of that history based on geographical location.

Pakistani textbooks could teach students about the Mauryan empire or South Indian empires, but it really would not be as intimate of a subject, akin to learning about the Huns or Chinese empires. However learning about the IVC, Durrani and Rajput Kingdoms etc. would be far more personal and intimate of a history lesson, since that history took place on our land, and those ancients were possibly our forefathers.

Does that make sense?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

jeypore said:


> I do disagree that Pakistan was the original India. Since the Alexander days, Socrates taught Alexander that in approching India he needed to get the ganghis river to back Athens.
> 
> So even in History India was considered a larger part of Southeast Asia and not only part of Pakistan.



Well, as Flint clarified (and as I usually do, just got lazy that time) it is the regions comprising modern Pakistan that were originally known as "India". I base this hypothesis on the quote attributed to Herodotus, considered to be amongst the earliest use of the word India (in 450 BC, Alexander born in 356 BC):



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



Tract of sand would indicate desert, and the only desert I can think of would have been the Thar (Eastern Pakistan).


----------



## DarkStar

jeypore said:


> If the word India really described Pakistan, then at the time of partition, why did jinnah or his advisors not argued for the name India for there newly formed country? Why he concocted the name of Pakistan, which he knew really well it was not in the history books?





> "Jinnah was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of "INdia" He only discovered his mistake after Lord MOuntbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain "India".
> 
> *Jinnah, according to MOuntbatten, "was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress) were going to call themselves "India" The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy that Jinnah would not accept. *
> 
> It also flew in the face of history, since "INdia" originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the INdus river (with which teh word is congnate). Hence it is largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan. "



Taken from, India A History, John Keay, Harper Colilns publishers, page 57, and a quotation of Lord Mountbatten taken from "Mountbatten and the partition of India," page 70, L.Collins and D.Lapierre.


----------



## jeypore

Year Name Source Definition 
c. 486 BC. Hidush Naksh-i-Rustam "Says Darius the King: By the grace of Ormazd these (are) the countries which I have acquired besides Persia. I have established my power over them. They have brought tribute to me. That which has been said to them by me they have done. They have obeyed my law. Medea . . . Arachotia (Harauvatish), Sattagydia (Thatagush), Gandaria (Gad&#225;ra), India (Hidush). . . ." 

c. 440 BC India Herodotus "Eastward of India lies a tract which is entirely sand. Indeed, of all the inhabitants of Asia, concerning whom anything is known, the Indians dwell nearest to the east, and the rising of the Sun." 

c. 300 BC India/Indik&#275; Megasthenes "India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of H&#275;m&#333;dus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile." 

c. 140. Indoi, Indou Arrian "The boundary of the land of India towards the north is Mount Taurus. It is not still called Taurus in this land; but Taurus begins from the sea over against Pamphylia and Lycia and Cilicia; and reaches as far as the Eastern Ocean, running right across Asia. But the mountain has different names in different places; in one, Parapamisus, in another Hemodus; elsewhere it is called Imaon, and perhaps has all sorts of other names; but the Macedonians who fought with Alexander called it Caucasus; another Caucasus, that is, not the Scythian; so that the story ran that Alexander came even to the far side of the Caucasus. The western part of India is bounded by the river Indus right down to the ocean, where the river runs out by two mouths, not joined together as are the five mouths of the Ister; but like those of the Nile, by which the Egyptian delta is formed; thus also the Indian delta is formed by the river Indus, not less than the Egyptian; and this in the Indian tongue is called Pattala. Towards the south this ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary. The southern part near Pattala and the mouths of the Indus were surveyed by Alexander and Macedonians, and many Greeks; as for the eastern part, Alexander did not traverse this beyond the river Hyphasis. A few historians have described the parts which are this side of the Ganges and where are the mouths of the Ganges and the city of Palimbothra, the greatest Indian city on the Ganges. (...) The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name; each of these is greater than the Nile of Egypt and the Scythian Ister, even were these put together; my own idea is that even the Acesines is greater than the Ister and the Nile, where the Acesines having taken in the Hydaspes, Hydraotes, and Hyphasis, runs into the Indus, so that its breadth there becomes thirty stades. Possibly also other greater rivers run through the land of India." 

c. 590. Hind Istakhri "As for the land of the Hind it is bounded on the East by the Persian Sea (i.e. the Indian Ocean), on the W. and S. by the countries of Isl&#257;m, and on the N. by the Chinese Empire. . . . The length of the land of the Hind from the government of Mokr&#257;n, the country of Mans&#363;ra and Bodha and the rest of Sind, till thou comest to Kann&#363;j and thence passest on to Tibet, is about 4 months, and its breadth from the Indian Ocean to the country of Kann&#363;j about three months." 

c. 650 Five Indies Xuanzang "The circumference of the Five Indies is about 90,000 li; on three sides it is bounded by a great sea; on the north it is backed by snowy mountains. It is wide at the north and narrow at the south; its figure is that of a half-moon." 

c. 944. Hind, Sind Masudi "For the nonce let us confine ourselves to summary notices concerning the kings of Sind and Hind. The language of Sind is different from that of Hind. . . ." 

c. 1020 Hind Al-Bir&#363;n&#299; "Hind is surrounded on the East by Ch&#237;n and M&#225;ch&#237;n, on the West by Sind and K&#225;bul, and on the South by the Sea."- 
1205 Hind Hasan Niz&#257;m&#299; "The whole country of Hind, from Peshawar in the north, to the Indian Ocean in the south; from Sehwan (on the west bank of the Indus) to the mountains on the east dividing from China." 

1298 India the Greater
India the Minor
Middle India Marco Polo "India the Greater is that which extends from Maabar to Kesmacoran (i.e. from Coromandel to Mekran), and it contains 13 great kingdoms. . . . India the Lesser extends from the Province of Champa to Mutfili (i.e. from Cochin-China to the Kistna Delta), and contains 8 great Kingdoms. . . . Abash (Abyssinia) is a very great province, and you must know that it constitutes the Middle India." 

c. 1328. India Friar Jordanus "What shall I say? The great- ness of this India is beyond description. But let this much suffice concerning India the Greater and the Less. Of India Tertia I will say this, that I have not indeed seen its many marvels, not having been there. . . ." 
1404 India Minor Clavijo "And this same Thursday that the said Ambassadors arrived at this great River (the Oxus) they crossed to the other side. And the same day . . . came in the evening to a great city which is called Tenmit (Termez), and this used to belong to India Minor, but now belongs to the empire of Samarkand, having been conquered by Tamurbec." 
Names of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Jeypore,

The Herodotus quote you posted above is the same one I did. And like I said, it seems to be limiting 'India's' borders to the lands primarily comprising modern Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jeypore

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Jeypore,
> 
> The Herodotus quote you posted above is the same one I did. And like I said, it seems to be limiting 'India's' borders to the lands primarily comprising modern Pakistan.



Well i put this up that the word India is derived over time and the explanations of the word. But before Herodotus quote, the quote made by Darius the King he calls India (Hidush), Meaning Hindu's. Do you not find this significant that word arrived from Hindu.


The English term is from Greek Hindía (&#7992;&#957;&#948;&#943;&#945, via Latin India. Hindía in Byzantine (Koine Greek) ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (&#7992;&#957;&#948;&#972;&#962 river,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

I found this on the origins of the name Hindu:



> We must remember that the term &#8220;hindu&#8221; is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for &#8220;Hinduism.&#8221;
> 
> Most scholars feel that the name &#8220;Hindu&#8221; was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. According to Sir Monier Williams, the Sanskrit lexicographer, you cannot find an indigenous root for the words Hindu or India. Neither are these words found in any Buddhist or Jain texts, nor any of the official 23 languages of India. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning &#8220;S&#8221;, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jeypore

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I found this on the origins of the name Hindu:



Well here is the real understand of the word India:

2. Persia, in the ancient times, was the vital link between India and the Greeks of Asia Minor . In the Avesta of Zoroaster, what we today call as India is named as Hapta Hendu, the Avesthan for the Vedic Sapta Sindhavah &#8211; the Land of Seven Rivers, that is, the five rivers of the Punjab along with the Sarasvati ( a river which has since disappeared) and the Indus. The word &#8220;Sindhu&#8221; not only referred to the river system but to the adjoining areas as well. 



The name of Sindhu reached the Greeks in its Persian form Hindu (because of the Persian etymology wherein every initial s is represented by h).The Persian term Hindu became the Greek Indos/(plural indoi) since the Greeks could not pronounce "h" and had no proper "u". The Indos in due course acquired its Latin form - India . . Had the Sanskrit word Sindhu reached the Greeks directly, they might perhaps have pronounced it as Sindus or Sindia

3. King Cyrus, the founder of Persian Empire and of the Achaemenid dynasty (559-530 B.C.), added to his territories the region of Gandhara, located mainly in the vale of Peshawar . By about 516 B.C., Darius son of Hystaspes annexed the Indus valley and formed the twentieth satrapy of the Persian Empire . The annexed areas included parts of Punjab . This became the twentieth satrapy, the richest and most populous Satrapy of the Persian Empire . In the inscription at Nakshi&#8211;e-Rustam(486.BCE) a reference is made to the tributes paid to Darius by Hidush and others vassal such as Ionians, Spartans, Bactrians, Parthians, and Medes. 



4. Thus, the Indus region became the easternmost boundary of the vast Persian Empire, which sprawled across all of western Asia to include, after 546 B.C., most of the Greek cities on the coast of Asia Minor. The skills and labor of all of Persia 's subjects, Greeks included, were employed in imperial building projects. Many Greeks served as officials or mercenaries in the various Achaemenid provinces. Indian troops formed a contingent of the Persian army that invaded Greece in 480 B.C. Indian troopers were also a part of the army that faced Alexander at Gaugamela in 331 B.C. 


http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/05/greeks-in-india-before-alexander.htm


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Jeypore,

What your posted does sort of validate the scholars opinion that the names Hindu or India do not have roots in the local language, and were in some shape or form bastardized versions of local names (by the Greeks and Persians).

Also, even if you look at the references to the Saraswati in the Rig Veda, it is a reference to a mythical river, not a real one in existence at the time, so you cannot coordinate actual geography (which parts of the region were being referred to in the Avesthan) with this particular reference in the Rig Veda. Additionally, there are some scholars who believe the Saraswati referred to in the Rig Veda is the Helmand in Afghanistan, which shifts the 'geography' of the 'India' known at that time even further West.

Regardless of which river it refers to, the point is that the reference in the Avesthan most likely used the terminology of the Vedic scriptures as a source for its own terminology for the region around the Indus, since the seven rivers were not in existence anymore, and could not form the basis of being the source for any description of "India". Therefore, even with the reference in the Avesthan, we are still looking at the regions comprising modern day Pakistan being originally referred to by the term "India', Sindhu or what have you. And that usage slowly extended to refer to more and more of South Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jeypore

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Jeypore,
> 
> What your posted does sort of validate the scholars opinion that the names Hindu or India do not have roots in the local language, and were in some shape or form bastardized versions of local names (by the Greeks and Persians).
> 
> Also, even if you look at the references to the Saraswati in the Rig Veda, it is a reference to a mythical river, not a real one in existence at the time, so you cannot coordinate geography (which part of India was bei referred to) with this particular reference in the Rig Veda. Additionally, there are some scholars who believe the Saraswati referred to in the Rig Veda is the Helmand in Afghanistan, which shifts the 'geography' of the 'India' known at that time even further east.
> 
> Regardless of which river it refers to, the point is that the reference in the Avesthan most likely used the terminology of the Vedic scriptures as a source for its own terminology for the region around the Indus, since the seven rivers were not in existence anymore. Therefore, even with the reference in the Avesthan, we are still looking at the regions comprising modern day Pakistan being originally referred to by the term "India', Sindhu or what have you. And that usage slowly extended to refer to more and more of South Asia.



You have put it very eloquently.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Well I did mean what I typed, that the definition of Megantheles is incorrect, not that the word India itself is incorrect.
> 
> Ahh, never been to that page before, so I did not know. But I do like the disclaimer they have, clarifying the context in which "History of India" is being used.




Well for me "name" and "definition" are interchangeable. So you cannot simply decide one definition is correct and another is incorrect over subjective reasoning. 

The meaning of a proper noun often doesn't conform with its underlying roots. That doesn't mean that we reject its definition as incorrect. It would be absurd.




> Similarly, I imagine Maurya would be considered Bengali history, and a Bengali empire, were Bengal to be an independent nation. Bengal is a part of contemporary India (not sure how much he impacted modern Bangladesh), so the empire is correctly a part of Modern India's history.



That makes very little sense since the Mauryans did not consider themselves "Bengali".
The Bengali language and culture came after the end of the Mauryan empire. 

In any case, the capital was at Pataliputra (Modern Patna, Bihar).



> Now, I am not going to go as far as some others in claiming that one nation has no claim over certain portions of history. But I think that similar to European and Asian history, we have a broader classification of South Asian history, and we can then delineate it into the history of the regions comprising our nations - so each nation shares South Asian history, since it overlapped as in Asia and Europe, but each nation also has greater claim over different aspects of that history based on geographical location.



Well it would be more complicated than that. As you pointed out, the Greek empire stretched far beyond modern Greece. Since modern Greeks occupy only a tiny portion of that empire, would it be correct to consider it a Greek empire at all ?
There are other factors to be taken into account, including ethnicity and culture. 

I'd be more than happy to consider South Asian history as a whole, without the hyphenations. That would be more accurate. However, if we are going to decide which country gets a greater claim over certain portions, then simply taking the land into account would be wrong.




> Pakistani textbooks could teach students about the Mauryan empire or South Indian empires, but it really would not be as intimate of a subject, akin to learning about the Huns or Chinese empires. However learning about the IVC, Durrani and Rajput Kingdoms etc. would be far more personal and intimate of a history lesson, since that history took place on our land, and those ancients were possibly our forefathers.



I would consider the IVC to be as remote to Pakistanis as the Chinese or South Indian kingdoms in this context. 
That would be because the ethnicity of the IVC peoples is yet unknown, and considering the lineage of the various ethnic groups comprising Pakistan, they all seem to have migrated from the west some time after or during the decline of the IVC.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Well for me "name" and "definition" are interchangeable. So you cannot simply decide one definition is correct and another is incorrect over subjective reasoning.
> 
> The meaning of a proper noun often doesn't conform with its underlying roots. That doesn't mean that we reject its definition as incorrect. It would be absurd.


I am not sure I understand - if someone incorrectly defines something, that is a flawed definition. If we take Megasthene's definition literally, then it would imply that the peoples inhabiting the Indus valley somehow abruptly started existing, or became radically different, only on the East of the Indus. Thats a pretty implausible view. It therefore means that Megasthene's definition cannot be taken literally, or is flawed.



> That makes very little sense since the Mauryans did not consider themselves "Bengali".
> The Bengali language and culture came after the end of the Mauryan empire.
> 
> In any case, the capital was at Pataliputra (Modern Patna, Bihar).


Ancient inhabitants of South Asia did not consider themselves "Indian' either - nationalism ascribes to them those identities. Chankya is now a great "Indian', similarly an independent Bengal or Bihar would have ascribed its own nationalism to its ancient 'hero's'.



> Well it would be more complicated than that. As you pointed out, the Greek empire stretched far beyond modern Greece. Since modern Greeks occupy only a tiny portion of that empire, would it be correct to consider it a Greek empire at all ?
> There are other factors to be taken into account, including ethnicity and culture.
> 
> I'd be more than happy to consider South Asian history as a whole, without the hyphenations. That would be more accurate. However, if we are going to decide which country gets a greater claim over certain portions, then simply taking the land into account would be wrong.


I am not suggesting that it isn't complicated, but yes it would be considered a Greek empire, since it was created by the Greeks/Macedonians, and administered through Greece, and I suppose that is where the overlap occurs in history.



> I would consider the IVC to be as remote to Pakistanis as the Chinese or South Indian kingdoms in this context.
> That would be because the ethnicity of the IVC peoples is yet unknown, and considering the lineage of the various ethnic groups comprising Pakistan, they all seem to have migrated from the west some time after or during the decline of the IVC.



The biggest connection is land. The IVC and other civilizations existed on the land of Pakistan, and that alone brings an intimacy with history that would not exist while considering the Mauryans or South Indian history. And since we do not know what happened to the IVC people, the narrative is compelling that they did not get wiped out, rather shifted away from their cities and mingled and interbred with the newer migrants into the region.

On the issue of modern Pakistanis descending form the IVC people - I pointed this out in another thread as well, a similar mystery with the collapse of the Mayan civilization exists, with the theory being advanced that the cities just became too large to sustain, in various ways - overpopulation leading to a scarcity of resources, attractive to invasion and marauders etc. 

One hypothesis being advanced is that the people just slowly shifted away from the cities and diffused and settled into the surrounding countryside in smaller more sustainable communities. We cannot merely assume that the people vanished completely, and the likely reason behind the abandonment of the IVC cities, and the fate that befell the IVC people, is probably similar to that of the Mayan cities and the Mayan people.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am not sure I understand - if someone incorrectly defines something, that is a flawed definition.



This is a name, not a scientific term. There is no "correct" way to name a place. 
Names are always arbitrary, and therefore to force some logic into them would be rather strange. 

In any case, you cannot consider a definition which as been used for over 2000 years to be "wrong". 

It makes as much sense as rejecting the current definition of "shampoo" for the oldest one, because it is "flawed". 



> If we take Megasthene's definition literally, then it would imply that the peoples inhabiting the Indus valley somehow abruptly started existing, or became radically different, only on the East of the Indus. Thats a pretty implausible view. It therefore means that Megasthene's definition cannot be taken literally, or is flawed.



The point is not the reasoning behind Megasthenes' definition, but the definition itself. 
As I said, we take the definition 'as is' and to question it would be highly absurd.

It is pure conjecture as to why Megasthenes defined India the way he did, but the fact remains that he did, and that definition has been used since. 




> Ancient inhabitants of South Asia did not consider themselves "Indian' either - nationalism ascribes to them those identities. Chankya is now a great "Indian', similarly an independent Bengal or Bihar would have ascribed its own nationalism to its ancient 'hero's'.



But the fact remains that there is no Bengali or Bihari nation, and therfore things are interpreted quite differently. 



> I am not suggesting that it isn't complicated, but yes it would be considered a Greek empire, since it was created by the Greeks/Macedonians, and administered through Greece, and I suppose that is where the overlap occurs in history.



Exactly, so the tribe/ethnic group which created the empire is also taken into account.




> The biggest connection is land. The IVC and other civilizations existed on the land of Pakistan, and that alone brings an intimacy with history that would not exist while considering the Mauryans or South Indian history.



On the contrary, pre-Islamic Pakistan (Vedic and post-vedic era) would have had much in common with the Mauryans and South Indian history, far more than present day Pakistan with the IVC.

Moreover, the ethnic makeup would have been quite similar to the present-day Pakistan.

However, present-day Pakistan has only the land in common with the IVC, and there is significant doubt as to whether there is significant similarity in terms of ethnic makeup. 

India on the other hand has far more in common with the Harappans in terms of culture, and possibly in terms of ethnicity. 



> And since we do not know what happened to the IVC people, the narrative is compelling that they did not get wiped out, rather shifted away from their cities and mingled and interbred with the newer migrants into the region.
> 
> On the issue of modern Pakistanis descending form the IVC people - I pointed this out in another thread as well, a similar mystery with the collapse of the Mayan civilization exists, with the theory being advanced that the cities just became too large to sustain, in various ways - overpopulation leading to a scarcity of resources, attractive to invasion and marauders etc.



Climate change is also a theory, which led to the gradual eastward migration of the Harappan people.

The Cemetery-H culture which succeeded the Harappan one was shifted significantly eastward into the gangetic plains (all this has been discussed before).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> This is a name, not a scientific term. There is no "correct" way to name a place.
> Names are always arbitrary, and therefore to force some logic into them would be rather strange.
> 
> In any case, you cannot consider a definition which as been used for over 2000 years to be "wrong".
> 
> It makes as much sense as rejecting the current definition of "shampoo" for the oldest one, because it is "flawed".
> 
> The point is not the reasoning behind Megasthenes' definition, but the definition itself.
> As I said, we take the definition 'as is' and to question it would be highly absurd.
> 
> It is pure conjecture as to why Megasthenes defined India the way he did, but the fact remains that he did, and that definition has been used since.


It is not pure conjecture that Megasthenes's definition canot be taken literally since the literal meaning is so absurd. As you said, it is not a scientific term, or a scientific definition - it is a translation from the wroks of an ancient scholar, and therefore should not be looked at literally.



> But the fact remains that there is no Bengali or Bihari nation, and therfore things are interpreted quite differently.
> 
> Exactly, so the tribe/ethnic group which created the empire is also taken into account.



Your second line validates the first point I was making, that a Bengali/Bihair nation woudl have claimed the Mauryan - but since they are part of an Indian state, it is considered Indian.



> On the contrary, pre-Islamic Pakistan (Vedic and post-vedic era) would have had much in common with the Mauryans and South Indian history, far more than present day Pakistan with the IVC.
> 
> Moreover, the ethnic makeup would have been quite similar to the present-day Pakistan.
> 
> However, present-day Pakistan has only the land in common with the IVC, and there is significant doubt as to whether there is significant similarity in terms of ethnic makeup.
> 
> India on the other hand has far more in common with the Harappans in terms of culture, and possibly in terms of ethnicity.
> 
> 
> 
> Climate change is also a theory, which led to the gradual eastward migration of the Harappan people.
> 
> The Cemetery-H culture which succeeded the Harappan one was shifted significantly eastward into the gangetic plains (all this has been discussed before).



We do not know what the culture of the IVC was or how similar it was to the vedic culture. I am not talking about commonalities between the cultures of thoise days and today's Pakistan either, by that the history on the lands of Pakistan is far more intimate to Pakistanis, through ancestry and lovcation, then that of South India or China would be.

Just because the cultures may have evolved far beyond what they were originally, does not make it any less our history.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> It is not pure conjecture that Megasthenes's definition canot be taken literally since the literal meaning is so absurd. As you said, it is not a scientific term, or a scientific definition - it is a translation from the wroks of an ancient scholar, and therefore should not be looked at literally.



Really? the literal meaning is "absurd"?

Comeon Agno, you can do better than that. 

The defintion of the boundaries of India has to be taken literally - unless you have found out some novel way of interpreting it in terms of metaphors.

What I am trying to explain here is that the meaning of a word doesn't have to conform with its origins and not that the meaning of the word cannot be taken literally.

The origin of the word "India" might have been from "Sindhu", but that doesn't make its meaning wrong or absurd. Its the usage which matters, not the origin. 




> We do not know what the culture of the IVC was or how similar it was to the vedic culture.



Rigvedic aryans did not have much similarity with the IVC peoples, but the later composite culture which developed did inherit a lot of the IVC culture along with the cultures of the post-IVC settlements.



> I am not talking about commonalities between the cultures of thoise days and today's Pakistan either, by that the history on the lands of Pakistan is far more intimate to Pakistanis, through ancestry and location, then that of South India or China would be.



And I am simply saying that location is not everything, but ancestry and culture should be taken into account while deciding ownership. 



> Just because the cultures may have evolved far beyond what they were originally, does not make it any less our history.



However, if both culture and genes have been supplanted to a large extent, it does dilute the ownership by a significant factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Really? the literal meaning is "absurd"?
> 
> Comeon Agno, you can do better than that.
> 
> The defintion of the boundaries of India has to be taken literally - unless you have found out some novel way of interpreting it in terms of metaphors.
> 
> What I am trying to explain here is that the meaning of a word doesn't have to conform with its origins and not that the meaning of the word cannot be taken literally.
> 
> The origin of the word "India" might have been from "Sindhu", but that doesn't make its meaning wrong or absurd. Its the usage which matters, not the origin.


I already explained to you why the Megasthenes definition of the boundaries of India was absurd, you haven't really countered my argument. To suggest that the land and peoples on the West of the Indus (relatively immediate West) were dramatically different from those on the East, does not make sense. Therefore I believe it was a more general statement, with a significant geographical marker (river Indus) being used as a reference.




> Rigvedic aryans did not have much similarity with the IVC peoples, but the later composite culture which developed did inherit a lot of the IVC culture along with the cultures of the post-IVC settlements.
> 
> And I am simply saying that location is not everything, but ancestry and culture should be taken into account while deciding ownership.
> 
> However, if both culture and genes have been supplanted to a large extent, it does dilute the ownership by a significant factor.


Genes and land do matter, otherwise the Greeks woudl have no claim to the Greek mythology worshiping ancestors of theirs.

It has not been shown that the IVC people migrated away from the lands of Pakistan, or were completely eliminated. So, as I argued above, conjecture around similar abandonment of Mayan cities is that the residents moved to the surrounding countryside, which woudl indicate that the genes live on in Pakistanis as those residents mingled with other incoming migrants to the region.

So Pakistanis have genes and land as a claim to that history, whether they still follow that culture is immaterial, since like the Greeks, our culture and beliefs have evolved.


----------



## Flintlock

_My quote from Megasthenes was infact from his book- Indika. Here is the excerpt reproduced in full: _
_____________________________________________________________


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

* India has many huge mountains which abound in fruit-trees of every kind, and many vast plains of great fertility--more or less beautiful, but all alike intersected by a multitude of rivers.*

The greater part of the soil, moreover, is under irrigation, and consequently bears two crops in the course of the year. It teems at the same time with animals of all sorts,--beasts of the field and fowls of the air,--of all different degrees of strength and size. It is prolific, besides, in *elephants, which are of monstrous bulk, as its soil supplies food in unsparing profusion, making these animals far to exceed in strength those that are bred in Libya. *It results also that, since they are caught in great numbers by the Indians and trained for war, they are of great moment in turning the scale of victory.

(36.) *The inhabitants, in like manner, having abundant means of subsistence, exceed in consequence the ordinary stature, and are distinguished by their proud bearing.* They are also found to be well skilled in the arts, as might be expected of men who inhale a pure air and drink the very finest water. And while the soil bears on its surface all kinds of fruits which are known to cultivation, it has also under ground numerous veins of all sorts of metals, for it contains much gold and silver, and copper and iron in no small quantity, and even tin and other metals, which are employed in making articles of use and ornament, as well as the implements and accoutrements of war.

In addition to cereals, there grows throughout India much millet, which is kept well watered by the profusion of river-streams, and much pulse of different sorts, and rice also, and what is called bosporum, as well as many other plants useful for food, of which most grow spontaneously.* The soil yields, moreover, not a few other edible products fit for the subsistence of animals, about which it would be tedious to write. It is accordingly affirmed that famine has never visited India, and that there has never been a general scarcity in the supply of nourishing food. *For, since there is a *double rainfall in the course of each year,*--one in the winter season, when the sowing of wheat takes place as in other countries, and the second at the time of the summer solstice, which is the proper season for sowing rice and bosporum, as well as sesamum and millet-*-the inhabitants of India almost always gather in two harvests annually;* and even should one of the sowings prove more or less abortive they are always sure of the other crop. The fruits, moreover, of spontaneous growth, and the esculent roots which grow in marshy places and are of varied sweetness, afford abundant sustenance for man. The fact is, almost all the plains in the country have a moisture which is alike genial, whether it is derived from the rivers, or from the rains of the summer season, which are wont to fall every year at a stated period with surprising regularity; while the great heat which prevails ripens the roots which grow in the marshes, and especially those of the tall reeds.

But, farther, there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them; for whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, *among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees.*

(37.)* India, again, possesses many rivers both large and navigable, *w*hich, having their sources in the mountains which stretch along the northern frontier, traverse the level country, and not a few of these, after uniting with each other, fall into the river called the Ganges. **Now this river, which at its source is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its waters into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals.* [Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as be did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, and had subdued all the other Indians, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.] Another river, about the same size as the Ganges, called the Indus, has its sources, like its rival, in the north, and falling into the ocean forms on its way the boundary of India; in its passage through the vast stretch of level country it receives not a few tributary streams which are navigable, the most notable of them being the Hupanis, the Hudaspes, and the Akesines. Besides these rivers there are a great many others of every description, which permeate the country, and supply water for the nurture of garden vegetables and crops of all sorts. Now to account for the rivers being so numerous, and the supply of water so superabundant, the native philosophers and proficients in natural science advance the following reasons:--They say that the countries, which surround India--those of the Skythians and Baktrians and also of the Aryans--are more elevated than India, so that their waters, agreeably to natural law, flow down together from all sides to the plains beneath, where they gradually saturate the soil with moisture, and generate a multitude of rivers.

A peculiarity is found to exist in one of the rivers of India,--that called the Sillas, which flows from a fountain bearing the same name. It differs from all other rivers in this respect,--that nothing cast into it will float, but everything, strange to say, sinks down to the bottom.

(38.) *It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation. *The legends further inform us that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was the case with the Greeks; and that, in like manner as with them, the arts and other appliances which improve human life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching them to an animal at once docile and furnished not only with hands ready to second all his efforts, but also with reason and a keen intelligence.

The men of greatest learning among the Indians tell certain legends, of which it may be proper to give a brief summary. They relate that in the most primitive times, when the people of the country were still living in villages, Dionusos made his appearance coming from the regions lying to the west and at the head of a considerable army. He overran the whole of India, as there was no great city capable of resisting his arms. The heat, however, having become excessive, and the soldiers of Dionusos being afflicted with a pestilence, the leader, who was remarkable for his sagacity, carried his troops away from the plains up to the hills. There the army, recruited by the cool breezes and the waters that flowed fresh from the fountains, recovered from sickness. The place among the mountains where Dionusos restored his troops to health was called Meros; from which circumstance, no doubt, the Greeks have transmitted to posterity the legend concerning the god, that Dionusos was bred in his father's thigh. Having after this turned his attention to the artificial propagation of useful plants, he communicated the secret to the Indians, and taught them the way to make wine, as well as other arts conducive to human well-being. He was, besides, the founder of large cities, which he formed by removing the villages to convenient sites, while he also showed the people how to worship the deity, and introduced laws and courts of justice. Having thus achieved altogether many great and noble works, he was regarded as a deity and. gained immortal honours. It is related also of him that he led about with his army a great host of women and employed, in marshalling his troops for battle, drums and cymbals, as the trumpet had not in his days been invented; and that after reigning over the whole of India for two and fifty years he died of old age, while his sons, succeeding to the government, transmitted the sceptre in unbroken succession to their posterity. At last, after many generations had come and. gone, the sovereignty, it is said, was dissolved, and democratic governments were set up in the cities.

(39.) Such, then, are the traditions regarding Dionusos and his descendants current among the Indians who inhabit the hill-country. They further assert that Herakles also was born among them. They assign to him, like the Greeks, the club and the lion's skin. He far surpassed other men in personal strength and prowess, and cleared sea and land of evil beasts. Marrying many wives he begot many sons, but one daughter only. The sons having reached man's estate, he divided all India into equal portions for his children, whom he made kings in different parts of his dominions. He provided similarly for his only daughter, whom be reared up and made a queen. He was the founder, also, of no small number of cities, the most renowned and greatest of which he called Palibothra. He built therein many sumptuous palaces, and settled within its walls a numerous population. The city he fortified with trenches of notable dimensions, which were filled with water introduced from the river. Herakles, accordingly, after his removal from among men, obtained immortal honour; and his descendants, having reigned for many generations and signalized themselves by great achievements, neither made any expedition beyond the confines of India, nor sent out any colony abroad. At last, however, after many years had gone, most of the cities adopted the democratic form of government, though some retained the kingly until the invasion of the country by Alexander.* Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable: for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot: for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed.*

(40.)* The whole population of India is divided into seven castes, *of which the first is formed by the collective body of the Philosophers, which in point of number is inferior to the other classes, but in point of dignity preeminent over all. For the philosophers, being exempted from all public duties, are neither the masters nor the servants of others. They are, however, engaged by private persons to offer the sacrifices due in lifetime, and to celebrate the obsequies of the dead: for they are believed to be most dear to the gods, and to be the most conversant with matters pertaining to Hades. In requital of such services they receive valuable gifts and privileges. To the people of India at large they also render great benefits, when, gathered together at the beginning of the year, they forewarn the assembled multitudes about droughts and. wet weather, and also about propitious winds, and diseases, and other topics capable of profiting-the hearers. Thus the people and the sovereign, learning beforehand what is to happen, always make adequate provision against a coming deficiency, and never fail to prepare beforehand what will help in a time of need. The philosopher who errs in his predictions incurs no other penalty than obloquy, and he then observes silence for the rest of his life.

*The second caste* consists of the Husbandmen, who appear to be far more numerous than the others. Being, moreover, exempted from fighting and other public services, they devote the whole of their time to tillage; nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on his land do him any harm, for men of this class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury. The land, thus remaining unravaged, and producing heavy crops, supplies the inhabitants with all that is requisite to make life very enjoyable. The husbandmen themselves, with their wives and children, live in the country, and entirely avoid going into town. They pay a land-tribute to the king, because all India is the property of the crown, and no private person is permitted to own land. Besides the land-tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil.

*The third caste* consists of the Neatherds and Shepherds and in general of all herdsmen who neither settle in towns nor in villages, but live in tents. By hunting and trapping they clear the country of noxious birds and wild beasts. As they apply themselves eagerly and assiduously to this pursuit, they free India from the pests with which it abounds,--all sorts of wild beasts, and birds which devour the seeds sown by the husbandmen.

(41.)* The fourth caste* consists of the Artizans. Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer.

* The fifth caste *is the Military. It is well organized and equipped for war, holds the second place in point of numbers, and gives itself up to idleness and amusement in the times of peace. The entire force--men-at-arms, war-horses, war-elephants, and all--are maintained at the king's expense.

*The sixth caste* consists of the Overseers. It is their province to inquire into and superintend all that goes on in India, and make report to the king, or, where there is not a king, to the magistrates.

*The seventh caste* consists of the Councillors and Assessors,--of those who deliberate on public affairs. It is the smallest class, looking to number, but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers, of the state, and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class.

Such, then, are about the parts into which the body politic in India is divided. No one is allowed to marry out of his own caste, or to exercise any calling or art except his own: for instance, a soldier cannot become a husbandman, or an artizan a philosopher.

(42.) India possesses a vast number of huge elephants, which far surpass those found elsewhere both in strength and size. This animal does not cover the female in a peculiar way, as some affirm, but like horses and other quadrupeds. The period of gestation is at shortest sixteen months, and at furthest eighteen. Like mares, they generally bring forth but one young one at a time, and this the dam suckles for six years. Most elephants live to be as old as an extremely old man, but the most aged live two hundred years.

Among the Indians officers are appointed even for foreigners whose duty is to see that no foreigner is wronged. Should any of them lose his health, they send physicians to attend him, and take care of him otherwise, and if he dies they bury him, and deliver over such property as he leaves to his relatives. The judges also decide cases in which foreigners are concerned, with the greatest care, and come down sharply on those who take unfair advantage of them. [What we have now said regarding India and its antiquities will suffice, for our present purpose.]
______________________________________________________

Source: Project South Asia

______________________________________________________


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flint,
That doesn't really answer my argument.

I would still point out that the people and land on the West of the Indus, unless you are getting closer to Baluchistan or NWFP, are essentially the same as those on the East. So Megasthenes's description of the Western boundary of India cannot be taken literally.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Apparently Megasthenes was in Chandragupta Maurya's court as an ambassador for Seleucus I of Syria.

That would mean that his descriptions of India are in fact those of Maurya's empire, which might explain why he arbitrarily chose the Indus as his Western boundary, since the land and the people would not have suddenly changed across the river - East and West of the Indus is all the Indus plain.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Flint,
> That doesn't really answer my argument.
> 
> I would still point out that the people and land on the West of the Indus, unless you are getting closer to Baluchistan or NWFP, are essentially the same as those on the East. So Megasthenes's description of the Western boundary of India cannot be taken literally.



Well, the Indus boundary would most likely be a "soft" boundary, and would naturally involve the some land on the western bank as well. I don't think that "India" would end abruptly on the western shore.

Perhaps it could be interpreted as the Indus valley forming the eastern boundary of India. This would include the present Punjab and Sindh.

The text is quite interesting and informative, which is why I included a large portion of it. The entire text is available in the link specified. 

What I'm trying to point out is that the idea of India in the west has been largely shaped by this text - as a land of rich and plenty - vast plains and many rivers. 
I hope you'll agree that contesting this idea as "wrong" is rather strange and would not do justice to the last 2000 years of history.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Apparently Megasthenes was in Chandragupta Maurya's court as an ambassador for Seleucus I of Syria.
> 
> That would mean that his descriptions of India are in fact those of Maurya's empire, which might explain why he arbitrarily chose the Indus as his Western boundary, since the land and the people would not have suddenly changed across the river - East and West of the Indus is all the Indus plain.



This is the extent of the Mauryan Empire circa 300 BC:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Flint,
*
I at least am not contesting the idea of references to India as a 'region', similar to Asia, after a certain point. What I was contesting was the seemingly arbitrary choice of lands to the East of the Indus, which made no sense, and that is why I said that Megasthenes comments should not be taken literally. He chose natural landmarks, mountains, seas and rivers, to construct his definition, and similarly just picked the Indus for the Western boundary.

Megasthenes descriptions of ancient India make for interesting reading nonetheless, though they seem cursory, in that he was not able to distinguish between the rich variety of cultures and ethnicities that inhabited the region, and chose to describe them singularly.

It is also interesting that if Maurya's empire did extend as far as the map suggests, why Megasthenes did not use the Hindukush as his boundary. Possibly Maurya's empire had not stretched that far at that point.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Flint,
> *
> I at least am not contesting the idea of references to India as a 'region', similar to Asia, after a certain point. What I was contesting was the seemingly arbitrary choice of lands to the East of the Indus, which made no sense, and that is why I said that Megasthenes comments should not be taken literally. He chose natural landmarks, mountains, seas and rivers, to construct his definition, and similarly just picked the Indus for the Western boundary.



I think his idea of India was more than just a region - he saw it as a distinct cultural entity which was quite different from other regions that he had visited. 



> Megasthenes descriptions of ancient India make for interesting reading nonetheless, though they seem cursory, in that he was not able to distinguish between the rich variety of cultures and ethnicities that inhabited the region, and chose to describe them singularly.



Well we must forgive him for his shoddy research, but considering that he wrote all this in 300 BC, quite a feat I must say.



> It is also interesting that if Maurya's empire did extend as far as the map suggests, why Megasthenes did not use the Hindukush as his boundary. Possibly Maurya's empire had not stretched that far at that point.



That is possible, perhaps a full reading of _Indika_ will tell us more about the political situation.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> I think his idea of India was more than just a region - he saw it as a distinct cultural entity which was quite different from other regions that he had visited.


Megasthenes may not have seen it as a region because he was Ambassador to an Empire, and therefore it was primarily one united entity which is how he described it as well, but I was speaking in more general terms about historical references to regions.


> Well we must forgive him for his shoddy research, but considering that he wrote all this in 300 BC, quite a feat I must say.


Oh indeed, still very interesting as I said. A view from thousands of years ago, its quite a precious insight, especially into one of the great empires of South Asia.


----------



## Flintlock

Megasthenes wasn't the only author who wrote about India - there are a number of writers who wrote descriptions of their travels in India.

Also, the full text of Indika is not available, and only fragments survive.`

His description of Pataliputra - the capital of the Mauryas, and the habits of its inhabitants:
____________________________________________________________________

*
Of Pataliputra and the Manners of the Indians.
*
It is farther said that the Indians do not rear monuments to the dead, but consider the virtues which men have displayed in life, and the songs in which their praises are celebrated, sufficient to preserve their memory after death. But of their cities it is said that the number is so great that it cannot be stated with precision, but that such cities as are situated on the banks of rivers or on the sea-coast are built of wood instead of brick, being meant to last only for a time,--so destructive are the heavy rains which pour down, and the rivers also when they overflow their banks and inundate the plains,--while those cities which stand on commanding situations and lofty eminences are built of brick and mud; that the greatest city in India is that which is called Palimbothra, in the dominions of the Prasians, where the streams of the Erannoboas and the Ganges unite,--the Ganges being the greatest of all rivers, and the Erannoboas being perhaps the third largest of Indian rivers, though greater than the greatest rivers elsewhere; but it is smaller than the Ganges where it falls into it. Megasthenes informs us that this city stretched in the inhabited quarters to an extreme length on each side of eighty stadia, and that its breadth was fifteen stadia, and that a ditch encompassed it all round, which was six hundred feet in breadth and thirty cubits in depth, and that the wall was crowned with 570 towers and had four-and-sixty gates. The same writer tells us further this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians, and the Indians are here so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.

FRAGM. XXVII.

Strab. XV. i. 53-56,--pp. 709-10.
*
Of the Manners of the Indians.*

The Indians all live frugally, especially when in camp. They dislike a great undisciplined multitude, and consequently they observe good order. Theft is of very rare occurrence. Megasthenes says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory. They live, nevertheless, happily enough, being simple in their manners and frugal. They never drink wine except at sacrifices. Their beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, and their food is principally a rice-pottage. The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is proved by the fact that they seldom go to law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits, nor do they, require either seals or witnesses, but make their deposits and confide in each other. Their houses and property they generally leave unguarded. These things indicate that they possess good, sober sense; but other things they do which one cannot approve: for instance, that they eat always alone, and that they have no fixed hours when meals are to be taken by all in common, but each one eats when he feels inclined. The contrary custom would be better for the ends of social and civil life.

Their favourite mode of exercising the body is by friction, applied in various ways, but especially by passing smooth ebony rollers over the skin. Their tombs are plain, and the mounds raised over the dead lowly. In contrast to the general simplicity of their style, they love finery and ornament. Their robes are worked in gold, and ornamented with precious stones, and they wear also flowered garments made of the finest muslin. Attendants walking behind hold up umbrellas over them: for they have a high regard for beauty, and avail themselves of every device to improve their looks. Truth and virtue they hold alike in esteem. Hence they accord no special privileges to the old unless they possess superior wisdom. They marry many wives, whom they buy from their parents, giving in exchange a yoke of oxen. Some they marry hoping to find in them willing helpmates; and others for pleasure and to fill their houses with children. The wives prostitute themselves unless they are compelled to be chaste. No one wears a crown at a sacrifice or libation, and they do not stab the victim, but strangle it, so that nothing mutilated, but only what is entire, may be presented to the deity.

A person convicted of bearing false witness suffers mutilation of his extremities, He who maims any one not only suffers in return the loss of the same limb, but his hand also is cut off. If he causes an artizan to lose his hand or his eye, he is put to death. The same writer says that none of the Indians employ slaves; [but Onesikritos says that this was peculiar to that part of the country over which Musikanos ruled.]

The care of the king's person is entrusted to women, who also are bought from their parents. The guards and the rest of the soldiery attend outside the gates. A woman who kills the king when drunk becomes the wife of his successor. The sons succeed the father. The king may not sleep during the daytime, and by night he is obliged to change his couch from time to time, with a view to defeat plots against his life.

The king leaves his palace not only in time of war, but also for the purpose of judging causes. He then remains in court for the whole day, without allowing the business to be interrupted, even though the hour arrives when he must needs attend to his person,--that is, when he is to be rubbed with cylinders of wood. He continues hearing cases while the friction, which is performed by four attendants, is still proceeding. Another purpose for which he leaves his palace is to offer sacrifice; a third is to go to the chase, for which he departs in Bacchanalian fashion. Crowds of women surround him, and outside of this circle spearmen are ranged. The road is marked off with ropes, and it is death, for man and woman alike, to pass within the ropes. Men with drums and gongs lead the procession. The king hunts in the enclosures and shoots arrows from a platform. At his side stand two or three armed women. If he hunts in the open grounds he shoots from the back of an elephant. Of the women, some are in chariots, some on horses, and. some even on elephants, and they are equipped with weapons of every kind, as if they were going on a campaign.

[These customs are very strange when compared with our own, but the following are still more so;] for Megasthenes states that the tribes inhabiting the Kaukasos have intercourse with women in public, and eat the bodies of their relatives, that there are monkeys which roll down stones, &c. (Fragm. XV. follows, and then Fragm. XXIX.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Forgive me for spamming - but I think this makes interesting reading as well - another author - Pliny:
____________________________________________________________
*
Pliny: Position, Boundaries, and Physical Characteristics of India
*
BOOK VI. c. 17 (21). But where the chain of Hemodus rises the communities are settled, and the nations of India, which begin there, adjoin not only the eastern sea but also the southern, which we have already mentioned under the name of the Indian Ocean. That part which faces the east runs in a straight line to the bend where the Indian Ocean begins, and measures 1875 miles. Then from this bend to the south up to the river Indus, which forms the western boundary of India, the distance, as given by Eratosthenes, is 2475 miles. But many authors have represented the total length of its coast as being a sail of forty days and forty nights, and its length from north to south as being 2850 miles. Agrippa has estimated its length at 3300 miles, and its breadth at 2300. Poseidonios has measured it from north-east to south-east, placing it opposite to Gaul, which he was measuring from north-west to south-west, making the whole of India lie to west of Gaul. Hence he has shown by undoubted proofs that India being opposite to Gaul must be refreshed by the blowing of the west wind, and have in consequence a salubrious climate. Here the appearance of the heavens is entirely changed, and the stars rise differently; there are two summers in the year, and two harvests having winter between them, while the Etesian winds are prevalent; and during our winter the breezes there are light and the seas navigable. In this country the nations and cities are numberless should one attempt to reckon them all up. It was opened up to our knowledge not only by the arms of Alexander the Great and of the kings who succeeded him, Seleucus and Antiochus, as well as by their admiral Patrokles who sailed round even into the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, but also by certain Greek authors, who resided with Indian kings, such as Megasthenes, and Dionysius who was sent by Philadelphus, and have thus informed us of the power and resources of the Indian nations. However, there is no room for a careful examination of their statements, they are so diverse and incredible. The companions of Alexander the Great have written that in that tract of India, which he subdued, there were 5000 towns, none less than Cos--that its nations were nine in number--that India was the third part of all the world, and that the multitude of its inhabitants was past reckoning. For this there was probably a good reason, since the Indians almost alone among the nations have never emigrated from their own borders. Their kings from Father Bacchus down to Alexander the Great are reckoned at 153 over a space of 6451 years and three months. The vast size of their rivers fills the mind with wonder. It is recorded that Alexander on no day had sailed on the Indus less than 600 stadia, and was unable to reach its mouth in less than five months and a few days, and yet it appears that it is smaller than the Ganges. Seneca, who was our fellow-citizen and composed a treatise on India, has given the number of its rivers at 60, and that of its nations at 118. It would be as great a difficulty should we attempt to enumerate its mountains. The chains of Imavos, Hemodus, Paropanisus, and Caucasus are mutually connected, and from their base the whole country sinks down into a plain of immense extent and bears a great resemblance to Egypt. But that our account of the geography of these regions may be better understood, we shall tread in the steps of Alexander the Great, whose marches were measured by Diognetes and Baeton.

BooK II. c. 73 (75). In the same way they inform us that in the town of Syene, which is 5000 stadia south of Alexandria, no shadow is cast at noon on the day of the solstice, and that a well dug for the purpose of the experiment was completely illuminated, from which it appears that the sun is vertical at that place, and Onesicritus writes that in India this is the case at that time at the river Hypasis. . . . In the country of the Oretes, a people of India, is the mountain Maleus, near which shadows in the summer are cast to the south and in winter to the north. The stars of the Great Bear are visible there for fifteen days only. In India also, at Patala, a celebrated port, the sun rises on the right hand and the shadows fall to the south. It was observed, while Alexander was staying there the seven stars of the Bear were seen only at the early part of the evening. Onesicritus, one of his generals, states that in those parts of India where there are no shadows the Bear is not seen; these places, he says, are called 'ascia,' and time there is not reckoned by hours.

C. 108 (112). One part of the earth . . . stretches out to the greatest extent from east to west, that is, from India to the Pillars of Hercules at Gades, being a distance of 8578 miles according to Artemidorus, but according to Isidorus 9818 miles.

Book VI. c. 16 (18). This nation (the Bactrian) lies at the back of Mount Paropanisus over against the sources of the river Indus

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ali.009

India is a fake, wrong name given to hindu land. India means - land of the Indus, i.e it belongs to the poeple of Pakistan. 

India should be renamed to Ganges-desh, or something related to Ganges, or just simply Hindustan. A country promoting itself as a glamorous civilization should atleast first correct its 'imported' incorrect name.


----------



## Flintlock

Ali.009 said:


> India is a fake, wrong name given to hindu land. India means - land of the Indus, i.e it belongs to the poeple of Pakistan.
> 
> India should be renamed to Ganges-desh, or something related to Ganges, or just simply Hindustan. A country promoting itself as a glamorous civilization should atleast first correct its 'imported' incorrect name.



Wow....after the entire Mahabharat....


----------



## Vinod2070

Well you can only take the horse to the water....


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

I think the point Ali and RR made is valid in the sense that the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.

Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate.

However, since Pakistan did not want the name, there is no point in arguing over the fact that Congress chose it for their political entity (leaving aside any arguments over whether Jinnah may have assumed that India would not be chosen), other than the problem of confusion over Pakistani history or regional (South Asian) history vs the Republic of India's history.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I think the point Ali and RR made is valid in the sense that the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.
> 
> Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate.



K...looks like we're back to square one....so never mind...whatever makes you happy.

I've made my point, and anyone without an obvious bias will understand.

Perhaps you should start by questioning the rationale behind the name "Indonesia" before moving on to India. 

In addition, let us stop using English because all the words in the english language had different meanings to begin with. Lets go all the way to 15000 BC and communicate using animal sounds.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> K...looks like we're back to square one....so never mind...whatever makes you happy.
> 
> I've made my point, and anyone without an obvious bias will understand.
> 
> Perhaps you should start by questioning the rationale behind the name "Indonesia" before moving on to India.
> 
> In addition, let us stop using English because all the words in the english language had different meanings to begin with. Lets go all the way to 15000 BC and communicate using animal sounds.



Your 'point' I referenced in my post while arguing why the name was incorrectly chosen in 1947. 
*
"the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.

Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate."*

Almost everything you have posted validates my argument above. Megasthenes quote was based on his position as an Ambassador to the Maurya empire, which at that moment covered a large part of South Asia, including the Indus, and before then we had the Greeks primarily referring to the lands comprising Pakistan alone as 'India'.

The usage of the word India historically has predominantly been in the context of 'Empire'/'State', controlling regions inclusive of the Indus, or in the context of 'region' - that is 'South Asia'. The contemporary Indian Republic meets neither of those standards. But hey, no one can stop anyone from picking any name they like, its just that yours is inaccurate given the historical usage, and that is why historians make a distinction between 'ancient India' and the "republic of India'.

I think you made inaccurate assumptions about what we agreed upon when we left this discussion last. 

But whatever makes *you* happy.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Your 'point' I referenced in my post while arguing why the name was incorrectly chosen in 1947.
> *
> "the literal derivation of the name 'India' from the river Indus does imply that is inaccurately used for the contemporary Indian Republic, since the river Indus is not within its boundaries.*


*


Does the word "India" mean "Indus"? NO. It does not. It is a CORRUPTION of the word "Sindhu", which obviously doesn't imply that it must have the same meaning.

How hard is that to understand? 





Historical references of India also refer to either the region, or empires at the time that encompassed the river Indus, so on both those counts the adoption of the name "India" in 1947 was inaccurate."

Click to expand...


Bullshit. Historical references of India always term India a region, and throughout most of ancient history, the term has been used for the entire Indian Subcontinent.




Almost everything you have posted validates my argument above. Megasthenes quote was based on his position as an Ambassador to the Maurya empire, which at that moment covered a large part of South Asia, including the Indus, and before then we had the Greeks primarily referring to the lands comprising Pakistan alone as 'India'.

Click to expand...


So how does that validate your argument at all? Why should you favour one political setup over another ? 

The point is that the Greeks (and later the Persians/Turks) used the term India/Hindustan to refer to the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent.

Since modern day India includes most of this territory, it is but obvious that we would choose this name, just like any political entity covering most of Europe would choose the word "Europe". 

The word "Europe" originally referred to the Greek Mainland, but was later in 500 BC onwards expanded slowly to eventually include the whole continent . So should we now stop using word "Europe" because it was originally used for just Greece? 

Now I am going to argue that the word "Hindu" should be used for the inhabitants of the region of Pakistan, since the word "Hindu" is far more obviously a corruption of "Sindhu" river. 

Kosher? 

No. Obviously not. Because that's not how language works. 





The usage of the word India historically has predominantly been in the context of 'Empire'/'State', controlling regions inclusive of the Indus, or in the context of 'region' - that is 'South Asia'. The contemporary Indian Republic meets neither of those standards. But hey, no one can stop anyone from picking any name they like, its just that yours is inaccurate given the historical usage, and that is why historians make a distinction between 'ancient India' and the "republic of India'.

Click to expand...


The contemporary Indian Republic covers most of the territory comprising historical India, and that is what matters.

What DOES NOT matter however, is the origins of the word. I don't care if the term "India" originally meant "Apple". Its the usage which is important.

If we extend your logic, we can argue that the name "Pakistan" has no historic basis at all, and is simply an arbitrary construct and is therfore false. 




I think you made inaccurate assumptions about what we agreed upon when we left this discussion last. 

But whatever makes you happy.

Click to expand...


I don't think we have ever agreed or we will ever agree, because you are obviously hell-bent upon somehow not accepting the plain facts before your eyes.

That is obviously what makes you happy.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Does the word "India" mean "Indus"? NO. It does not. It is a CORRUPTION of the word "Sindhu", which obviously doesn't imply that it must have the same meaning.
> 
> How hard is that to understand?
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Historical references of India always term India a region, and throughout most of ancient history, the term has been used for the entire Indian Subcontinent.
> 
> So how does that validate your argument at all? Why should you favour one political setup over another ?
> 
> The point is that the Greeks (and later the Persians/Turks) used the term India/Hindustan to refer to the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent.
> 
> Since modern day India includes most of this territory, it is but obvious that we would choose this name, just like any political entity covering most of Europe would choose the word "Europe".
> 
> The word "Europe" originally referred to the Greek Mainland, but was later in 500 BC onwards expanded slowly to eventually include the whole continent . So should we now stop using word "Europe" because it was originally used for just Greece?
> 
> Now I am going to argue that the word "Hindu" should be used for the inhabitants of the region of Pakistan, since the word "Hindu" is far more obviously a corruption of "Sindhu" river.
> 
> Kosher?
> 
> No. Obviously not. Because that's not how language works.
> 
> 
> The contemporary Indian Republic covers most of the territory comprising historical India, and that is what matters.
> 
> What DOES NOT matter however, is the origins of the word. I don't care if the term "India" originally meant "Apple". Its the usage which is important.
> 
> If we extend your logic, we can argue that the name "Pakistan" has no historic basis at all, and is simply an arbitrary construct and is therfore false.
> 
> 
> I don't think we have ever agreed or we will ever agree, because you are obviously hell-bent upon somehow not accepting the plain facts before your eyes.
> 
> That is obviously what makes you happy.



Been off volunteering for Obama's campaign and busy with school, so I haven't logged on for like a week.

The name India, bastardized and all, is derived from the Indus/Sindhu. That's my point, not that it is what the natives of the time called it, but that it originated because of a geographical feature, a river, called the Indus, now located in Pakistan. Therefore the usage of the name by the Indian Republic on the basis of any geographic indicators is flawed, since the geographic indicators are not located in India.

My second point is that even though the name originally referred to the territories primarily comprising Pakistan, it was expanded to encompass larger and larger tracts of South Asia, and as such its usage was extended to empires encompassing large sections of South Asia, and the region of South Asia in general. It is therefore historically inaccurate to name the contemporary republic as such, since the contemporary republic does not include many of the lands that comprised the region referred to as India throughout most of its history. In fact, hardly ever was the region referred to as 'India' not inclusive of the lands comprising Pakistan, and specifically the Indus valley and the Indus river.

Now, I am not staking a claim to the name or hoping to rename Pakistan - Nehru chose it for your nation, and he could have chosen any name, and that was his prerogative. We chose Pakistan, and we are proud of that name and happy with it. I am however pointing out that usage of the name is inaccurate since the modern Indian republic reflects neither the geographic entity that the name was derived from, nor does it contain many of the regions that were part of the 'region of India', that popular 'usage' referred to throughout history. However, it is a name as is Pakistan, and as I said before, a nation can choose whatever name it desires, but that does not mean the name is historically accurate.

I am not hell bent upon rejecting any 'facts', I feel I have argued my point quite rationally. You seem to be flying into a tizzy however.


----------



## s90

On Wikipedia : The name India (pronounced /&#712;&#618;ndi&#601;/) is derived from Indus, which is derived from the Old Persian word Hindu, from Sanskrit Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the Indus River(in Pakistan)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

I should add one thing, which perhaps I was not clear about in my earlier posts. While I consider the usage of the name 'India' by the contemporary republic to be historically inaccurate, it is nonetheless not entirely inaccurate, since the contemporary republic is comprised of a large portion of the lands that used to be referred to as India.

The usage of the name India is therefore not as inaccurate as, say, Pakistan being named Greece, or India being named Japan etc.


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> This is the extent of the Mauryan Empire circa 300 BC:



Thanks for posting this fictional map. As for Chandragupta Maurya's conquests, I don't remember reading in history that he even waged a campaign against anyone, let alone conquests. 

He along with his adviser and minister Kautilya, actually usurped the Nanda throne in a coup. The nanda kingdom was extensive, but not at all what has been shown on the map. 

After he gained power, there is no record of him conquering anything.


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> Thanks for posting this fictional map. As for Chandragupta Maurya's conquests, I don't remember reading in history that he even waged a campaign against anyone, let alone conquests.
> 
> He along with his adviser and minister Kautilya, actually usurped the Nanda throne in a coup. The nanda kingdom was extensive, but not at all what has been shown on the map.
> 
> After he gained power, there is no record of him conquering anything.



Well golly gee darkstar. Care to provide some sources?


----------



## DarkStar

which part of my statement do you dispute and need sources for?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I should add one thing, which perhaps I was not clear about in my earlier posts. While I consider the usage of the name 'India' by the contemporary republic to be historically inaccurate, it is nonetheless not entirely inaccurate, since the contemporary republic is comprised of a large portion of the lands that used to be referred to as India.
> 
> The usage of the name India is therefore not as inaccurate as, say, Pakistan being named Greece, or India being named Japan etc.



Wow...thanks for that concession sir...glad to know that India being named India isn't as wrong as Pakistan being named Greece. 

How about this - lets calculate the total area of South Asia , do the same for modern India, and get the percentage. 

Well it comes to around 3.3/4.5 which is approx. 73%. That should settle it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> which part of my statement do you dispute and need sources for?



The part where that map is supposed to be fictional.


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> Wow...thanks for that concession sir...glad to know that India being named India isn't as wrong as Pakistan being named Greece.
> 
> How about this - lets calculate the total area of South Asia , do the same for modern India, and get the percentage.
> 
> Well it comes to around 3.3/4.5 which is approx. 73%. That should settle it.



Yes, and magically transport the Indus river smack bang, in the middle of the deccan too...

An India without the INdus river. lol


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Wow...thanks for that concession sir...glad to know that India being named India isn't as wrong as Pakistan being named Greece.
> 
> How about this - lets calculate the total area of South Asia , do the same for modern India, and get the percentage.
> 
> Well it comes to around 3.3/4.5 which is approx. 73%. That should settle it.



What was that about?

The name isn't used entirely out of place, it is nonetheless inaccurate since it implies that the modern Indian republic is synonymous with the ancient Indian region.

Its like a country calling itself Asia.


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> Yes, and magically transport the Indus river smack bang, unto the middle of the deccan too...
> 
> An India without the INdus river. lol



Dude, mind going through the thread once before replying to it? 

Also, I see that you haven't managed to back up your claim about the map being "fictional".


----------



## Vinod2070

Just because alien invaders attacked India, later divided the country (and turned some natives), settled a part of it doesn't mean that they also own the country's history.

They may now occupy an important part of India's ancient lands and that means squat except that they occupy other people's land illegally.

The Ottoman Turks occupied the lands of Turkey and no one say they have anything to do with the Greco Roman empire that was based out of Constantinople before that invasion and occupation of other people's lands.

The river Indus never had anything to do with the Arabs and the myriad other invaders that this holy land suffered. We miss that river in our hearts even now.

It may have been snatched from us physically but not from our hearts.


----------



## Vinod2070

> Its like a country calling itself Asia.



AM, just read this statement again and see if even you don's wince and grimace.


----------



## Vinod2070

A bit on Chandragupta's conquests for those who don't know their history.



> *After Alexander's death in 323 BC, Chandragupta, turned his attention to Northwestern India (modern Pakistan), where he defeated the satrapies (described as "prefects" in classical Western sources) left in place by Alexander (according to Justin), and may have assassinated two of his governors, Nicanor and Philip.[3][31] The satrapies he fought may have included Eudemus, ruler in western Punjab until his departure in 317 BC; and Peithon, son of Agenor, ruler of the Greek colonies along the Indus until his departure for Babylon in 316 BC. The Roman historian Justin described how Sandrocottus (Greek version of Chandragupta's name) conquered the northwest:
>  "India, after the death of Alexander, had assassinated his prefects, as if shaking the burden of servitude. The author of this liberation was Sandracottos, but he had transformed liberation in servitude after victory, since, after taking the throne, he himself oppressed the very people he has liberated from foreign domination." 
> *
> Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.12-13
>  "He was of humble origin, but was pushing to acquiring the throne by the superior power of the mind. When after having offensed the king of Nanda by his insolence, he was condemned to death by the king, he was saved by the speed of his own feet" 
> 
> Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.15
>  "Later, as he was preparing war against the prefects of Alexander, a huge wild elephant went to him and took him on his back as if tame, and he became a remarkable fighter and war leader. Having thus acquired royal power, Sandracottos possessed India at the time Seleucos was preparing future glory." 
> 
> Junianus Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, XV.4.19
> 
> *Having consolidated power in the northwest, Chandragupta pushed east towards the Nanda Empire.*



Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another one:


> *Conquests*
> Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent in 317 BC. Thereafter, he turned his attention towards Northwestern India. Chandragupta allied with the Himalayan king Parvatka and launched an attack against Dhana Nanda of the Nanda Empire. The battle ended around 321 BC, with the siege of the capital city of Kusumapura and the conquest of the Nanda Empire. Thus was born the powerful Maurya Empire in Northern India.
> 
> *Conquest of Seleucus' Eastern Territories*
> After the conflict with Seleucus in 305 BC, Emperor Chandragupta Maurya extended his empire towards Seleucid Persia. Through a treaty sealed in 305 BC, Seleucus gave up the country around the Indus River to Chandragupta, including the Hindu Kush, present day Afghanistan and the Balochistan province of Persia. In return, he received five hundred war elephants, increasing his military strength.
> 
> *Southern Conquests*
> After annexing the eastern Persian provinces Seleucus, Chandragupta's empire stretched across the northern parts of Southern Asia, from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea. Thereafter, began his conquests in south, beyond the Vindhya Range and into the Deccan Plateau. Most of the Southern Asia got united under the rule of Chandragupta Maurya.



Chandragupta Maurya - King Chandragupta Maurya, Chandragupta Maurya Biography, Chandragupta Maurya Life History

The Arab masters of some people were not the only ones who built empires!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

Chandragupta Maurya was himself based in teh Northwest, TAxila to be exact. This is where Alexander is supposed to have met him while he was a student (according to legend). 

Under the patronage of Kautilya, he first tried to assume power by an unsuccessful coup. AFterwards, Kautilya arranged for him along with other disgruntled local rulers at the edges of the Nanda empire, to attack the nanda regions, piecemeal, culminating in the capture of Magadh, and Pataliputr.

Before assuming power, one of the chiefs who was an ally, was reported to have been poisoned by Kautliya, so Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne in 320 BCE, without opposition.

But what I pointed out, was that as a ruler, he made no further conquests, or campaigns after capturing the Magadhan throne. Well, not any that have been documented.

As for the accuracy of the map provided by Flintlock, let me say that the history books that I have read do not include gujrat (proper), sindh, rajasthan andhra, tamil nadu and karnataka as being part of the empire during the time of Chandragupta Maurya, although the map claims that these are all his conquests.

Historical proof of his not having ruled over Karnataka can be found in the fact that he abdicated his throne, and led a congegation of jains south through the deccan, to karnataka, in 297 BCE. There was a dire prediction of a famine (by a revered student of the lord Mahvir no less), unless he left his kingdom. He along with his followers, after a lot of travelling settled in a place called Shravan Balgol, near modern day Bangelore.

The place has ever since been a home for the jains, and has probably teh worlds tallest ancient sculpture, that of the nude Gomateshwar. Google it if you don't know. 

Anyway, this journey outside his kingdom proves that it did not extend as far south as is claimed in the map.


----------



## DarkStar

> Conquests
> Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent in 317 BC. Thereafter, he turned his attention towards Northwestern India. Chandragupta allied with the Himalayan king Parvatka and launched an attack against Dhana Nanda of the Nanda Empire. The battle ended around 321 BC, with the siege of the capital city of Kusumapura and the conquest of the Nanda Empire. Thus was born the powerful Maurya Empire in Northern India.



Like I said before, this was before he ascended the throne. Which campaign did he undertake afterwards?



> Conquest of Seleucus' Eastern Territories
> After the conflict with Seleucus in 305 BC, Emperor Chandragupta Maurya extended his empire towards Seleucid Persia. Through a treaty sealed in 305 BC, Seleucus gave up the country around the Indus River to Chandragupta, including the Hindu Kush, present day Afghanistan and the Balochistan province of Persia. In return, he received five hundred war elephants, increasing his military strength.



He certainly extended it, but conquered wouldn't be the right word. If you must know, it was Seleucus who invaded Nanda territory in 305 BCE, and is assumed to have been defeated. The territory ceded to Chandragupta in exchange for 500 elephants was territory that had been previously under Seleucus' control, but was always a troublesome area for him, since he had more pressing engagements in the west. A bit fortuitous for Chandragupta, if you ask me, and definitely not a campaign of conquest launched by Chandragupta.



> Southern Conquests
> After annexing the eastern Persian provinces Seleucus, Chandragupta's empire stretched across the northern parts of Southern Asia, from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea. Thereafter, began his conquests in south, beyond the Vindhya Range and into the Deccan Plateau. Most of the Southern Asia got united under the rule of Chandragupta Maurya.



Only as far as Nanda rule. There is no evidence for a seperate campaign to unite the south. There is evidence of some gains in the south in the time of Ashoka Maurya, but that is not what we are discussing now.


----------



## TOPGUN

Haha u guys are so funny with this silly topic or perhaps it has changed to something else!! lol


----------



## DarkStar

TOPGUN said:


> Haha u guys are so funny with this silly topic or perhaps it has changed to something else!! lol



huh???


----------



## TOPGUN

darkStar said:


> huh???



Boss i was laughing in the snese u guys were going back and forth ! u guys were getting our indian friends pissed !


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> Like I said before, this was before he ascended the throne. Which campaign did he undertake afterwards?
> 
> He certainly extended it, but conquered wouldn't be the right word. If you must know, it was Seleucus who invaded Nanda territory in 305 BCE, and is assumed to have been defeated. The territory ceded to Chandragupta in exchange for 500 elephants was territory that had been previously under Seleucus' control, but was always a troublesome area for him, since he had more pressing engagements in the west. A bit fortuitous for Chandragupta, if you ask me.



That's simply your interpretation of it, not that it matters anyway. Empires are not built by military conquest alone. Ask the British. More of their empire was built on treaties and concessions.



> Only as far as Nanda rule. There is no evidence for a seperate campaign to unite the south. There is evidence of some gains in the south in the time of Ashoka Maurya, but that is not what we are discussing now.



Oddly enough, the fact that Chandragupta migrated south with a group of Jain Monks to Shravanabelagola is cited as proof that his empire did extend upto there, in India: A history.


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> That's simply your interpretation of it, not that it matters anyway. Empires are not built by military conquest alone. Ask the British. More of their empire was built on treaties and concessions.



Could the British empire have been built without the battle of Plassey? It was an offensive campaign, and opened the way for future conquest. And I did not interpret it any which way, the facts speak for themselves. AFter assuming power, Chandragupta is not credited with any conquests. He might have done, for all we know. But we don't have anything tangible to go by, and evidence suggests that he didn't.



> Oddly enough, the fact that Chandragupta migrated south with a group of Jain Monks to Shravanabelagola is cited as proof that his empire did extend upto there, in India: A history.



It is cited as proof that the empire 'may' have extended that far south, or that it was somewhere near teh border areas. But on this very page the author also says that the southern extent of Chandragupta's empire is unkown and a matter for speculation. There is nothing concrete that we know about its supposed southern dominions. 

Chandragupta's travelling to the south is not "irrevocible" proof that he must have ruled there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

although i am glad that you are referring to India A history, and excellent book and a must read.


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> It is cited as proof that the empire 'may' have extended that far south, or that it was somewhere near teh border areas. But on this very page the author also says that the southern extent of Chandragupta's empire is unkown and a matter for speculation. There is nothing concrete that we know about its supposed southern dominions.
> 
> Chandragupta's travelling to the south is not "irrevocible" proof that he must have ruled there.



In any case, I'd consider it a positive that he did not build his empire by conquest alone. 

That book is just one source, there are many sources which do consider southern Karnataka as the extent of his empire.


----------



## DarkStar

any 'source' must also furnish some archealogical or documented proof. There is none for Chandragupta Maurya. Assertions by Bharatiya and other Historians are just not enough.


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> any 'source' must also furnish some archealogical or documented proof. There is none for Chandragupta Maurya. Assertions by Bharatiya and other Historians are just not enough.



Well I'm sure that the word of a historian is worth more than yours or mine, so lets leave it at that.

You have your reasons to disagree with sources which extend his empire deep into South India, and I have my reasons to agree with those same sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Well I'm sure that the word of a historian is worth more than yours or mine, so lets leave it at that.
> 
> You have your reasons to disagree with sources which extend his empire deep into South India, and I have my reasons to agree with those same sources.



See, this is similar to my criticism of the authors or 'Historians' that claim the Pakistani Army 'raped and killed millions' in East Pakistan.

What is the basis of their claims? What evidence can they furnish to back up those claims? Just because a 'historian' says it is so, does not make it the word of God. As readers with a brain, we must uses it, and analyze what evidence and arguments any author advances before we simply take his work as gospel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> See, this is similar to my criticism of the authors or 'Historians' that claim the Pakistani Army 'raped and killed millions' in East Pakistan.
> 
> What is the basis of their claims? What evidence can they furnish to back up those claims? Just because a 'historian' says it is so, does not make it the word of God. As readers with a brain, we must uses it, and analyze what evidence and arguments any author advances before we simply take his work as gospel.



Ah well, there are a number of Bharatiya historians who have written on the topic, as well as a number of foreign authors. Perhaps you might consider making a list of various sources to decide which might be the most credible.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Ah well, there are a number of Bharatiya historians who have written on the topic, as well as a number of foreign authors. Perhaps you might consider making a list of various sources to decide which might be the most credible.



It depends on what the evidence behind the argument is.


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> Well I'm sure that the word of a historian is worth more than yours or mine, so lets leave it at that.
> 
> You have your reasons to disagree with sources which extend his empire deep into South India, and I have my reasons to agree with those same sources.



Any historian worth his weight, must always give some sort of proof of his statements. 

This can come in a variety of ways. Evidence from archaelogocial finds, evidence from eye witness accounts, or like you said, from other Historians (but in this case, the original Historians references will be checked, to see whether any of the above proofs are used by the said Historian).

How can anyone accept the word of a Historian writing in the 20th century, about events that happened in 300 BCE, without referring to any ancient inscriptions, coins, buildings, palaces, or documentary evidence from that time?

We know the Harappans were in Harappa, Mohenjo daro, and other places due to the tangible remains of the cities they had built, the pottery they had created, the statuettes that they made and the cotton fabrics that they had worn. 

Sadly, no such evidence exists of Chandragupta's reign in peninsular INdia, so how can one possibly accept speculative claims that are based more on hope than reailty?

Like I said, without such evidence, the words of a 20th century Historian can not be taken as 'truth'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> Any historian worth his weight, must always give some sort of proof of his statements.
> 
> This can come in a variety of ways. Evidence from archaelogocial finds, evidence from eye witness accounts, or like you said, from other Historians (but in this case, the original Historians references will be checked, to see whether any of the above proofs are used by the said Historian).
> 
> How can anyone accept the word of a Historian writing in the 20th century, about events that happened in 300 BCE, without referring to any ancient inscriptions, coins, buildings, palaces, or documentary evidence from that time?
> 
> We know the Harappans were in Harappa, Mohenjo daro, and other places due to the tangible remains of the cities they had built, the pottery they had created, the statuettes that they made and the cotton fabrics that they had worn.
> 
> Sadly, no such evidence exists of Chandragupta's reign in peninsular INdia, so how can one possibly accept speculative claims that are based more on hope than reailty?
> 
> Like I said, without such evidence, the words of a 20th century Historian can not be taken as 'truth'.



Now I haven't read too many history books, perhaps a couple, but I am pretty sure that no historian bases his research on pure hearsay. 

If a certain claim is made, there is obviously some sort of evidence - either literary or epigraphic, or archaeological.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> but I am pretty sure that no historian bases his research on pure hearsay.
> 
> If a certain claim is made, there is obviously some sort of evidence - either literary or epigraphic, or archaeological.



That is not necessarily true - if a Pakistani historian were to make claims you disagreed with, you would be sure to ask how he/she arrived at their conclusions. It would be completely appropriate to question their sources and evidence, so why shouldn't that yardstick be applied to other contentious issues?

I believe that Indian and some Bangladeshi historians have an agenda when they talk about, IMO, highly inflated casulaties resulting from events of 1971. Hence my insistence on the methodology and evidence used to arrive at their numbers. Other historians could have similar biases, agenda's, omissions etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That is not necessarily true - if a Pakistani historian were to make claims you disagreed with, you would be sure to ask how he/she arrived at their conclusions. It would be completely appropriate to question their sources and evidence, so why shouldn't that yardstick be applied to other contentious issues?
> 
> I believe that Indian and some Bangladeshi historians have an agenda when they talk about, IMO, highly inflated casulaties resulting from events of 1971. Hence my insistence on the methodology and evidence used to arrive at their numbers. Other historians could have similar biases, agenda's, omissions etc.



*
Radha Kumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 4th ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988 [1966]), 31, 28&#8211;33.*

_This is a comprehensive work dealing with the life and times of India`s first historical emperor, and a picture of the civilization of India in the early period of the fourth century BC. The author had utilized much material found in Arthasastra. The work also embodies collation and comparison of evidence from different sources, classical works in Sanskrit, Buddhist and jaina texts and the inscriptions of Asoka. The book gives a detailed account of Chandragupta Maurya and the general view of his administration. It has covered almost all aspects of administration including the king, ministers and officers with rules of service and divisions of administrative departments; governance of land system and rural administration along with municipal administration, the source of law and dispensation of justice and the army and its management. Besides social and economic conditions of that times have been elaborately discussed. The detailed contents serves as an index of subjects, the other parts are--Index of technical terms, three appendics which enrich utility of the book and a plate of typical Mauryan Coins. DR. RADHA KUMUD MOOKERJI is Professor of History in the Bengal National College under the Principalship of the late Sri Aurobindo. Subsequently he joined the Mysore University where he was Professor of History from 1917 to 1921. Thereafter he became Professor and Head of the Department of History in Lucknow University and remained there for twenty-five years. He was a prolific author and had to his credit 15 books on different aspects of ancient India._

http://www.vedicbooks.net/chandragupta-maurya-and-his-times-p-2259.html

*Here is the relevant part of the book on Google Books:*

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA38,M1


----------



## Jay_

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The name India, bastardized and all, is derived from the Indus/Sindhu. That's my point, not that it is what the natives of the time called it, but that it originated because of a geographical feature, a river, called the Indus, now located in Pakistan. Therefore the usage of the name by the Indian Republic on the basis of any geographic indicators is flawed, since the geographic indicators are not located in India.



If Indus river is not in India, I wonder why India is a signatory to Indus river water treaty. A cursory glance on Indus river catchment areas or the flow of the river itself would prove whether Indus flows through India or not.

The river originates in China (Tibet), it flows through India in to Pakistan and empty's at Arabian Ocean. So all of your contentions that India has no geographical locus standi on Indus is just hogwash.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Jay_ said:


> If Indus river is not in India, I wonder why India is a signatory to Indus river water treaty. A cursory glance on Indus river catchment areas or the flow of the river itself would prove whether Indus flows through India or not.
> 
> The river originates in China (Tibet), it flows through India in to Pakistan and empty's at Arabian Ocean. So all of your contentions that India has no geographical locus standi on Indus is just hogwash.



Laddakh as part of J&K is disputed, and the selection of the name at the time of India's creation after partition could not have possibly been with the foresight of J&K, or even a part of it, going to India.

Until a final resolution of the J&K dispute that puts territory the Indus runs through under India, the Indus does not flow through recognized Indian territory.


----------



## ju87

The huge discussion on Pakistan being India aside (I think Pakistan has a pretty weak case on this), the reason Nehru might have selected the name India, rather than Hindustan or Bharat or worse yet, Aryavarta (VHP would've loved it) was to present a secular image of the country. Congress always envisioned India as secular rather than Hindu and naming the country Hindustan or Bharat would give it Hindu overtones. Something Pakistan would've jumped to bashing anyway, it seems to be a national pastime to bash India judging from the posts here.


----------



## rubyjackass

OK guys... 
I will give a hopefully irrefutable arguement.
Consider the history in terms of people not in terms of region.
So it means that the history of India belongs to modern Indians as well.
Actually here the values of that history are still practised.
The history of ancient India is their history too.
In terms of this, modern Indians constitute mainstream India.

And hence ...

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

rubyjackass said:


> OK guys...
> I will give a hopefully irrefutable arguement.
> Consider the history in terms of people not in terms of region.
> So it means that the history of India belongs to modern Indians as well.
> Actually here the values of that history are still practised.
> The history of ancient India is their history too.
> In terms of this, modern Indians constitute mainstream India.
> 
> And hence ...



India does not represent one group of people. Each group of people in India have their own history and culture. You cant associate certain historical events in Pakistani land, with masses of people in India who have no historical ties to Pakistani land. 

The term Indian has been used for different people throughout the subcontinent. Alexander used it for a specific group of people residing between two rivers in Pakistani Punjab. These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.

The British used the term Indian for the whole subcontinent, and this is the definition modern Indians prefer.

The logical use of the term Indian would be that to define modern India, not 1849-1947 British Indian empire.
And the history associated with "Ancient India" should be that which belongs to modern Indians, not to the people of 1849-1947 British Indian empire.

The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> What was that about?
> 
> The name isn't used entirely out of place, it is nonetheless inaccurate since it implies that the modern Indian republic is synonymous with the ancient Indian region.
> 
> Its like a country calling itself Asia.


_
The word Asia originated from the Greek word "&#7944;&#963;&#943;&#945;", first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 B.C.) in reference to Anatolia or, for the purposes of describing the Persian Wars, to the Persian Empire_
Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which means that "Asia" originally referred Anatolia (Turkey).

So is the ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) wrong to use the term "Asia" to identify itself, because it doesn't include the "original" Asia i.e. Anatolia (Turkey)?

Especially since Turkey now considers itself a part of Europe? 

If an Asian Union is formed in the future which excludes the middle-east, will it be wrong if it refers to itself as the "Asian Union"?

Obviously not, because its the usage that matters, not the origin. This is what I have argued throughout this thread, but you seem to be unwilling to understand that. 

Even if the origin does matter to some people, the river Indus does flow through Ladakh, which is for all intents and purposes a part of the Republic of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

> The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.



That was the extent of the spread of Indian civilization, may be even more.

You go to Korea and you will find that they have stories from the Ramayana! Just check what you see at the airport in Bangkok, at the Angkor Wat in Combodia, check the extent of Indian civilization influence in Indonesia, Malaysia and so on.

The extent of Aryavrata or Jambudweepa (mentioned in our scriptures) does not extend to those lands. It probably includes most of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan.


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> That was the extent of the spread of Indian civilization, may be even more.
> 
> You go to Korea and you will find that they have stories from the Ramayana! Just check what you see at the airport in Bangkok, at the Angkor Wat in Combodia, check the extent of Indian civilization influence in Indonesia, Malaysia and so on.
> 
> The extent of Aryavrata or Jambudweepa (mentioned in our scriptures) does not extend to those lands. It probably includes most of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan.



The spread of a certain ideology does not equate to the borders of Ancient India.
Would you define everything between Spain and Kashmir as being part of Ancient Saudi Arabia? And that the people of Saudi lay claim to history of everything in that region (from the beginning of time)?

A nation should represent the people of that nation. In the Indian case, why do so many things originate from the lands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal etc?


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> The spread of a certain ideology does not equate to the borders of Ancient India.
> Would you define everything between Spain and Kashmir as being part of Ancient Saudi Arabia? And that the people of Saudi lay claim to history of everything in that region (from the beginning of time)?
> 
> A nation should represent the people of that nation. In the Indian case, why do so many things originate from the lands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal etc?



That is where the confusion lies. These countries are modern entities. There was no Pakistan before 1947. Nepal is definitely a part of the Indian civilization, you have to just go there to see it. I have done so and can say that with authority. Afghanistan was more or less on the periphery of the Indian civilization for most of the time. Like we had Shakuni (a villain) in Mahabharata coming from Gandhara.

Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam, to represent the Islamic heritage of India (from the time of invasion of Bin Qasim). It is debatable if it can be said to represent all of that but that was the premise as per your own father of the nation. 

So the fact remains that Pakistan has forsaken any pre-Islamic history willingly. Many Pakistanis even try to claim foreign lineage form the invaders (many on this forum) and feel proud of that. What kind of heritage do they have over any history of ancient India?

I will argue that Pakistan is about an idea rather than about a geography (which is just an accident). Any claim of trying to claim any history post facto on the basis of that geography is dishonest. Trying to do that exclusively is outright fraud! No one gave any significance to the IVC at the time when Pakistan was created. Do you want to change the whole basis of your nationhood just because the British discovered the IVC!

The period before the partition was a period of common and shared history. Don't you guys also feel that the Mughal history belongs to Pakistan too, even though it was based in present India for the most part?

The country was not politically united for much of that history but that does not take away from a significantly common civilization and culture with local variations.


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> That is where the confusion lies. These countries are modern entities. There was no Pakistan before 1947. Nepal is definitely a part of the Indian civilization, you have to just go there to see it. I have done so and can say that with authority. Afghanistan was more or less on the periphery of the Indian civilization for most of the time. Like we had Shakuni (a villain) in Mahabharata coming from Gandhara.
> 
> Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam, to represent the Islamic heritage of India (from the time of invasion of Bin Qasim). It is debatable if it can be said to represent all of that but that was the premise as per your own father of the nation.
> 
> So the fact remains that Pakistan has forsaken any pre-Islamic history willingly. Many Pakistanis even try to claim foreign lineage form the invaders (many on this forum) and feel proud of that. What kind of heritage do they have over any history of ancient India?
> 
> I will argue that Pakistan is about an idea rather than about a geography (which is just an accident). Any claim of trying to claim any history post facto on the basis of that geography is dishonest. Trying to do that exclusively is outright fraud! No one gave any significance to the IVC at the time when Pakistan was created. Do you want to change the whole basis of your nationhood just because the British discovered the IVC!
> 
> The period before the partition was a period of common and shared history. Don't you guys also feel that the Mughal history belongs to Pakistan too, even though it was based in present India for the most part?
> 
> The country was not politically united for much of that history but that does not take away from a significantly common civilization and culture with local variations.



You cant decide in any way that "Pakistan has forsaken its pre Islamic history". In reality there is no such thing as forsaking your own history. Yes I agree, Pakistanis have ignored their pre Islamic history, but its not up for grabs to the highest bidder.

No matter how hard you try to justify this using 19th century politics, the ancestors of the Pakistani people will remain the same. Ancestors of Indian people wont change. You cant simply start claiming a foreign peoples identity, even if they have certain misconceptions.
And least of all, you shouldn't be promoting said misconceptions.

I don't understand what logic you are using to turn Pakistan into a special case scenario. Do you realise how many countries gained independence in the 20th century from European colonialism? 

India is in that list too.

Pakistan is simply another country that gained independence. Nothing was "created" in the way you seem to be stuck on. Pakistani people were not created overnight. Neither was Pakistani land or identity or language or history.

14 August 1947 was not a grand amnesia day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> You cant decide in any way that "Pakistan has forsaken its pre Islamic history". In reality there is no such thing as forsaking your own history. Yes I agree, Pakistanis have ignored their pre Islamic history, but its not up for grabs to the highest bidder.
> 
> No matter how hard you try to justify this using 19th century politics, the ancestors of the Pakistani people will remain the same. Ancestors of Indian people wont change. You cant simply start claiming a foreign peoples identity, even if they have certain misconceptions.
> And least of all, you shouldn't be promoting said misconceptions.
> 
> I don't understand what logic you are using to turn Pakistan into a special case scenario. Do you realise how many countries gained independence in the 20th century from European colonialism?
> 
> India is in that list too.
> 
> Pakistan is simply another country that gained independence. Nothing was "created" in the way you seem to be stuck on. Pakistani people were not created overnight. Neither was Pakistani land or identity or language or history.
> 
> 14 August 1947 was not a grand amnesia day.



Again, I never said that the ancient history does not belong to you. It does. It is you who called in Jahiliya and shunned it like much of the Muslim world did and the Arabs did.

If now some of you have come to realize that it was not all Jahiliya before Kasim invaded Sindh, good for you. It means you were lied to earlier about this matter!


----------



## rubyjackass

UnitedPak said:


> India does not represent one group of people. Each group of people in India have their own history and culture. You cant associate certain historical events in Pakistani land, with masses of people in India who have no historical ties to Pakistani land.
> 
> The term Indian has been used for different people throughout the subcontinent. Alexander used it for a specific group of people residing between two rivers in Pakistani Punjab. These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.
> 
> The British used the term Indian for the whole subcontinent, and this is the definition modern Indians prefer.
> 
> The logical use of the term Indian would be that to define modern India, not 1849-1947 British Indian empire.
> And the history associated with "Ancient India" should be that which belongs to modern Indians, not to the people of 1849-1947 British Indian empire.
> 
> The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.



Ancient India was 'the land east of Indus'. Not land between some two rivers(particularly not those in Punjab). 
And Indians sre those who carry the culture now. The same people had it as far as Arunachal Pradesh and Tamilnadu. 


'These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.'
May be...
But their culture was so similar. And later they could all live together under later emperors.

'The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.'

So be it...
THe people who understood they are Indians came under India. 

With such long history and vagueness in the territoy at that time. It is only reasonable that, as time goes, the land where people still follow the same culture be regarded by the name. Ancient India started as 'land of Hindus'. Then lot of mingling with foreign invaders happened. This new culture began to be associated with India and the land which exhibited this culture as new India. This repeated till the modern times. 

So, the people who subscribed to this wholesome culture after independence claimed the name 'India'.
And those who rejected it became something else.
And so I don't see anything against India being 'India'.


And the reason why still people feel a togetherness because at some point of time transitivvely every part of India got ruled by rulers of some other part or had very cordial relations with another part.


----------



## UnitedPak

rubyjackass said:


> Ancient India was 'the land east of Indus'. Not land between some two rivers(particularly not those in Punjab).
> And Indians sre those who carry the culture now. The same people had it as far as Arunachal Pradesh and Tamilnadu.
> 
> 
> 'These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.'
> May be...
> But their culture was so similar. And later they could all live together under later emperors.
> 
> 'The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.'
> 
> So be it...
> THe people who understood they are Indians came under India.
> 
> With such long history and vagueness in the territoy at that time. It is only reasonable that, as time goes, the land where people still follow the same culture be regarded by the name. Ancient India started as 'land of Hindus'. Then lot of mingling with foreign invaders happened. This new culture began to be associated with India and the land which exhibited this culture as new India. This repeated till the modern times.
> 
> So, the people who subscribed to this wholesome culture after independence claimed the name 'India'.
> And those who rejected it became something else.
> And so I don't see anything against India being 'India'.
> 
> 
> And the reason why still people feel a togetherness because at some point of time transitivvely every part of India got ruled by rulers of some other part or had very cordial relations with another part.



Please use facts so that I can better understand your point of view.

I was specifically talking about Porus Kingdom of Punjab which Alexander invaded. That kingdom was referred to as "India", and it was entirely located inside Pakistan, between two of the Indus river tributaries (Jhelum and the Chenab). Technically speaking the kingdom starts "east of the Indus", but ends not far from "east of the Indus".

The culture argument you present is flawed. I have already pointed out in the posts above that converting to Islam doesnt change our origins or ancestors. But which culture in particular are you referring to yourself?

Culture of North India? East India? South India?

What makes you think the pre Islamic Pakistani culture was "so similar" to "Indian culture", if India itself has so many different cultures? 
Would you define Tamil, Gujarati, and Assamese cultures "so similar". If not, then which ones of these cultures is "so similar" to the pre Islamic Pakistani culture?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ju87

UnitedPak said:


> Please use facts so that I can better understand your point of view.
> 
> I was specifically talking about Porus Kingdom of Punjab which Alexander invaded. That kingdom was referred to as "India", and it was entirely located inside Pakistan, between two of the Indus river tributaries (Jhelum and the Chenab). Technically speaking the kingdom starts "east of the Indus", but ends not far from "east of the Indus".
> 
> The culture argument you present is flawed. I have already pointed out in the posts above that converting to Islam doesnt change our origins or ancestors. But which culture in particular are you referring to yourself?
> 
> Culture of North India? East India? South India?
> 
> What makes you think the pre Islamic Pakistani culture was "so similar" to "Indian culture", if India itself has so many different cultures?
> Would you define Tamil, Gujarati, and Assamese cultures "so similar". If not, then which ones of these cultures is "so similar" to the pre Islamic Pakistani culture?



To give you an example, Germany was never a united country till 1871. North Germans are Lutheran while Bavaria is Catholic. Southern German dialects are so different from the Northern German dialects. Does that mean Germany does not exist today as a nation? Is there no German nationalism (post-WWII there isn't much but that's another story). Despite this, German history is called German history. So why is India singled out every time as a nation that "didn't exist"? The concept of nation states itself did not exist until the 16th Century in Europe and 1945 in Asia (Japan excepted).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> I was specifically talking about Porus Kingdom of Punjab which Alexander invaded. That kingdom was referred to as "India", and it was entirely located inside Pakistan, between two of the Indus river tributaries (Jhelum and the Chenab). Technically speaking the kingdom starts "east of the Indus", but ends not far from "east of the Indus".



Oh for goodness sake why are you people so fixated with Alexander? Everytime the topic comes up I read a new post on how Alexander visited Pakistan and not India.

Since 300 BC historians and writers have referred to the entire subcontinent as India. That's a grand total of over 2200 years. If after all of this history you are still stuck with Alexander's encounter with King Paurush then only Allah can help you.

Also, the reason why Alexander turned back was because he heard of a mighty Indian king with 6000 war elephants at his disposal. Clearly, he would not have considered this kingdom (Magadha to be precise) to be part of Europe or Africa. _

Alexander's next goal was to reach the Ganges River, which was actually 250 miles away, because he thought that it flowed into the outer Ocean. His troops, however, had heard tales of the powerful Indian tribes that lived on the Ganges and remembered the difficulty of the battle with Porus, so they refused to go any farther east. Alexander was extremely disappointed, but he accepted their decision and persuaded them to travel south down the rivers Hydaspes and Indus so that they might reach the Ocean on the southern edge of the world. The army rode down the rivers on the rivers on rafts and stopped to attack and subdue villages along the way. During this trip, Alexander sought out the Indian philosophers, the Brahmins, who were famous for their wisdom, and debated them on philosophical issues._

Source you say? Here it is: 

Alexander in India

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

^^ It is so obviously a fact that Alexander did not enter further into India because the real Indian empire of the time (the Magadha) had a large standing army of 100,000 plus. Alexander's soldiers refused to push in on knowing this.

What Alexander encountered was a small frontier Indian Hindu king at the margins of India and that was enough to give him a scare.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ju87 said:


> To give you an example, Germany was never a united country till 1871. North Germans are Lutheran while Bavaria is Catholic. Southern German dialects are so different from the Northern German dialects. Does that mean Germany does not exist today as a nation? Is there no German nationalism (post-WWII there isn't much but that's another story). Despite this, German history is called German history. So why is India singled out every time as a nation that "didn't exist"? The concept of nation states itself did not exist until the 16th Century in Europe and 1945 in Asia (Japan excepted).



I don;t see that as a valid comparison to South Asia - the intra-German distinctions you refer to are ideological and dialectal, whereas the intra-South Asian distinctions are cultural, ethnic, linguistic AND dialectal.

Intra-German distinctions are better compared to intra-Pashtun or intra-Punjabi differences.

There is no grouping such as 'Indian' beyond the contemporary Indian nation state, that is identified with 'nationhood'. Prior to 1947, India was just an identifier for a 'region', as is 'Asia' - this has all been covered before.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> There is no grouping such as 'Indian' beyond the contemporary Indian nation state, that is identified with 'nationhood'. *Prior to 1947, India was just an identifier for a 'region', as is 'Asia' *- this has all been covered before.



Is that so? Oh dear - then I wonder from where all these Indian Nationalists appeared all of a sudden in 1947 and for some strange reason, began to raise Indian flags and sing some anthem!

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> the real Indian empire of the time



Oh and how convenient for you to determine the 'real' Indian empire. Were there carpet baggers going around selling fake 'empire certificates', that there are distinctions to be made between what is 'real' or not?

The term 'India' historically refers to a 'region', as does the term 'Asia', whether an empire was large or small does not determine whether it was 'real Indian' or 'fake Indian', just as history for Asia cannot be classified as 'real Asian or fake Asian'.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Is that so? Oh dear - then I wonder from where all these Indian Nationalists appeared all of a sudden in 1947 and for some strange reason, began to raise Indian flags and sing some anthem!



Precisely my point - they appeared all of a sudden.

Your argument is just as flawed as that made by Muslims arguing for a pan-Islamic nation. Just because the idea exists does not mean the nation itself is justified, or that if all Muslim lands are one day (say the year 2400) conquered or united, that an argument can be retrospectively made that, 'look - there was Islamic nationalism and all these scholars and political leaders calling for a united Islamic nation, ergo the Islamic world was always one nation'.

The 'Indian nationalism' argument is just as bankrupt as that one.


----------



## ju87

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I don;t see that as a valid comparison to South Asia - the intra-German distinctions you refer to are ideological and dialectal, whereas the intra-South Asian distinctions are cultural, ethnic, linguistic AND dialectal.
> 
> Intra-German distinctions are better compared to intra-Pashtun or intra-Punjabi differences.
> 
> There is no grouping such as 'Indian' beyond the contemporary Indian nation state, that is identified with 'nationhood'. Prior to 1947, India was just an identifier for a 'region', as is 'Asia' - this has all been covered before.



There was no 'Germany' before 1871 either - it was Bavaria, Bohemia, Saxony, Prussia, etc. 

So what if there are so many great variations in India? A nation state doesn't have to be COMPLETELY homogenous - it has to have a few common threads of similarities. Indian Tamils and Gujaratis aren't as different as Mexicans and Ethiopians for example. They might not be all Germans but they're not Mexicans, Ethiopians and Finns stuck in a room either. To think of it, I don't know any parallel or precedent to what has happened in India - an incredible variety of people have existed as a single nation for 60 years under a democracy. So we might be wrong in looking for a historical comparison anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## ju87

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Oh and how convenient for you to determine the 'real' Indian empire. Were there carpet baggers going around selling fake 'empire certificates', that there are distinctions to be made between what is 'real' or not?
> 
> The term 'India' historically refers to a 'region', as does the term 'Asia', whether an empire was large or small does not determine whether it was 'real Indian' or 'fake Indian', just as history for Asia cannot be classified as 'real Asian or fake Asian'.



He meant the Magadha empire was strong enough and as such the real force that stopped Alexander's conquests. 



> Precisely my point - they appeared all of a sudden.



Really now?  So the concept of an Indian nation has NO basis whatsoever in Indian history? No basis in a united Mughal empire, a Mauryan or Gupta empire?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Precisely my point - they appeared all of a sudden.



My dear friend, Indian Nationalism has a long and rich history, which culminated in the formation of the Republic of India in 1947. 
Need I say more? 



> Your argument is just as flawed as that made by Muslims arguing for a pan-Islamic nation. Just because the idea exists does not mean the nation itself is justified, or that if all Muslim lands are one day (say the year 2400) conquered or united, that an argument can be retrospectively made that, 'look - there was Islamic nationalism and all these scholars and political leaders calling for a united Islamic nation, ergo the Islamic world was always one nation'.



Well the Indian nation exists, and so does Indian nationalism. Does that make it justified in your opinion? 



> The 'Indian nationalism' argument is just as bankrupt as that one.



Oh dear....well that's just too bad for you, cause the existence of the Indian nation is more than enough to justify the arguments for Indian Nationalism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ju87 said:


> There was no 'Germany' before 1871 either - it was Bavaria, Bohemia, Saxony, Prussia, etc.
> 
> So what if there are so many great variations in India? A nation state doesn't have to be COMPLETELY homogenous - it has to have a few common threads of similarities. Indian Tamils and Gujaratis aren't as different as Mexicans and Ethiopians for example. They might not be all Germans but they're not Mexicans, Ethiopians and Finns stuck in a room either. To think of it, I don't know any parallel or precedent to what has happened in India - an incredible variety of people have existed as a single nation for 60 years under a democracy. So we might be wrong in looking for a historical comparison anyway.



It doesn't quite work that way.

You are arbitrarily defining a region that fits in with this mythical 'Indian nation' and arguing that the 'shared threads/similarities' justify the 'nation' argument.

Move across any contiguous land mass and you will notice a steady melding from one group of people into another - hardly ever do you get a stark contrast such as teh one you make of the Finnish and Ethiopians. 

For example, go from East to West in Pakistan, and characteristics and culture steadliy , not abruptly, change, the same occurs as you move steadily into Iran and Afghanistan, and from there into the Arab world etc. etc.

Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?



Sure, but it depends on how people see it. If a group of people agree that they have enough commonalities to form a nation, then that's how it is. 

As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.


----------



## ju87

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> It doesn't quite work that way.
> 
> You are arbitrarily defining a region that fits in with this mythical 'Indian nation' and arguing that the 'shared threads/similarities' justify the 'nation' argument.
> 
> Move across any contiguous land mass and you will notice a steady melding from one group of people into another - hardly ever do you get a stark contrast such as teh one you make of the Finnish and Ethiopians.
> 
> For example, go from East to West in Pakistan, and characteristics and culture steadliy , not abruptly, change, the same occurs as you move steadily into Iran and Afghanistan, and from there into the Arab world etc. etc.
> 
> Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?



I have no problems with Pakistan merging with Iran and Afghanistan. In fact I saw a thread here sometime back calling for just that. If Pakistanis can live as peacefully as Indians have so far in a national union of Iran-Pak-Afghanistan, I'm happy for them.

And I'm not arbitrarily defining a region either. The Indian subcontinent is a distinct geographical region with distinct geographical boundaries - the Baluchistan desert, Himalayas, north-eastern jungles and the Indian ocean. It's people look similar to each other by and large and share a common history. Of course, with the Partition, India is no longer at its geographical boundaries and also has minorities that were not historically Indian. But that is a tragedy of history one has to live with.

We even have a separate tectonic plate from Asia!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> My dear friend, Indian Nationalism has a long and rich history, which culminated in the formation of the Republic of India in 1947.
> Need I say more?


So does pan-Islamic nationalism - a few hundred years more and it will likely still exist - duration of existence of any view point does not make it a valid argument



> Well the Indian nation exists, and so does Indian nationalism. Does that make it justified in your opinion?
> 
> Oh dear....well that's just too bad for you, cause the existence of the Indian nation is more than enough to justify the arguments for Indian Nationalism.


 First off, I am not questioning the contemporary Indian republics nationhood - I am questioning the arguments raised in support of an "Indian nation' prior to 1947.

The contemporary Indian Republic only validates the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that chose to become part of it, just as a pan-Islamic nation will only justify the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that choose to become part of it.

If only half of the Islamic world chooses to unite in a nation a few hundred years from now, the fact that 'Islamic nationalism' exists in favor of the unification of ALL of the Islamic world does not imply that the other half that does not choose to become part of this future "Islamic nation' is also somehow a part of it.

Your nationhood extends only so far as the people who accept it - and it is clear from the existence of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, what the extent of the 'Indian nation' is.


----------



## ju87

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So does pan-Islamic nationalism - a few hundred years more and it will likely still exist - duration of existence of any view point does not make it a valid argument
> 
> 
> First off, I am not questioning the contemporary Indian republics nationhood - I am questioning the arguments raised in support of an "Indian nation' prior to 1947.
> 
> The contemporary Indian Republic only validates the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that chose to become part of it, just as a pan-Islamic nation will only justify the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that choose to become part of it.
> 
> If only half of the Islamic world chooses to unite in a nation a few hundred years from now, the fact that 'Islamic nationalism' exists in favor of the unification of ALL of the Islamic world does not imply that the other half that does not choose to become part of this future "Islamic nation' is also somehow a part of it.
> 
> Your nationhood extends only so far as the people who accept it - and it is clear from the existence of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, what the extent of the 'Indian nation' is.



AFAIK, the two nation theory was floated in the 1920s. For the sake of clarity, let's assume Indian nationalism began with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885. From 1885 to 1920s then, there was a case being made for an "Indian nation", without the idea of Pakistan.


----------



## Flintlock

^A nation is a group of people who consider themselves to be one, but may or may not have a country of their own. Its impossible to define when India became a nation, but clearly sometime between the great rebellion of 1857 and the declaration of independence of 1947, the birth of Indian nationhood took place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ju87 said:


> I have no problems with Pakistan merging with Iran and Afghanistan. In fact I saw a thread here sometime back calling for just that. If Pakistanis can live as peacefully as Indians have so far in a national union of Iran-Pak-Afghanistan, I'm happy for them.
> 
> And I'm not arbitrarily defining a region either. The Indian subcontinent is a distinct geographical region with distinct geographical boundaries - the Baluchistan desert, Himalayas, north-eastern jungles and the Indian ocean. It's people look similar to each other by and large and share a common history. Of course, with the Partition, India is no longer at its geographical boundaries and also has minorities that were not historically Indian. But that is a tragedy of history one has to live with.
> 
> We even have a separate tectonic plate from Asia!



But you are arbitrarily defining a region, even geographically. The Indus valley plains in Pakistan make a distinct geographical feature as well, as do the arid Baluchistan mountains and plains, as do the deserts of Sindh-Rajasthan, as do the jungles of East India, Bangladesh, Myanmar etc.

You are picking the geographical boundaries you prefer and arguing that because the were lumped into one regional classification, that enforces the 'nation' argument. 

Why should we stop with the classification of the sub-continent, why not argue for nationhood on the basis of 'Asia'?

That is a regional classification based on geographical features/boundaries as well after all.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ju87 said:


> AFAIK, the two nation theory was floated in the 1920s. For the sake of clarity, let's assume Indian nationalism began with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885. From 1885 to 1920s then, there was a case being made for an "Indian nation", without the idea of Pakistan.



But currently Pan-Islamic nationhood argues for a nation based on a unification of ALL Muslim lands - does that imply that all Muslim lands are a single nation, just because the idea exists?


----------



## Flintlock

^Its hardly arbitrary. "India" as a distinct cultural and geographical entity has been known for most of written history. 

There's a reason why outsiders referred to it as "Hindustan" in its entirety and not "Xistan" and "Yistan" and "Zistan". 

Ultimately its perception, and the perception both inside and outside India was that we were a separate entity from the rest of the known world.

There's a reason why Indian writers throughout history referred only to greeks, persians and central asians as "foreigners" and not some other tribes within India.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> ^Its hardly arbitrary. "India" as a distinct cultural and geographical entity has been known for most of written history.
> 
> There's a reason why outsiders referred to it as "Hindustan" in its entirety and not "Xistan" and "Yistan" and "Zistan".
> 
> Ultimately its perception, and the perception both inside and outside India was that we were a separate entity from the rest of the known world.
> 
> There's a reason why Indian writers throughout history referred only to greeks, persians and central asians as "foreigners" and not some other tribes within India



But 'Asia' has been known as a 'distinct geographical and cultural entity' for even longer that the 'regional sub-classification of India'. 

It is arbitrary that you do not go for nationhood on the larger entity of 'Asia', nor the smaller entities of 'Pashtun, Punjabi, Sindhi, Benagali, Tamil etc, but rather an arbitrary choice that fits a modern nationalism.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> But 'Asia' has been known as a 'distinct geographical and cultural entity' for even longer that the 'regional sub-classification of India'.
> 
> It is arbitrary that you do not go for nationhood on the larger entity of 'Asia', nor the smaller entities of 'Pashtun, Punjabi, Sindhi, Benagali, Tamil etc, but rather an arbitrary choice that fits a modern nationalism.



Why should I go for Asian nationhood, when the Asians themselves don't see themselves as one nation? 

Very strange argument.


----------



## ju87

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> But you are arbitrarily defining a region, even geographically. The Indus valley plains in Pakistan make a distinct geographical feature as well, as do the arid Baluchistan mountains and plains, as do the deserts of Sindh-Rajasthan, as do the jungles of East India, Bangladesh, Myanmar etc.
> 
> You are picking the geographical boundaries you prefer and arguing that because the were lumped into one regional classification, that enforces the 'nation' argument.
> 
> Why should we stop with the classification of the sub-continent, why not argue for nationhood on the basis of 'Asia'?
> 
> That is a regional classification based on geographical features/boundaries as well after all.



The geographical boundaries I mentioned have indeed shaped the culture and people of the "region" (as you call it) of India. In the medieval times, it was a sin for a Hindu to travel beyond the Indus, while the Himalayas and the northeastern jungles marked a physical boundary between Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples. The deserts of Baluchistan were a definite barrier to any invasion of India in a way that your example, the Indus valley plains are not.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Why should I go for Asian nationhood, when the Asians themselves don't see themselves as one nation?
> 
> Very strange argument.



And the Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis do not see themselves as one nation either - nor is there any evidence that the peoples of South Asia, bar a few politicians and scholars/thinkers here and there, historically ever thought of themselves as a nation, until the ideas of India and Pakistan came about.

And that is what I am getting at - it is people who define nationhood - and the only evidence we have of people defining nationhood in South Asia is evidence that points to multiple nations, not one.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> And the Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis do not see themselves as one nation either - nor is there any evidence that the peoples of South Asia, bar a few politicians and scholars/thinkers here and there, historically ever thought of themselves as a nation, until the ideas of India and Pakistan came about.
> 
> And that is what I am getting at - it is people who define nationhood - and the only evidence we have of people defining nationhood in South Asia is evidence that points to multiple nations, not one.



But nationalism itself is a modern development, so naturally one wouldn't see examples of nationalism before the development of Indian and Pakistani nationalism. 

Obviously people define nationhood, and when countries are formed and sustained without major conflicts, that is ample proof that nationhood exists. 

In any case, "nationhood" itself is a western construct. The people of India have always seen themselves as one entity, united by their beliefs, traditions and outlook towards life. This may not exactly fit the modern definition of "nation", but the written and oral historical record in India shows that Indians considered themselves as a separate entity from the "foreigners".

The earliest records in India show a clear distinction between the "civilized" and the "barbarians", and most of the time, the "barbarians" are mentioned as being from somewhere west of the Indus.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

ju87 said:


> The geographical boundaries I mentioned have indeed shaped the culture and people of the "region" (as you call it) of India. In the medieval times, it was a sin for a Hindu to travel beyond the Indus, while the Himalayas and the northeastern jungles marked a physical boundary between Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples. The deserts of Baluchistan were a definite barrier to any invasion of India in a way that your example, the Indus valley plains are not.



They haven't kep the culture isolated in those boundaries, nor have they prevented the melding of cultures both inside and outside those boundaries.

The Pashtun are settled on both sides of forbidding mountainous terrain as are the Baluch, and cultures flow and steadily change, not abruptly (as I pointed out already). Islam and Arabs crossed from both land and sea into the subcontinent.

The isolation you speak of does not exist - South Asia is diverse and it shares common threads within, and without - to both East and West - it is the nature of human settlement and movement.

As I said to Flint - it is people that define nationhood, and they have spoken in favor of multiple nations in South Asia.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> The people of India have always seen themselves as one entity, united by their beliefs, traditions and outlook towards life.



If that were true then the argument we are having would have long been over. That is precisely what I have questioned. Seeing yourself as 'one entity' is analogous to modern nationhood, and there is absolutely no evidence that was the case historically.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If that were true then the argument we are having would have long been over. That is precisely what I have questioned. Seeing yourself as 'one entity' is analogous to modern nationhood, and there is absolutely no evidence that was the case historically.



Not necessarily. There are various ways in which a people can see themselves as one, and as different from outsiders, and it doesn't have to fit the exact definition of "nationhood" in order to be recognized.


----------



## ju87

Flintlock said:


> Not necessarily. There are various ways in which a people can see themselves as one, and as different from outsiders, and it doesn't have to fit the exact definition of "nationhood" in order to be recognized.



Case in point being the Ummah? Not accounting for pan-Islamism of course.



> The Pashtun are settled on both sides of forbidding mountainous terrain as are the Baluch, and cultures flow and steadily change, not abruptly (as I pointed out already). Islam and Arabs crossed from both land and sea into the subcontinent.
> 
> The isolation you speak of does not exist - South Asia is diverse and it shares common threads within, and without - to both East and West - it is the nature of human settlement and movement.



Which is why the traditional boundary of India was considered to be the Indus - EAST of Baluchistan. I have no doubt the Baluchi people are influenced by Iran more than India, they are different and so are the Pashtuns. A crude way to put it would be that they both look different from Indians east of the Indus in general. I never said the subcontinent was isolated culturally, just demographically, since about 1500 BC.


----------



## deltacamelately

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Correct, and that process truly started in 1947 for both countries, before then, the "shared identity" was a result of a shared occupation and desire to rid ourselves of that occupation. Notice how quickly *that "shared identity" fell apart, when the British decided to leave, and millions wanted a nation of their own*. I doubt your claim of "a building of Indian identity over centuries" was a widespread ideal amongst the masses of the different nations of the subcontinent


AM,
My expectation from you are higher. If somebody thinks that present day India wants to somehow reclaim Pakistan, I for once will call him a paranoid. However, and with reference to your above statement, let us remind ourselves that bulk of the muslims didn't opt for Pakistan and remained entwined in the nationhood called India. If the present day Pakistanis really want to diffrentiate themselves from the present day Indians and claim their ancestory to the Vedic Sanatan Dharmis, to establish that the Indians are of a different and probably lower stock (something being taught to the new breed), the best way is to opt for a genetic test and demarcation. Unfortunately, and I've mentioned this in someother thread, the genetic demarcation doesn't exist and both these people share the same gene pool namely the R-2, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup, characterized by the genetic marker M124. 

Please, let us not delude ourselves and teach our offsprings a distorted history. India might not have been a single country all the time. The Mauryans, Guptas, Marathas, Sikhs, Mughals and lastly the British *did* bring most of the areas under a common flag, but the important thing is that India *did* exist as a civilization meandering and changing with time. Your ancestors were our ancestors otherwise the genetic marker couldn't been same. We retained most of our ancestors civilizational and culturo-religious practices, you abondoned them post 712 and embraced a newer, foreign religion and customs, but that is a change of lifestyle and way of worship*not* a change of your bloodline. The partition was a political decission and demarcation, not a genetic one. A Punjabi/Sindhi/Mohajir Pakistani has more in common with say a Allahabadi, Bhopali or a Hyderabadi then a Persian or even an Arab. Visit WAB, you will find my photo album there with photos of my wife and son. Watch them keenly and see the difference. Know what? My wife's grandfather hails from Lahore and her grandmother hails from Pindi, both are settled in Mumbai and with the allmighty's grace, keeping healthy even at this age. 

AM, let's not teach our children a history that is erronous and sow, hatred, complex and a sense of enemity. Enough damage has already been done by our previous generations, let's salvage some atleast.

regards,

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rubyjackass

UnitedPak said:


> Please use facts so that I can better understand your point of view.
> 
> I was specifically talking about Porus Kingdom of Punjab which Alexander invaded. That kingdom was referred to as "India", and it was entirely located inside Pakistan, between two of the Indus river tributaries (Jhelum and the Chenab). Technically speaking the kingdom starts "east of the Indus", but ends not far from "east of the Indus".




Clearly it is not that just the first chinese kingdom discovered is called China now. The discovery is not a prerequisite. 




UnitedPak said:


> The culture argument you present is flawed. I have already pointed out in the posts above that converting to Islam doesnt change our origins or ancestors. But which culture in particular are you referring to yourself?
> 
> Culture of North India? East India? South India?
> 
> What makes you think the pre Islamic Pakistani culture was "so similar" to "Indian culture", if India itself has so many different cultures?
> Would you define Tamil, Gujarati, and Assamese cultures "so similar". If not, then which ones of these cultures is "so similar" to the pre Islamic Pakistani culture?



I was pointing out that culture evolves as settlers mingle with locals and rulers change. The culture which is a totality of all these is now called the 'Indian culture'.

Tamil, Gujarathi and Assamese may not be similar. People of these places got ruled by people who believed that they are Indians and started accepting themselves as Indians. These people spread this Indianness to their conquests. This kind of transitive property caused the shape of present India.


----------



## UnitedPak

*@Flintlock*

I have given you plenty of examples of regions and kingdoms entirely in Pakistan. Starting from the Indus valley, to Porus kingdom, Ghandara, to the countless of provinces and princely states we saw before and during the British Empire. Yet you still preach this imaginary nationhood of the subcontinent. There wasnt any.
The British conquered each province one by one, and it took them 100s of years. At independance there was around 600 Princely states with their own rulers, and even then a lot of them wanted complete independance.

Yet you have decided to ignore all these regions, and make random claims about geographical boundaries being the borders of this India. 

You have also nicely ignored by arguments about the cultures of North India, East India and South India. If these cultures are not similar, what are the chances pre Islamic Pakistani culture would be similar to this "Indian culture" you speak of.

Also note your claims on pre Islamic Pakistani culture and the borders of Ancient India are all based on assumptions and ignore the realities the subcontinent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rubyjackass

UnitedPak said:


> *@Flintlock*
> 
> I have given you plenty of examples of regions and kingdoms entirely in Pakistan. Starting from the Indus valley, to Porus kingdom, Ghandara, to the countless of provinces and princely states we saw before and during the British Empire. Yet you still preach this imaginary nationhood of the subcontinent. There wasnt any.
> The British conquered each province one by one, and it took them 100s of years. At independance there was around 600 Princely states with their own rulers, and even then a lot of them wanted complete independance.
> 
> Yet you have decided to ignore all these regions, and make random claims about geographical boundaries being the borders of this India.
> 
> You have also nicely ignored by arguments about the cultures of North India, East India and South India. If these cultures are not similar, what are the chances pre Islamic Pakistani culture would be similar to this "Indian culture" you speak of.
> 
> Also note your claims on pre Islamic Pakistani culture and the borders of Ancient India are all based on assumptions and ignore the realities the subcontinent.



The world would have had 600 more countries then
All you can do is that India managed its unity admirably.


Flintlock said:


> ^A nation is a group of people who consider themselves to be one, but may or may not have a country of their own. Its impossible to define when India became a nation, but clearly sometime between the great rebellion of 1857 and the declaration of independence of 1947, the birth of Indian nationhood took place.



I consider this a winner.


----------



## UnitedPak

rubyjackass said:


> The world would have had 600 more countries then
> All you can do is that India managed its unity admirably.



So are you denying that there were 600 princely states? Or are you just amused by big numbers?

Your attitude doesn't change the realities of the subcontinent. There were countless of provinces and princely states.


----------



## rubyjackass

UnitedPak said:


> So are you denying that there were 600 princely states? Or are you just amused by big numbers?
> 
> Your attitude doesn't change the realities of the subcontinent. There were countless of provinces and princely states.



Just amused by big numbers. Do you know how many countries there are now?

Nobody disagrees there were so many provinces, 545 I think. Indian textbooks clearly state the number. I forgot it. 

Everybody acknowledges this fact. Actually Indians feel proud that they managed to stay together.

So what is the point of this fuss now?

Look at the realities of the sub-continent NOW.


----------



## roadrunner

deltacamelately said:


> AM,
> My expectation from you are higher. If somebody thinks that present day India wants to somehow reclaim Pakistan, I for once will call him a paranoid. However, and with reference to your above statement, let us remind ourselves that bulk of the muslims didn't opt for Pakistan and remained entwined in the nationhood called India. If the present day Pakistanis really want to diffrentiate themselves from the present day Indians and claim their ancestory to the Vedic Sanatan Dharmis, to establish that the Indians are of a different and probably lower stock (something being taught to the new breed), the best way is to opt for a genetic test and demarcation. Unfortunately, and I've mentioned this in someother thread, the genetic demarcation doesn't exist and both these people share the same gene pool namely the R-2, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup, characterized by the genetic marker M124.



This is all bogus. 

First you say Pakistan is India's to "reclaim". It's not India's to reclaim, it never was. This is proven time and time again. 

Genetics. You pull up a certain haplogroup marker, M124. Before commenting on something so bullishly, why not understand wat it is you are commenting on? There are many differnt haplogroups that characterize a population. R2 is just one, it means very little since R2 is found in high numbers in Kurdistani people - these are completely distinct to Indians in appearance, and in language. Taking data from wiki or from some Indian researchers usually will give errors since I've found Indian wiki pages and Indian researchers to be among the worst for falsifying data. R2's origins are most likely to be in central asia, as Spencer Wells states. If you want to group the people of the subcontinent into genetic clusters, the Pakistani groups do not fall into the same group as the Indian ones. 

There is some overlap between some Pakistani groups and upper caste Northwest Indian groups, but these form a very small percentage of the Indian population. 



> Please, let us not delude ourselves and teach our offsprings a distorted history. India might not have been a single country all the time. The Mauryans, Guptas, Marathas, Sikhs, Mughals and lastly the British *did* bring most of the areas under a common flag, but the important thing is that India *did* exist as a civilization meandering and changing with time. Your ancestors were our ancestors otherwise the genetic marker couldn't been same. We retained most of our ancestors civilizational and culturo-religious practices, you abondoned them post 712 and embraced a newer, foreign religion and customs, but that is a change of lifestyle and way of worship*not* a change of your bloodline. The partition was a political decission and demarcation, not a genetic one. A Punjabi/Sindhi/Mohajir Pakistani has more in common with say a Allahabadi, Bhopali or a Hyderabadi then a Persian or even an Arab. Visit WAB, you will find my photo album there with photos of my wife and son. Watch them keenly and see the difference. Know what? My wife's grandfather hails from Lahore and her grandmother hails from Pindi, both are settled in Mumbai and with the allmighty's grace, keeping healthy even at this age.



The genetic markers of some Africans from the subsahara are shared with some blonde haired Europeans. Would you classify them as the same race? If you would, you have no idea how the study of these genetic markers works.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

rubyjackass said:


> A nation is a group of people who consider themselves to be one, but may or may not have a country of their own. Its impossible to define when India became a nation, but clearly sometime between the great rebellion of 1857 and the declaration of independence of 1947, the birth of Indian nationhood took place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider this a winner.
Click to expand...


In the context of the modern Indian state, which is precisely the argument Flint has made, certainly. 

And the exact same argument applies to when Pakistan became a nation, with slightly different timelines of course.

The post does not in anyway validate the argument for nationhood beyond the political movements and ideology established as British rule was waning.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

deltacamelately said:


> AM,
> My expectation from you are higher. If somebody thinks that present day India wants to somehow reclaim Pakistan, I for once will call him a paranoid. However, and with reference to your above statement, let us remind ourselves that bulk of the muslims didn't opt for Pakistan and remained entwined in the nationhood called India. If the present day Pakistanis really want to diffrentiate themselves from the present day Indians and claim their ancestory to the Vedic Sanatan Dharmis, to establish that the Indians are of a different and probably lower stock (something being taught to the new breed), the best way is to opt for a genetic test and demarcation. Unfortunately, and I've mentioned this in someother thread, the genetic demarcation doesn't exist and both these people share the same gene pool namely the R-2, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup, characterized by the genetic marker M124.
> 
> Please, let us not delude ourselves and teach our offsprings a distorted history. India might not have been a single country all the time. The Mauryans, Guptas, Marathas, Sikhs, Mughals and lastly the British *did* bring most of the areas under a common flag, but the important thing is that India *did* exist as a civilization meandering and changing with time. Your ancestors were our ancestors otherwise the genetic marker couldn't been same. We retained most of our ancestors civilizational and culturo-religious practices, you abondoned them post 712 and embraced a newer, foreign religion and customs, but that is a change of lifestyle and way of worship*not* a change of your bloodline. The partition was a political decission and demarcation, not a genetic one. A Punjabi/Sindhi/Mohajir Pakistani has more in common with say a Allahabadi, Bhopali or a Hyderabadi then a Persian or even an Arab. Visit WAB, you will find my photo album there with photos of my wife and son. Watch them keenly and see the difference. Know what? My wife's grandfather hails from Lahore and her grandmother hails from Pindi, both are settled in Mumbai and with the allmighty's grace, keeping healthy even at this age.
> 
> AM, let's not teach our children a history that is erronous and sow, hatred, complex and a sense of enemity. Enough damage has already been done by our previous generations, let's salvage some atleast.
> 
> regards,



Delta,

I am not sure whether you understood my post.

The context is of negating this myth of some 'Indian nation' prior to the political activism in the waning days of the British.

As for cultural similarities, any set of people will share characteristics with another set of people close to them. To quote my response to Ju again:

Move across any contiguous land mass and you will notice a steady melding from one group of people into another - hardly ever do you get a stark contrast such as teh one you make of the Finnish and Ethiopians.

For example, go from East to West in Pakistan, and characteristics and culture steadliy , not abruptly, change, the same occurs as you move steadily into Iran and Afghanistan, and from there into the Arab world etc. etc.

Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Not necessarily. There are various ways in which a people can see themselves as one, and as different from outsiders, and it doesn't have to fit the exact definition of "nationhood" in order to be recognized.



The way you are trying to define nationhood is similar to the argument of Ummah, except that unlike the pan-Islamic nation idea, there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of the people of the sub-continent believed in a 'united entity'.

As I mentioned before, just because the idea exists among some political thinkers and scholars does not make the argument of 'nationhood', for the Islamic world or the subcontinent, a valid argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The way you are trying to define nationhood is similar to the argument of Ummah, except that unlike the pan-Islamic nation idea, there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of the people of the sub-continent believed in a 'united entity'.
> 
> As I mentioned before, just because the idea exists among some political thinkers and scholars does not make the argument of 'nationhood', for the Islamic world or the subcontinent, a valid argument.



Then why do Indian texts (pre-Islamic) make a clear distinction between themselves and the 'barbarians', and why are those 'barbarians' always from outside the Indian subcontinent? 

Why do they mean when they write 'Jambudweepa', 'Bharata' or 'Aryavarta'? Jee, I wonder.



> From: Vishnu Purana (2.3.1)
> 
> uttara&#7747; yatsamudrasya him&#257;dre&#347;caiva dak&#7779;i&#7751;am
> var&#7779;a&#7747; tadbh&#257;rata&#7747; n&#257;ma bh&#257;***&#299; yatra santati&#7717;
> 
> &#2313;&#2340;&#2381;&#2340;&#2352;&#2306; &#2351;&#2340;&#2381;&#2360;&#2350;&#2369;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2360;&#2381;&#2351; &#2361;&#2367;&#2350;&#2366;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2375;&#2358;&#2381;&#2330;&#2376;&#2357; &#2342;&#2325;&#2381;&#2359;&#2367;&#2339;&#2350;&#2381; &#2404;
> &#2357;&#2352;&#2381;&#2359;&#2306; &#2340;&#2342;&#2381; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2306; &#2344;&#2366;&#2350; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2368; &#2351;&#2340;&#2381;&#2352; &#2360;&#2306;&#2340;&#2340;&#2367;&#2307; &#2404;&#2404;
> "The country (var&#7779;am) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bh&#257;ratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."
> 
> Aryadesa (or Aryadesha) or Arya Nadu (or Ariya Nadu) are names that have been used by scholars to describe India.
> 
> Aryadesh was used by the Chinese traveler to India, I-Tsing who used the term to refer to all of India.
> 
> Tamil poet Bharathi called India Arya Nadu in his poetry. Arya means noble and "desa" or "nadu" mean land.
> 
> Jambudvipa
> 
> There is a story in Jain mythology and in Hindu and Buddhist texts as well that describe Jambudvipa being one of the seven islands/continents of the world. It is possible that perhaps "island" is used to refer to India because India in one time was a separate Indian Plate. Perhaps the phrase is used in the manner that the land of India is still an island in between the Indus River and the rest of the Asian Plate. Jambudvipa is also addressed in Buddhist mythology and in some he is addresses as the ruler over entire Jambudvipa and in one, "He reigned over a quarter of the land of Jambudvipa
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India



As I said, it was an idea of oneness, not the same as "nationhood", or for that matter the "ummah", but a uniquely Indian concept.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Then why do Indian texts (pre-Islamic) make a clear distinction between themselves and the 'barbarians', and why are those 'barbarians' always from outside the Indian subcontinent?
> 
> Why do they mean when they write 'Jambudweepa', 'Bharata' or 'Aryavarta'? Jee, I wonder.
> 
> As I said, it was an idea of oneness, not the same as "nationhood", or for that matter the "ummah", but a uniquely Indian concept.



It doesn't matter what some texts say, and how you claim the Indian idea is 'different' - it is similar in that it is something on paper, as is the pan-Islamic nation concept, based on verses in the Quran used to justify this unity.

The only thing that matters is what the people think, and there is no evidence that beyond a few scholars and texts, the people of he subcontinent ever viewed themselves as a 'nation'.


----------



## roadrunner

Actually there's proof that the people of the Ganges never considered the people of the Indus as a part of their own for millenia. All this from the Hindu scriptures too. There's some horrible stuff about the people of Pakistan in there. The references are specifically to the people of Pakistan as well!


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> It doesn't matter what some texts say, and how you claim the Indian idea is 'different' - it is similar in that it is something on paper, as is the pan-Islamic nation concept, based on verses in the Quran used to justify this unity.
> 
> The only thing that matters is what the people think, and there is no evidence that beyond a few scholars and texts, the people of he subcontinent ever viewed themselves as a 'nation'.



My friend, I am not arguing that ancient Indians viewed themselves as one nation. That would be absurd because the concept of "nation" itself is defined in western terms. 

There were many things which differentiated ancient India from the outside - common beliefs about purity, ethics and religion primarily, and cultural aspects as well.

These "few scholars and texts" were the written by the commentators of the age, and its quite obvious that they represent the views and beliefs of the time they were written.

Not to mention that the Vishnu Puran is one of the most important Ancient Indian texts, known and used all over India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Actually there's proof that the people of the Ganges never considered the people of the Indus as a part of their own for millenia. All this from the Hindu scriptures too. There's some horrible stuff about the people of Pakistan in there. The references are specifically to the people of Pakistan as well!



Really! Can you quote some of that stuff?


----------



## rubyjackass

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The post does not in anyway validate the argument for nationhood beyond the political movements and ideology established as British rule was waning.



The people provided the validity.

I am sure you will be as proud if your country emerged from those many provinces.?


----------



## deltacamelately

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Delta,
> 
> I am not sure whether you understood my post.
> 
> The context is of negating this myth of some 'Indian nation' prior to the political activism in the waning days of the British.


AM,

The idea of an Indian nation definitely arose somewhere after the 1857 Revolt. And the idea of an independent Pakistan, i.e. a homeland for muslims rose somewhere in the 1920s, so what do you think your ancestors were fighting for before the 20s? The answer is we all were fighting for a nationhood, *free* from the British. What transpired between Congress and Muslim League or to that effect between Jinnah and Nehru is a different history, otherwise both Jinnah and Nehru were fighting for a single cause, i.e. an Indian independence.


> As for cultural similarities, any set of people will share characteristics with another set of people close to them. To quote my response to Ju again:
> 
> Move across any contiguous land mass and you will notice a steady melding from one group of people into another - hardly ever do you get a stark contrast such as teh one you make of the Finnish and Ethiopians.
> 
> For example, go from East to West in Pakistan, and characteristics and culture steadliy , not abruptly, change, the same occurs as you move steadily into Iran and Afghanistan, and from there into the Arab world etc. etc.
> 
> Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?


AM,
If you are happy differentiating yourselves from the Indians, so be it. I don't want to enter into a pi$$ing contest. However, read any researcher's, not necessarily Indian, work and that would tell you that North Indians and the Punjabi and Sindhi Pakistanis are ethinically indistiniguishable and have more in common than with Balochis, Pashtoons, Hazaras, Ujbeks, Tajikhs or Persians. Your ancestory isn't Turkik or Persian. But then its your identity and your decission, whom you want to be associated with.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

deltacamelately said:


> AM,
> 
> AM,
> If you are happy differentiating yourselves from the Indians, so be it. I don't want to enter into a pi$ contest. However, read any researcher's, not necessarily Indian, work and that would tell you that North Indians and the Punjabi and Sindhi Pakistanis are ethinically indistiniguishable and have more in common than with Balochis, Pashtoons, Hazaras, Ujbeks, Tajikhs or Persians. Your ancestory isn't Turkik or Persian. But then its your identity and your decission, whom you want to be associated with.



Nobody is denying similarities between ethnic group.* Every neighbouring ethnic group in the world has similarities*. But your ideas of "Indian ethnic groups" are nonsensical and all based on colonial invasions.
Note my use of the word similarities, but you are claiming they are "indistinguishable".

"North Indians" are not an ethnic group.

Lets use real facts for a change:

Punjab and Kashmir valley being the only regions actually partitioned, and people on both sides can be said to be indistinguishable. But the rest of India has as much similarity to Pakistanis as any other neighbouring countries in the world. 
Any one else in the world making as much fuss as Indians over normal neighbouring links?

The idea of focussing on Indian Punjab, and occupied Kashmir Valley to define "Indian" identity shows a lot of bias.
Any real expert wont create his own groups like "north Indians", but use already existing groups like Sindhis, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Gujaratis, Biharis etc etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

The fact is India and Pakistan's is a unique case in the world.

We have a very different perception of the common history. I see the same arguments being recycled multiple times from both sides for the most part.

I will say that if you feel a part of the Muslim history of India when much of it happened on the modern India's territory, why should the reverse be such a surprise. Especially when we talk of pre-Islamic history.


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> The fact is India and Pakistan's is a unique case in the world.
> 
> We have a very different perception of the common history. I see the same arguments being recycled multiple times from both sides for the most part.
> 
> I will say that if you feel a part of the Muslim history of India when much of it happened on the modern India's territory, why should the reverse be such a surprise. Especially when we talk of pre-Islamic history.



Pakistani pre-Islamic history was not shared. But of course Indians can be proud of what they consider Hindu history, as long as they don't claim everything for themselves. Pre-Islamic in Pakistan doesn't automatically mean it belongs to Indians.


----------



## Contrarian

UnitedPak said:


> The idea of focussing on Indian Punjab, and occupied Kashmir Valley to define "Indian" identity shows a lot of bias.
> Any real expert wont create his own groups like "north Indians", but use already existing groups like Sindhis, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Gujaratis, Biharis etc etc.



Each state in India has a lot of autonomy. Constitution allows each state to be run by its own laws within the framework of the constitution. Thus since you mostly interact with North Indians, they consider themselves as India. Talk to someone from Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, he will call himself as a Tamil as well as an Indian.

India is a Union. Case in point-this freedom enjoyed by each state to develop its own traditional culture and language is the real reason why India is together. The state has a CM which is elected by the people of that state. The State is not run by someone who is mandated from Delhi.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cefarix

I didn't read all the posts on this thread because it is so long, but I just want to add this to discussion: I do consider myself an Indian, and an Indian Muslim. Not Indian as India the country, but Indian because Pakistan is an Indian country. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal - these are all Indian countries, part of the Indian subcontinent. It just so happens that there is also a country called India.

It is kind of like Europe, except there is no country in Europe called Europe. Since "India" today refers to the nation-state India, we have to refer to our region as the Indian subcontinent to differentiate the two explicitly. But other than this subtle but very important distinction, I am proud to be Indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

cefarix said:


> I didn't read all the posts on this thread because it is so long, but I just want to add this to discussion: I do consider myself an Indian, and an Indian Muslim. Not Indian as India the country, but Indian because Pakistan is an Indian country. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal - these are all Indian countries, part of the Indian subcontinent. It just so happens that there is also a country called India.
> 
> It is kind of like Europe, except there is no country in Europe called Europe. Since "India" today refers to the nation-state India, we have to refer to our region as the Indian subcontinent to differentiate the two explicitly. But other than this subtle but very important distinction, I am proud to be Indian.



I would suggest that you at least read this post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...electing-name-india-1947-a-16.html#post268503

The meaning of the term "India" has changed. It only has one meaning now. I think you meant to say South Asian, or Indian subcontinental, but not Indian.
Like I said, read at least the last few pages. They are quite informative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cefarix

UnitedPak said:


> I would suggest that you at least read this post:
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...electing-name-india-1947-a-16.html#post268503
> 
> The meaning of the term "India" has changed. It only has one meaning now. I think you meant to say South Asian, or Indian subcontinental, but not Indian.
> Like I said, read at least the last few pages. They are quite informative.



Well, what I'm saying is that *true[/i] meaning of Indian is Indian Subcontinental. It includes Pakistan, India (I should say Bharat), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal. But it's true, today, "India" 99.9&#37; of the time means India the country. But perhaps "Indian" still has a slightly looser meaning I think.

In any case, I don't identify myself as a citizen of Republic of India, but as citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Ethnically speaking though, my family comes from Hyderabad, India, since that's where my grandparents are from, but they moved to Pakistan in the 50s and 60s. Myself, I was born in the UK, but I've lived most of my life in the US. But I keep in close touch with Pakistan and recently I was there for about 4 years.

Also, responding to that post you linked to... it is valid to say you are South Asian or Indian Subcontinental, even if there was historically no single South Asian or Indian Subcontinental Empire or State. Just look at Europe. So many different ethnic groups, so many different countries, nations, states, empires throughout the ages. In fact, Europe has NEVER been united. Yet Europeans are okay with calling themselves European and we call them European too.*


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

cefarix said:


> I didn't read all the posts on this thread because it is so long, but I just want to add this to discussion: I do consider myself an Indian, and an Indian Muslim. Not Indian as India the country, but Indian because Pakistan is an Indian country. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal - these are all Indian countries, part of the Indian subcontinent. It just so happens that there is also a country called India.
> 
> It is kind of like Europe, except there is no country in Europe called Europe. Since "India" today refers to the nation-state India, we have to refer to our region as the Indian subcontinent to differentiate the two explicitly. But other than this subtle but very important distinction, I am proud to be Indian.



You are a bit behind the times then - Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc. are all South Asian countries, and there is nothing wrong with being 'proud to be a South Aisan', but there is a reason why we are referred to as 'South Asian' instead of 'Indian' nations - the meaning of the name 'India' has long since changed.

Another way to state it would be 'Indian-subcontinental nation', which is really too much of a mouthful.

Calling Pakistan an 'Indian nation' is simply incorrect today, though I understand that you are using 'India' in the context of the region of 'ancient India'.

Just too confusing to do it that way, when 'South Asian' conveys the meaning without the hassles and misinterpretations.


----------



## cefarix

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Just too confusing to do it that way, when 'South Asian' conveys the meaning without the hassles and misinterpretations.



Well it depends who you are speaking to. Most Americans would think you are saying you are south Chinese/Japanese/Korean, because they think Asia = China/Japan/Korea


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

cefarix said:


> Well it depends who you are speaking to. Most Americans would think you are saying you are south Chinese/Japanese/Korean, because they think Asia = China/Japan/Korea



Rather that than ask me if their Yoga instructor or the 'Indian' doctor they see is a relative of mine ... 

I think referring to ourselves as an "Indian' nation is even more confusing.


----------



## Flintlock

As far as I can see, Pakistan has spent most of its time trying to prove that it belongs in the middle-east. 

No surprisingly, the yanks, who are less than blessed in their understanding of history, having none themselves, have branded Pakistan as a part of the "Greater Middle East".


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> As far as I can see, Pakistan has spent most of its time trying to prove that it belongs in the middle-east.


I assume that you refer to the Pakistani state here - how so has it done what you say?


> No surprisingly, the yanks, who are less than blessed in their understanding of history, having none themselves, have branded Pakistan as a part of the "Greater Middle East".


Ideologically Pakistan does fall into the 'Islamic crescent', and we also share commonalities (ethnic) with the Afghans and Iranians, so that grouping makes sense from a geo-political perspective.


----------



## Flintlock

Also, the meaning of the term "India" in the historical context has not changed at all. When we talk about the history of Pakistan, all the history books, literally ALL of them, refer to it as "Ancient India" (except the ones written in Pakistan, and among those, only the ones written after the Islamization of the syllabus in the late 70s)

The most recent BBC Documentary on Indian history also makes a clear distinction between "Ancient India", "India", and "Pakistan".


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *I assume that you refer to the Pakistani state here - how so has it done what you say?*
> 
> Ideologically Pakistan does fall into the 'Islamic crescent', and we also share commonalities (ethnic) with the Afghans and Iranians, so that grouping makes sense from a geo-political perspective.



What Flintock said is actually correct. At least after 1971, Bhutto said that Pakistan will turn it's back to India. Remember the Muslim leader's gathering and all that. That was an attempt to move Pakistan from South Asia to West Asia.

I think you guys realized later that it was not where you belonged and again became a part of the subcontinent. Return of the prodigal I will say.

Subah ka bhula... You are welcome back.


----------



## cefarix

Pakistan doesn't need to "move" anywhere to "prove" its association to Islam. Neither to the Middle East nor Greater Middle East nor West Asia nor Gulf States nor etc. The Muslim Ummah stretches from the west Atlantic coast of Africa to the Pacific Islands of East Asia, with smaller Muslim communities around the globe. And Pakistan represents 160 million Muslims of those 1.5 billion+ from South Asia/Indian Subcontinent. There are more Muslims in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh put together than there are in all the Arab countries put together, so if anything, maybe the Arab countries should be "moving" to South Asia


----------



## Vinod2070

That may be true. But you should know very well that in the Arab mind they are the only "first class" Muslims.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> What Flintock said is actually correct. At least after 1971, Bhutto said that Pakistan will turn it's back to India. Remember the Muslim leader's gathering and all that. That was an attempt to move Pakistan from South Asia to West Asia.
> 
> I think you guys realized later that it was not where you belonged and again became a part of the subcontinent. Return of the prodigal I will say.
> 
> Subah ka bhula... You are welcome back.



No, thats not quite what Flint was getting at.

Bhutto's 'shift West' was a result of the Indian aggression through 1971 and the breakup of Pakistan. It was a shift in geopolitical terms, with Pakistan looking to bolster herself through relationships with other nations. That 'shift' has continued to this day, and will continue until India and Pakistan normalize their relationship.

It has nothing to do with 'proving that we belong in the Middle East', its a reflection of the hostile relationship with India and building more alliances.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> No, thats not quite what Flint was getting at.



In that case may be I understood it wrong. That is how I would interpret his statement.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Bhutto's 'shift West' was a result of the Indian aggression through 1971 and the breakup of Pakistan. It was a shift in geopolitical terms, with Pakistan looking to bolster herself through relationships with other nations. That 'shift' has continued to this day, and will continue until India and Pakistan normalize their relationship.
> 
> It has nothing to do with 'proving that we belong in the Middle East', its a reflection of the hostile relationship with India and building more alliances.



It may have been provoked by the 1971 events but I see it not as a part of alliance building or bolstering only. It was to say that Pakistan as a civilization will now belong to the Muslim world (the Arab civilization) rather than the Indic civilization of the subcontinent. That Pakistan will start seeing itself as an extension of the Middle East. The same hypothesis that some in the USA are suggesting now.

So I don't agree that it is still continuing. You are part of SAARC not the Arab league. So something has changed!


----------



## omarkc

the lands which became modern pakistan have been cut off from india due to the mountains north of the iranian plateu and the cholistan-thar-rajhastan desert complex.

apart from 200 years of mauryan rules in all of modern pakistan
and occasional rules like gupta empirs in sindh and gandhara in norther punjab.
apart from that pakistan has been part of the following empires
PARTHIAN
BACTRIAN
SCYTHIAN
GREEK
PERSIAN
SASSANID
UMMAYAD
GHAURID
GHAZNAVID 
AFGHAN

before the mughals conqured northern india pakistan and the hindus were never the same. and the mughal empire, gupta empire, and gandhara empires which ruled over pakistan cannot even be called INDIAN EMPIRES because they didnt not include south india.

so if a small portion of our country was part of hindu civilization for 300 out of 2500 years of our known history u say we were part of you? tht crazy.

Pakistan has been muslims since 650AD, the first muslims invaders in south asia came to pakistan and only went to india 600 years later when the delhi sultanate was formed. SO THE MUSLIMS OF INDIA WERE INFACT ORGINALLY PAKISTANIS AND ARE THE CHILDREN OF PAKISTAN


----------



## omarkc

oh and apart from UMMAYAD caliphate no other ARAB empire has ruled us. its always been either persian or central asian, and unfortunately sometimes indian.

btw my source is wikipedia,
search all those name and look the maps corresponding to their empires

oh and the only part of pakistan which were part of ancient india was northern punjba, the rest of the land was cut off by deserts.
indians like to belive, with evidence as usual, that hinduism originated in the indus valley civilization when actually hinduism was brought here by the aryan invaders who wiped out the indus valley civilization and drove the indigenous dravidians south.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> It may have been provoked by the 1971 events but I see it not as a part of alliance building or bolstering only. It was to say that Pakistan as a civilization will now belong to the Muslim world (the Arab civilization) rather than the Indic civilization of the subcontinent. That Pakistan will start seeing itself as an extension of the Middle East. The same hypothesis that some in the USA are suggesting now.
> 
> So I don't agree that it is still continuing. You are part of SAARC not the Arab league. So something has changed!



And where is SAARC going? Nowhere at this point. FTA's with China and other nations however are picking up. In terms of becoming part of a "West Asian bloc' I do not think that has happened either, though attempts were made through the RCD and ECO, but as I said, SAARC isn't faring any better.

The way I understand Pakistan's current policy, using Gwadar as a means for allowing transit to goods and commodities from Afghanistan and the CAR's allows it to serve as more of central cog, rather than be allied specifically with SAARC, the Arabs, China or the West, as it seeks to cater to all of their business interests.

I disagree with your point that it was some sort of a 'civilizational shift'. I have seen no evidence to validate that argument. The evidence in favor of a geo-political shift is enormous however. Ideologically Pakistanis will always associate themselves more with the 'Muslim crescent', that sentiment has only gotten stronger.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> And where is SAARC going? Nowhere at this point. FTA's with China and other nations however are picking up. In terms of becoming part of a "West Asian bloc' I do not think that has happened either, though attempts were made through the RCD and ECO, but as I said, SAARC isn't faring any better.
> 
> The way I understand Pakistan's current policy, using Gwadar as a means for allowing transit to goods and commodities from Afghanistan and the CAR's allows it to serve as more of central cog, rather than be allied specifically with SAARC, the Arabs, China or the West, as it seeks to cater to all of their business interests.



This is not about the success of failure of SAARC. This is about the fact that Pakistan now finds her destiny linked to that of the subcontinent. Bhutto wanted to link it to West Asia.

You may trade and engage with the whole world, you still belong to a region and a civilization. Changing that is impossible and I believe that reality dawned on Pakistan after trying to change that.



> I disagree with your point that it was some sort of a 'civilizational shift'. I have seen no evidence to validate that argument. The evidence in favor of a geo-political shift is enormous however. Ideologically Pakistanis will always associate themselves more with the 'Muslim crescent', that sentiment has only gotten stronger.



I have read some good articles that did mention the effort as analogous to a 'civilizational shift'.

Will try to dig out if I can.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> This is not about the success of failure of SAARC. This is about the fact that Pakistan now finds her destiny linked to that of the subcontinent. Bhutto wanted to link it to West Asia.
> 
> You may trade and engage with the whole world, you still belong to a region and a civilization. Changing that is impossible and I believe that reality dawned on Pakistan after trying to change that.



Trade and interests are all that matter. What does belonging to a region mean (we obviously do not agree on the civilization part - there were many civilizations in South Asia, not one 'Indic' civ.)? 

Nothing, if you cannot trade or pursue your own interests, and so long as SAARC remains mired in the Indo-Pak hostilities, it means nothing.

Read carefully into Zardaris comments, or anyone else advocating closer relationships with SAARC and India - it is all based on trade and commercial interests and benefits. Given the distrust between the two sides, and Pakistan's smaller size, Pakistan is not going to tie herself down to SAARC, though it has the potential for tremendous benefits if it actuality functions as a proper economic bloc. The FTA's and trade agreements with other nations indicate that quite clearly. 

You are inferring too much from statements advocating close relationships with India, attributing to them this 'civilizational shift', when they imply is using the combined markets of SAARC (if they ever get going), to advance economic interests.



> I have read some good articles that did mention the effort as analogous to a 'civilizational shift'.
> 
> Will try to dig out if I can.


Certainly, but like I said in terms of how Pakistanis view themselves, the associations with the Muslim crescent have always been strong. After a war with India, that resulted in half the country being lost, one can hardly expect Pakistanis to have any sort of 'kinship' with India. The same has occurred in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, with Indian belligerence and threats freezing opinions in Pakistan towards India.

Governments cannot do 'civilization shifts' because they cannot control how people think, or at least they haven't been able to in Pakistan. Pakistan's shift to West Asia was based on geo-political considerations.


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> This is not about the success of failure of SAARC. This is about the fact that Pakistan now finds her destiny linked to that of the subcontinent. Bhutto wanted to link it to West Asia.
> 
> You may trade and engage with the whole world, you still belong to a region and a civilization. Changing that is impossible and I believe that reality dawned on Pakistan after trying to change that.



Pakistan has links to all of its neighbouring regions.

If you haven't noticed, Pakistan represents the majority of all Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns and Baluchis in Asia. All neighbouring countries have links to us, but we still represent the majority. 

Its the neighbouring minority people that "belong" to our civilisation.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistan has links to all of its neighbouring regions.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, Pakistan represents the majority of all Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns and Baluchis in Asia. All neighbouring countries have links to us, but we still represent the majority.
> 
> Its the neighbouring minority people that "belong" to our civilisation.



My view on this is that there are only two civilizations for Pakistan to choose from.

*The Indian civilization and the Arabic/Islamic civilization (brought in by the invaders).
*
There is nothing called "Pakistani civilization". At best you can call a synthetic mixture of the two by that name.

You chose to separate as you abandoned the former in favor of the latter. Now some of you want to also own the pre-Islamic Indian civilization as the latter Islamic only identity is no longer proving enough.


----------



## Pashtun

> It was not our country which removed all the stories of asoka, kanishka, gupta from our textbooks, but it was Pakistan who said we dont want to claim the heritage by removing
> all their references from the children's textbooks and directly jump from indus valley to 712 sindh. Why are you even thinking of pinpointing us?



I am history & Archeology major, did it in high School, then in Bachelors, and then the Masters. Your this claim that there's no Kanishka/Ashoka/Indus History in our course, is out of factual loop and devastatingly assumptious..

I had learnt throughout my schooling, college and University days about Indian history and their archeological assets. Not just that, I had an entire subject on Mahabharata in my masters Degree, yet the Ashokas and Kanishkas, which were thoroughly covered and gave us headaches of pages and pages of information to cover to pass the subject. And that's not something as elective subject - It's a compulsory subject.

So I don't think you know anything about education standards in Pakistan that what has been taught and what hasn't been taught. So don't assume.

However, I am not sure if Muslim history has been taught in India and how has it been taught, to what extent, what is covered and what is not, on what level, and whether it's elective or compulsory. Your (honest) input will be appreciated.


----------



## Vinod2070

I found one article on the issue.



> Pakistan's Homecoming | South Asia, not West Asia
> 
> *In 1972, after the Bangladesh war, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto publicly vowed to turn his back on India and seek Pakistan's fortune among the Islamic
> countries to the West. He convened a spectacular Islamic summit at Lahore.
> 
> He embarked on a quest for nuclear weapons, not merely to deter Indian conventional superiority but also to assert Pakistan's leadership role in the Islamic world.
> 
> He christened it the 'Islamic bomb' and collected enormous funds from the Islamic world. He concluded secret defence deals with the Shah of Iran and the Gulf states to ensure their military support in any future conflict with India.*
> 
> General Zia-ul Haq continued the wooing of the Islamic world. He sent a whole division of Pakistani troops to Saudi Arabia.
> 
> *Pakistani pilots flew fighter aircraft for the Gulf states. Pakistan's identification with the Islamic world became total when, under the CIA's leadership it assembled a vast international jehadi force of 80,000-100,000 Muslims from countries ranging from Morocco to Indonesia to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
> *
> That, in turn gave birth to jehadism with Pakistani ideologues like Maududi (originally from India) exercising a lot of influence.
> 
> With Arab money, West European equipment obtained in black market, Chinese weapon design and technical assistance and the US looking away, Pakistan became a nuclear weapon power in the late '80s.
> 
> *Yet Pakistan was not accepted as a partner by the Islamic countries of West Asia, let alone as a leader. Ayatollah Khomeini used to call Zia-ul Haq the lesser Satan, the bigger Satan being the US.*
> 
> There have always been tensions between Shia Iran and Sunni-dominated Pakistan. During the first Gulf War, Pakistani army chief General Aslam Beg initially sided with Saddam Hussein's strategic defiance.
> 
> That, in turn, led to most of the Gulf states scaling down their military involvement with Pakistan under US pressure. Subsequently, Pakistan took over Afghanistan by helping the Taliban to fight the Rabbani government.
> 
> The Pakistani ISI backed the jehadi campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya and instigated trouble in the Central Asian Republics.
> 
> Allowing Osama bin Laden refuge, supporting the Taliban and converting Pakistan into the epicentre of jehadi terrorism were all part of the Pakistani leadership's ambitious plans to play a pre-eminent role in the Islamic world.
> 
> The Pakistani leadership has a tradition of overestimating its own capability and underestimating the countervailing factors. That resulted in their being frustrated in 1947 (Kashmir), 1965 (Operation Gibraltar), 1971 (Bangladesh), 1984 (Siachen) and 1999 (Kargil).
> 
> They spoke of bleeding India through a thousand cuts but could not succeed. Similarly, their use of terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy finally recoiled on them when 9/11 happened.
> 
> The US became fully engaged in West Asia with president Bush making clear the American determination to restructure the political architecture of the region. Pakistan has been told it has no role to play to its West.
> 
> Thanks to its wrong priorities, Pakistan has lost out in terms of economic growth as well as social and political advance-ment. The Pakistani education system is completely out of sync with today's knowledge economy.
> 
> An estimate has it that the ratio of college students between Pakistan and India is 1 to 97.
> 
> *General Musharraf appears finally to have realised that as a country that is part of the subcontinent and whose destiny is linked with the Indus-Gangetic area, Pakistan would never be accepted as part of West Asian Islamic states.*
> 
> Long ago, a noted US analyst said that Pakistan's geostrategic importance arose out of its proximity to the three largest nations of the world - China, India and USSR - and its commanding the oil sea lanes from the Gulf.
> 
> But in a unipolar world with no active tension among these three major powers and the US, that geostrategic location has lost much of its significance. Pakistan's source of financial support, Saudi Arabia, is coming increasingly under US scrutiny.
> 
> In many ways the upcoming SAARC summit is a sort of homecoming for Pakistan: It has more in common with the rest of the subcontinent than West Asia and its future economic growth and political and social advancement depend increasingly on peaceful interaction with other SAARC nations.
> 
> Pakistan is the only country in South Asia that has been discussed internationally as a possible failed state. General Musharraf now knows that terrorism unleashed by the ISI has boomeranged on him.
> 
> The general, when faced with the US ultimatum in September 2001, made a U-turn in his Afghan policy and totally abandoned the Taliban.
> 
> *Now, faced with the inexorable realities of the war on terrorism and developing international alignments, it would be logical for him to give up the policy of the last 30 years of confronting India and embark on subcontinental economic cooperation so vitally needed to prevent Pakis-tan from becoming a failed state.
> 
> In the history of SAARC this is the most crucial summit. While India, in the light of its past experience, has to be extremely cautious, it must also take into account the enormous compulsions on Pakistan to break with the past.
> 
> If Pakistan gives credible evidence of its desire to integrate with the subcontinent it should be welcomed and treated like the prodigal son of the biblical tale.*



LEADER ARTICLE<BR>Pakistan's Homecoming | South Asia, not West Asia-Editorial-Opinion-The Times of India


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Trade and interests are all that matter. What does belonging to a region mean (we obviously do not agree on the civilization part - there were many civilizations in South Asia, not one 'Indic' civ.)?
> 
> Nothing, if you cannot trade or pursue your own interests, and so long as SAARC remains mired in the Indo-Pak hostilities, it means nothing.
> 
> Read carefully into Zardaris comments, or anyone else advocating closer relationships with SAARC and India - it is all based on trade and commercial interests and benefits. Given the distrust between the two sides, and Pakistan's smaller size, Pakistan is not going to tie herself down to SAARC, though it has the potential for tremendous benefits if it actuality functions as a proper economic bloc. The FTA's and trade agreements with other nations indicate that quite clearly.
> 
> You are inferring too much from statements advocating close relationships with India, attributing to them this 'civilizational shift', when they imply is using the combined markets of SAARC (if they ever get going), to advance economic interests.



What I mentioned has nothing to do with Zardari or even SAARC. I think the article in my previous post may give an idea of what I am trying to say here.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Certainly, but like I said in terms of how Pakistanis view themselves, the associations with the Muslim crescent have always been strong. After a war with India, that resulted in half the country being lost, one can hardly expect Pakistanis to have any sort of 'kinship' with India. The same has occurred in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, with Indian belligerence and threats freezing opinions in Pakistan towards India.
> 
> *Governments cannot do 'civilization shifts' because they cannot control how people think, or at least they haven't been able to in Pakistan. Pakistan's shift to West Asia was based on geo-political considerations.*



But they can always try. And fail!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> My view on this is that there are only two civilizations for Pakistan to choose from.
> 
> *The Indian civilization and the Arabic/Islamic civilization (brought in by the invaders).
> *
> There is nothing called "Pakistani civilization". At best you can call a synthetic mixture of the two by that name.
> 
> You chose to separate as you abandoned the former in favor of the latter. Now some of you want to also own the pre-Islamic Indian civilization as the latter Islamic only identity is no longer proving enough.


That is an extremely flawed view.

There could be an argument for an 'Islamic civilization', but that has not by any means been abandoned, as Islam has become an even stronger part of the identity of Pakistanis. 

What India possesses is a 'Hindu civilization', 'Indic' is merely renaming to try and usurp the rest of the history of South Asia, and incorporate it under one 'brand', when the reality is many civilizations, cultures and peoples.

South Asia has had multiple civilizations, the IVC being one of them, centered and primarily located in the areas of Pakistan, and those are the roots Pakistan is claiming, while also building bridges to the 'Islamic civilization'.

By the way, of course ToI article would distort anything related to Pakistan. I think that the 'facts' in the article in fact support my view, that Pakistan's shift West was geo-political, and not ideological. The ideological shift occurred without any state interference, as people naturally aligned themselves with the 'Muslim crescent'. 

SAARC provides the opportunity for an economic bloc, not a 'civilizational reunion' or whatever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That is an extremely flawed view.
> 
> There could be an argument for an 'Islamic civilization', but that has not by any means been abandoned, as Islam has become an even stronger part of the identity of Pakistanis.



I didn't say that you have abandoned it. What I said is that some of you are searching for more than just that. Though many Pakistanis see no need for that.

I think even you can't deny the fact that this is a relatively new trend perhaps linked to the current geo-political events in some ways. The leaders who conceived of Pakistan never had anything other than the Islamic identity for the country in mind.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> What India possesses is a 'Hindu civilization', 'Indic' is merely renaming to try and usurp the rest of the history of South Asia, and incorporate it under one 'brand', when the reality is many civilizations, cultures and peoples.
> 
> South Asia has had multiple civilizations, the IVC being one of them, centered and primarily located in the areas of Pakistan, and those are the roots Pakistan is claiming, while also building bridges to the 'Islamic civilization'.



Certainly some in Pakistan are claiming the IVC roots. The fact is that few facts are known about the IVC. As more and more facts get known its true extent will also be known better.

What I am saying is why stop at just IVC? Was there nothing between the little known IVC and Bin Qasim? Why little or no interest in that history? Certainly more is known of that history than about the IVC which was certainly not known well at the time of the partition and was no basis of Pakistani nationhood.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> By the way, of course ToI article would distort anything related to Pakistan. I think that the 'facts' in the article in fact support my view, that Pakistan's shift West was geo-political, and not ideological. The ideological shift occurred without any state interference, as people naturally aligned themselves with the 'Muslim crescent'.
> 
> SAARC provides the opportunity for an economic bloc, not a 'civilizational reunion' or whatever.



I never mentioned 'civilizational reunion'. But I do think that Pakistan has come a full circle from the days of Bhutto and Zia and I guess now looks at itself as a South Asian country rather than a West Asian one.


----------



## Flintlock

Oh dear, so now "Indic" is merely an invention? Listen dude - everything is an invention, but there's a reason why most if not all historians use the term "Indic civilization".

Pakistani's shift towards the west was in terms of identity, which corresponded with a rejection/distortion of their ancient history.
All these events have culminated in the current attempt to dishonestly sever the strong bonds of history that connect the two countries.
There's a reason why Pakistani history books are not recognized outside of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> I didn't say that you have abandoned it. What I said is that some of you are searching for more than just that. Though many Pakistanis see no need for that.
> 
> I think even you can't deny the fact that this is a relatively new trend perhaps linked to the current geo-political events in some ways. The leaders who conceived of Pakistan never had anything other than the Islamic identity for the country in mind.
> 
> Certainly some in Pakistan are claiming the IVC roots. The fact is that few facts are known about the IVC. As more and more facts get known its true extent will also be known better.
> 
> What I am saying is why stop at just IVC? Was there nothing between the little known IVC and Bin Qasim? Why little or no interest in that history? Certainly more is known of that history than about the IVC which was certainly not known well at the time of the partition and was no basis of Pakistani nationhood.


First, there is ideology and faith, that links Pakistan to the Muslim world.

Pakistan's geographical proximity to the Muslim world, especially the spiritual center (Makkah and Medina), and her ethnic links (the claimed degree of which is arguable, but for the average Pakistani the counter claims are merely semantics) will ensure that the spiritual and ideological link remains strong so long as faith plays a major role in Pakistani life.

Second, we have the cultural roots in the lands of Pakistan themselves. Some Pakistanis may not claim them, as they see themselves as descendants of the Arab's primarily, but others see the our roots in Pakistan, based in the ancient IVC and what followed, the various empires and Kingdoms etc. And that is part of our history as well.

In my personal case for example, and that of various other Rajput clans in the Punjab, the Rajput dynasties and their reign in the areas of Pakistan, from whom we are likely descended, would obviously remain a part of our history. 

But at the same time I do not see what I or my ancestors have to do with a civilization in South India or East India? There might be some connections as far as Central India, and other trade and economic relationships with the other civilizations, but that does not make me apart of them. In addition, there are also significant connections with Afghanistan and Persia. There are several Pashtun tribes for example who have settled in the Punjab, the Niazis, Jadun's, Tanaolis, Tareens etc. being examples of a few.

The point here is that Pakistan shares history with both East and West, so the argument of Pakistan being part of some 'Indic Civilization', when that term tries to imply some homogeneous identity for the plurality of cultures and civilizations in the subcontinent, is invalid.



> I never mentioned 'civilizational reunion'. But I do think that Pakistan has come a full circle from the days of Bhutto and Zia and I guess now looks at itself as a South Asian country rather than a West Asian one.


I am still not convinced that Pakistan ever tried to portray itself as a 'non-South Asian country', it would have left SAARC for one thing if that had been the idea.

Though Subramanyam has tried to distort things through inserting his own opinions the fact remains that after the violence of 1971, and the complete lack of any desire for ties with India after she contributed to the breakup of the nation, no signs of movement on Kashmir from India, Pakistan looked to build relationships and alliances elsewhere. 

I would say that where Pakistan failed was not so much in being rebuffed by the Arabs (they have still not gotten their own act together in terms of a united block, with common currency or markets, being ruled by petulant monarchs and dictators), but by not having much to offer by way of a relationship - no major industrial base or large economy etc. So beyond ideological commonalities, there was not much value to add to any relationship, though attempts were made by all sides.

By the way, to some extent Pakistan has been quite successful in cultivating relationships with the Arabs. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have significant interests in Pakistan, have significant cooperation and remain strong allies.

Subramanyam's analysis is way to simplistic, almost patronizing, and designed to pander to the Indian/Hindu reader.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Oh dear, so now "Indic" is merely an invention? Listen dude - everything is an invention, but there's a reason why most if not all historians use the term "Indic civilization".
> 
> Pakistani's shift towards the west was in terms of identity, which corresponded with a rejection/distortion of their ancient history.
> All these events have culminated in the current attempt to dishonestly sever the strong bonds of history that connect the two countries.
> There's a reason why Pakistani history books are not recognized outside of Pakistan.



"Indic Civilization" is an invention - "Indic *Civlization's*", Indic cultures, Indic peoples (plural), with Indic serving as an adjective referencing a region, would not be an invention.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> First, there is ideology and faith, that links Pakistan to the Muslim world.
> 
> Pakistan's geographical proximity to the Muslim world, especially the spiritual center (Makkah and Medina), and her ethnic links (the claimed degree of which is arguable, but for the average Pakistani the counter claims are merely semantics) will ensure that the spiritual and ideological link remains strong so long as faith plays a major role in Pakistani life.
> 
> Second, we have the cultural roots in the lands of Pakistan themselves. Some Pakistanis may not claim them, as they see themselves as descendants of the Arab's primarily, but others see the our roots in Pakistan, based in the ancient IVC and what followed, the various empires and Kingdoms etc. And that is part of our history as well.
> 
> In my personal case for example, and that of various other Rajput clans in the Punjab, the Rajput dynasties and their reign in the areas of Pakistan, from whom we are likely descended, would obviously remain a part of our history.
> 
> But at the same time I do not see what I or my ancestors have to do with a civilization in South India or East India? There might be some connections as far as Central India, and other trade and economic relationships with the other civilizations, but that does not make me apart of them. In addition, there are also significant connections with Afghanistan and Persia. There are several Pashtun tribes for example who have settled in the Punjab, the Niazis, Jadun's, Tanaolis, Tareens etc. being examples of a few.
> 
> The point here is that Pakistan shares history with both East and West, so the argument of Pakistan being part of some 'Indic Civilization', when that term tries to imply some homogeneous identity for the plurality of cultures and civilizations in the subcontinent, is invalid.



I see your point about the affinities to both your East and West and that is part of the issue. Pakistan is at the cross roads of major civilizations and is influenced by them majorly.

The way I see it is that the areas East of Sindhu share more with North India than they do with your West. Ethnically, culturally and civilizationally. The major difference is religion which admittedly is not a minor difference at all.

What the people East and West of Sindhu within Pakistan share is mainly just religion. The civilization,, outlook, culture, way of life everything is very different and has always been so. From the West of Sindhu start the tribal people and way of life that extends all the way to Arabia. Similarly to your North are people who are civilizationally very different and have always been so. You will find little in common with them except religion.

The reason for Pakistan's current geographical borders lie in the British colonial legacy or events immediately preceding that. You can see that if Afghanistan's claims on the lands Wast of Sindhu are taken as a reference, many of these arguments will get vacated automatically. The areas East of Sindhu are the real heart of Pakistan with the vast majority of the population.

And yes, Indian civilization is not homogenious and that is the beauty of it. That doesn't make them "non-Indic".

What I feel is that in trying to come to terms with the obvious incompatibility of the two civilizations within Pakistan, you guys feel compelled to negate any associations with the Indic one. That is part of the identity crisis of Pakistan.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *I am still not convinced that Pakistan ever tried to portray itself as a 'non-South Asian country', it would have left SAARC for one thing if that had been the idea.*
> 
> Though Subramanyam has tried to distort things through inserting his own opinions the fact remains that after the violence of 1971, and the complete lack of any desire for ties with India after she contributed to the breakup of the nation, no signs of movement on Kashmir from India, Pakistan looked to build relationships and alliances elsewhere.
> 
> I would say that where Pakistan failed was not so much in being rebuffed by the Arabs (they have still not gotten their own act together in terms of a united block, with common currency or markets, being ruled by petulant monarchs and dictators), but by not having much to offer by way of a relationship - no major industrial base or large economy etc. So beyond ideological commonalities, there was not much value to add to any relationship, though attempts were made by all sides.
> 
> By the way, to some extent Pakistan has been quite successful in cultivating relationships with the Arabs. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have significant interests in Pakistan, have significant cooperation and remain strong allies.
> 
> Subramanyam's analysis is way to simplistic, almost patronizing, and designed to pander to the Indian/Hindu reader.



I have seen this in many Pakistani writings, this desire to project themselves as being West Asians rather than South Asians. I am sure you would have seen them too. So this attempt for a period of time after 1971 would construe as trying to integrate the country into that region in my opinion. Whether it was a project doomed to failure from the start or just happened that time and may succeed in future is something to be seen. I don't agree that such an attempt never took place. SAARC was started long after the Bhutto/Zia days.

In a way it can be compared to the desire of the Turks to be a part of EU. The Europeans are hesitant to do that as they don't see the Turks as Europeans though they may engage with them at all levels. I see the Pakistan-Arab relationship in the same way based on your examples. You may engage with them at various levels, you will never be Arabs. Their behavior towards all Asian workers in their midst (and that includes Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, East Asians, Srilankans et al) proves this fact. And mind you it can not be just dismissed as individual acts of racism. It is a deep rooted thing.


----------



## shravan

pakistan_zindabad said:


> BANGLADESHIS ARE SON OF A BIT-CH
> 
> BANGLADESH IS A LOW LYING LAND WITH A LOW LYING PEOPLE.
> 
> BANGLADESHIS ARE MONKEYS.
> 
> BANGLADESHIS ARE SPOON OF INDIA.
> 
> BANGLADESHI PEOPLE EAT HORSE SH-IT.
> 
> BANGLADESHI PEOPLE STINK LIKE FISH.
> 
> WE PAKISTANI ARE THE MOST SUPREME RACE
> 
> BANGALIES ARE MONKEYS AND THEY SUCK DONKEY'S CO-CK
> 
> WE FU-CK BANGALI DOGS
> 
> WE WILL KILL BANGALI DOGS
> 
> WE CUT BANGALI DOGS INTO PIECES
> 
> SHITHOLES ARE BANGLADESHIS
> 
> WE WILL NEVER FORGET THAT THEY ALLIED WITH INDIAN BASTARD ARMY & BETRAYED US WHICH SHATTERED OUR IMAGE TO THE WORLD
> 
> DUE TO THESE TRAITOR BANGALIS, WE HAD TO LOSE UNBELIEVABLY IN 1971 WAR.
> 
> YET WE FUCKED THEIR FEMALES,THEIR BREASTS ARE SO JUICY
> 
> WE LICKED BANGLADESHI FEMALES NIPPLES
> 
> WE RAPED THEM IN DAYLIGHT
> 
> WE MADE BANGLADESHI FEMALES PREGNANT
> 
> WE CUT THEIR BREASTS AND THEN DROPPED THEIR BODIES IN THE GRAVE.
> 
> ALLAH WILL HELP US TO TEACH BANGALI A VERY GOOD LESSON IN NEAR FUTURE.
> 
> 
> WE KILLED BANGLADESHI FREEDOM FIGHTS INDISCRIMINATELY
> 
> WE ARE THE STRONGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD.
> 
> PAKISTAN ZINDABAD.




^^^ RAW AGENT ....?


----------



## Kriti

*I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.*

INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kriti

UnitedPak said:


> You cant decide in any way that "Pakistan has forsaken its pre Islamic history". In reality there is no such thing as forsaking your own history. Yes I agree, Pakistanis have ignored their pre Islamic history, but its not up for grabs to the highest bidder.
> 
> No matter how hard you try to justify this using 19th century politics, the ancestors of the Pakistani people will remain the same. Ancestors of Indian people wont change. You cant simply start claiming a foreign peoples identity, even if they have certain misconceptions.
> And least of all, you shouldn't be promoting said misconceptions.
> 
> I don't understand what logic you are using to turn Pakistan into a special case scenario. Do you realise how many countries gained independence in the 20th century from European colonialism?
> 
> India is in that list too.
> 
> Pakistan is simply another country that gained independence. Nothing was "created" in the way you seem to be stuck on. Pakistani people were not created overnight. Neither was Pakistani land or identity or language or history.
> 
> 14 August 1947 was not a grand amnesia day.



I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.

INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.
No offence meant to anyone. These are just my views on this subject.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Kriti said:


> I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.
> 
> INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.
> No offence meant to anyone. These are just my views on this subject.


Most of your arguments have been addressed already, multiple times, in the thread, if you choose to read through it.

You may also want to read the other sticky's on related issues to understand the Pakistani POV on this issue.

That way we do not go around in circles repeating the same arguments again and again.


----------



## VisionHawk

> I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.





Pakistan is a multi cultural country it is the home of pathans, balochs, punjabis ,kashmiris and sindhis . The creation of pakistan was on the basis of ideological grounds we took this step for the preservation of our cultural identity and by the grace of Almighty we succeeded in the struggle for a seperate homeland ,a secular homeland. The same people which earlier constituted the part of British empire remained under the control of muslim rulers for centuries the mughal era marked the peak of the cultural revolution within da region . The monuments Qutub Minar , Red Fort , Badshahi Masjid , Lahore Fort , Qila Bala hisar , Shalamar gardens and Tajmahal are few examples of which we still remember with pride. The Muslims are a nation by any definition of the word nation , this fact was acknowledged not only by the British but even by the Congress . So we aint laying any claims here , the history itself appraises our contributions



> INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.



The logic behind the name India is that it earned your country an instant seat in the UN council apart from that most of you guyz including your politicians prefer using the term hindustani or hindustan for your country. I have great respect for my eastern nieghbours but we never were one nor shall we ever be, we have always been 2 seperate nations living in the same region . Our culture our language our heritage and our glorious history supports my claim.


----------



## RobbieS

VisionHawk said:


> Pakistan is a multi cultural country it is the home of pathans, balochs, punjabis ,kashmiris and sindhis . The creation of pakistan was on the basis of ideological grounds we took this step for the preservation of our cultural identity and by the grace of Almighty we succeeded in the struggle for a seperate homeland ,a secular homeland. The same people which earlier constituted the part of British empire remained under the control of muslim rulers for centuries the mughal era marked the peak of the cultural revolution within da region . The monuments Qutub Minar , Red Fort , Badshahi Masjid , Lahore Fort , Qila Bala hisar , Shalamar gardens and Tajmahal are few examples of which we still remember with pride. The Muslims are a nation by any definition of the word nation , this fact was acknowledged not only by the British but even by the Congress . So we aint laying any claims here , the history itself appraises our contributions
> 
> 
> 
> The logic behind the name India is that it earned your country an instant seat in the UN council apart from that most of you guyz including your politicians prefer using the term hindustani or hindustan for your country. I have great respect for my eastern nieghbours but we never were one nor shall we ever be, we have always been 2 seperate nations living in the same region . Our culture our language our heritage and our glorious history supports my claim.



Going by what I have seen on this thread, I think its fair to say that the average Pakistani is fed a very distorted view of Indian (Indian sub-continent) history.

For starters, while I do not mean to denounce the two-nation theory and the creation of Pakistan, what I find amazing is the perceived 'no historical relation' with India by the Pakistanis. 

Geographically and ethnically most of Pakistan was always a part of India. The Punjabis of Pakistan are pretty much the same as the NW population of India comprising of teh states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and west. UP. I guess the prevalence of Rajput/Kshatriya surnames amongst Muslims in Pakistan like Rathore and Chawla is pretty much a proof of common history and ethnicity.

The ethnic links are even more evident in Jatt/Jat surnames both sides of the border. Surnames like Waraich, Sidhu, Janjua etc. are common to jatts on both sides of the border. And the people of these clans can be Hindu, SIkh or Muslim depending on their domicile. 

So in fact most of Pak apart from the Balochis and the Pashtuns has everything in common with Indians. In this relation, the fact that India itself was and is an amalgamation of different ethnicities and religions should not be discounted.


----------



## neo4moss

Yes ive read it somewhere.. alexander attacked pakistan's hindu king poros and went back because pakistan army was assisted by china...


----------



## PlanetWarrior

neo4moss said:


> Yes ive read it somewhere.. alexander attacked pakistan's hindu king poros and went back because pakistan army was assisted by china...



China ??  So it was the Hindu king Poros who started the friendship between China and Pakistan ?


----------



## Faadi

Hindus consider this land to be the most Holy place in the world and they still dream for the re-union of this sub-continent. That's why they may have named this whole region as India.


----------



## Abhiras

Faadi said:


> Hindus consider this land to be the most Holy place in the world and they still dream for the re-union of this sub-continent. That's why they may have named this whole region as India.


Yes do not only consider but also know that our land is holy((just like you consider mecca or madina)).
and we do not want unstable land of Pakistan....we are happy with our holy India
this whole region is named Indian subcontinent...not India.......


----------



## Capt.Popeye

UnitedPak said:


> The "India" the greeks were referring to wasnt called "India", and it was in Pakistan. Look up Alexanders invasion of "India", it didnt even touch modern India.
> 
> You are absolutely right?
> Alexander intended to invade Pakistan, but since his spelling was so bad, he called it India.
> 
> Churchill was spot on, but I suppose you only want to quote hinduonnet sources.
> 
> Agreed, Churchill was the world's greatest historian.http://www.defence.pk/forums/images/smilies/cute/agree.gif


----------



## Capt.Popeye

neo4moss said:


> Yes ive read it somewhere.. alexander attacked pakistan's hindu king poros and went back because pakistan army was assisted by china...



You should get a job teaching history.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Pashtun said:


> I am history & Archeology major, did it in high School, then in Bachelors, and then the Masters. Your this claim that there's no Kanishka/Ashoka/Indus History in our course, is out of factual loop and devastatingly assumptious..
> 
> I had learnt throughout my schooling, college and University days about Indian history and their archeological assets. Not just that, I had an entire subject on Mahabharata in my masters Degree, yet the Ashokas and Kanishkas, which were thoroughly covered and gave us headaches of pages and pages of information to cover to pass the subject. And that's not something as elective subject - It's a compulsory subject.
> 
> So I don't think you know anything about education standards in Pakistan that what has been taught and what hasn't been taught. So don't assume.
> 
> However, I am not sure if Muslim history has been taught in India and how has it been taught, to what extent, what is covered and what is not, on what level, and whether it's elective or compulsory. Your (honest) input will be appreciated.



Thank you for a sober and well-reasoned rejoinder. All of us are entitled to have our own idealogical views; and therefrom attempt to create a vision of the future. But it would be unwise to deny or disown history.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Correction - they did not believe in the idea of a single Bharat - they did not believe in the assurances of equal status in a single Bharat, but it is egregious to suggest that they were against "modernization"; and Quaid-e-Azam's own words indicate a dream of a Nation where religion would have minimal impact on the affairs of state, so they were not against the idea of freedom and equality for all, irrespective of caste, color or creed.
> 
> _you are quite right here, but some where along the way Jinnnah's vision seems to have been sometimes overlooked, sometimes forgotten. Now, it is only for Pakistanis to decide whether it has affected them_
> 
> The presence of an "Idea" does not indicate "existence" - that comment in fact bolsters the argument that a monolithic entity called India never existed. Just because some Muslims believe in the idea of a Pan Islamic Caliphate does not mean that it is either a very good idea, or that its presence (the idea's) somehow justifies in the future, if a caliphate were to become reality, the existence of such an entity while it was merely a concept.
> 
> _Quite right._
> 
> The idea of a Pakistani state obviously proved to be just as strong as that of creating Bharat.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and for Pakistanis, the brilliant idea, concept and vision was Pakistan, a nation that was never a part of any "Indian" nation.
> 
> The EU is not a good example of a "united India", it is an association/cooperative framework of several nations, all of whom retain their independence and sovereignty, and no EU member calls themselves an EUian, they are French, British German etc.. If I'm not mistaken, such a proposal for extensive autonomy for the Muslim majority States, was shot down by the congress leadership when discussions over the future of the subcontinent were going on. But SAARC could be a good example of such cooperation.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on that one, apparently "India" derived from Indus from Sindhu etc.
> We call ourselves Pakistanis because that is what we chose to name our nation. You named yours India, thats fine, but the argument is over whether that means that Bharat has any claim to suggest that "we were all once one", just because you chose a name that coincides with that used to describe a *region* composed of several nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and that process truly started in 1947 for both countries, before then, the "shared identity" was a result of a shared occupation and desire to rid ourselves of that occupation. Notice how quickly that "shared identity" fell apart, when the British decided to leave, and millions wanted a nation of their own. I doubt your claim of "a building of Indian identity over centuries" was a widespread ideal amongst the masses of the different nations of the subcontinent - such an idea is pretty much akin to that of a Caliphate - some intellectuals may talk of it, and may have envisioned it, but as history has shown, the people rejected it come crunch time.
> 
> But SAARC is still there, once Kashmir is resolved.



_I'm skeptical about SAARC, because most of its members are still confused about their identities vis-a-vis each other. Let alone Kashmir._


----------



## bc040400065

well it is reality that India word is derived from indus and it was given by the greeks to the land which is present day pakistan not the present day india. But later on word India was used for the whole sub continent by the british. I don't know whether there was any special reason for naming india in 1947 but may be some conspiracy theory might indicate that this was to show that pakistan's land belongs to india etc.... not sure about it.... no offence .


----------



## gogbot

The reason, can be debated till the end of civilisation.

But we all believe our own versions,

And i like this one the best.







If you don't like it then send all your opinions to IDontGiveADam@DontReply.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Airboss

gogbot said:


> The reason, can be debated till the end of civilisation.
> 
> But we all believe our own versions,
> 
> And i like this one the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like it then send all your opinions to IDontGiveADam@DontReply.com



I find it Pretty Lame....

Try a Better one next time.....LOL....


----------



## niaz

I am sorry but I have not read all the pages. It is a bit much because, like all debates it is ending up as India/Pakistan slinging match and thus boring to read.

Fact 1: In all the initial literature of pre-partition days, India meant undivided India and name of the two countries were referred to as Hindustan and Pakistan. We must remember that during the Muslim era form 11th Century onwards this land was called Hindustan meaning land of the Hindus. Pre Muslim era subcontinent was called Bharat after a mythical King name.

Fact 2: The name India is derived from Indus River which is now in Pakistan. This name was only used by the Europeans. 

How the new country came to be known as India is difficult to determine. It is my guess that since the all the official stationery of before partition had GOI printed on it. Army was called Indian Army, Indian Air Force and so on. And all the laws referred to as Indian Acts; after Independence, the majority part kept its name and the establishment carried on using the same official stationery.

Mountbatten, the first Governor General loved India. He even named his first grand daughter India. She is today called India Hicks. Therefore it is possible that he may have something to do with it too.

How much of the above conjecture is correct, I wouldnt know. But I dont see any other reason why it is not called Hindustan as initially envisaged or Bharat as called by the natives before Muslims arrived on the scene.

I apologize if this has been already said by another.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Airboss said:


> I find it Pretty Lame....
> 
> Try a Better one next time.....LOL....



Lamer than

PAKISTAN : Punjab, Afghan Border States, Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sirius

Airboss said:


> I find it Pretty Lame....
> 
> Try a Better one next time.....LOL....



Dont just troll..
any sane person can find excellent message behind it


----------



## toxic_pus

niaz said:


> I am sorry but I have not read all the pages. It is a bit much because, like all debates it is ending up as India/Pakistan slinging match and thus boring to read.
> 
> Fact 1: In all the initial literature of pre-partition days, India meant undivided India and name of the two countries were referred to as Hindustan and Pakistan. We must remember that during the Muslim era form 11th Century onwards this land was called Hindustan meaning land of the Hindus. Pre Muslim era subcontinent was called Bharat after a mythical King name.
> 
> Fact 2: The name India is derived from Indus River which is now in Pakistan. This name was only used by the Europeans.
> 
> How the new country came to be known as India is difficult to determine. It is my guess that since the all the official stationery of before partition had GOI printed on it. Army was called Indian Army, Indian Air Force and so on. And all the laws referred to as Indian Acts; after Independence, the majority part kept its name and the establishment carried on using the same official stationery.
> 
> Mountbatten, the first Governor General loved India. He even named his first grand daughter India. She is today called India Hicks. Therefore it is possible that he may have something to do with it too.
> 
> How much of the above conjecture is correct, I wouldnt know. But I dont see any other reason why it is not called Hindustan as initially envisaged or Bharat as called by the natives before Muslims arrived on the scene.
> 
> I apologize if this has been already said by another.


Your contention that the name 'India' was adopted for as superficial a reason as stationary or name of civil institutions couldn't be changed, is ridiculous.

India was named 'India' because India was (still is) the successor state to British 'India'. What it meant was that the administration of British 'India' was handed over from the Queen to the indigenous people. Everything else remained the same. On the other hand, Pakistan was a __new__ state which came into existence due to partition of British 'India'. It is because of this reason, for example, the UN membership of British 'India' went to India, while Pakistan had to make a separate application for such membership. India is also considered as one of the founder members of League of Nations for the same reason of being successor to the state that had actually signed the Treaty of Versailles.

The name 'Hindustan' would have been unacceptable because of the simple fact that India had adopted a secular constitution and that name would have been just the opposite of the ideology of India - a home for every religion, tribe, creed and caste, regardless of who was majority or who was minority.

Although this 'choosing' of name may provide some Pakistanis plenty of grist to their conspiracy mill, there is in fact no conspiracy. It is actually pretty boring.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kabir Panthi

niaz said:


> I am sorry but I have not read all the pages. It is a bit much because, like all debates it is ending up as India/Pakistan slinging match and thus boring to read.
> 
> Fact 1: In all the initial literature of pre-partition days, India meant undivided India and name of the two countries were referred to as Hindustan and Pakistan. We must remember that during the Muslim era form 11th Century onwards this land was called Hindustan meaning land of the Hindus. Pre Muslim era subcontinent was called Bharat after a mythical King name.
> 
> Fact 2: The name India is derived from Indus River which is now in Pakistan. This name was only used by the Europeans.



It may be that the name India was introduced by the Greeks in around 400BC, from the River Indus.

However, for the Greeks, India meant the entire Indian subcontinent, and not just the Indus Valley.

For example, as per Greek literature, Chandragupta Maurya (whose capital was Patna) was an emperor of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## sensenreason

Why dont we dig up origins of all countries names such as China, England? It might be more interesting and less disputed...

Not sure whats the big deal about names? But then I guess some people have a 'India' fixation...


----------



## peacemaker10

gogbot said:


> The reason, can be debated till the end of civilisation.
> 
> But we all believe our own versions,
> 
> And i like this one the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like it then send all your opinions to IDontGiveADam@DontReply.com



Very Nice !!

Can't describe better than this ..


----------



## Sparten80

Thats not true, infact, hindu scriptures refer to the regions of Pakistan particularly the Panjab regions (including both Pakistani and Sikh Panjab) to be off limit to devout practising hindus. 

Ironically, it is in the Panjab and the dessert regions south that the presence of hinduism both historically and even now was minimal. This is proven by the fact that there are rarely any ancient hindu temples located in Pakistan bar a few exceptions, while in contrast, the number of ancient Zorastrian, Buddhist, Shamanist/Animist, Islamic and more recently, Christian sites are quite extensive.

From a historical point of view and even currently if one reads ancient hindu scriptures like the Puranas, Upanishads, Gita etc... The lands of Pakistan were off limits to devout hindus. 

bearing this in mind, i dont understand how, many hindustani's today claim that in ancient times, hinduism spread far beyond and was a major religion outside of its current boundaries. Archeological, historical and even many indian scriptures themselves dispel such claims.


----------



## Sparten80

I think it may be possible that the indian founding fathers Nehru, Gandhi etc.. were acutely aware of the lack of identity that the people of hindustan had or maybe they just got lucky and inherited the continuing legacy of what Colonial Britain left in their ''creation'' of the country india.

For all intent and purpose, india is an artificial country in a modern context. It never existed historically, nor does it have any base. Many biased indians will point to Ashoka's empire, but it was not referred to india either, not on any maps, not by Ashoka himself. No ancient map exists ever showing a place called ''india'' in this form, infact alternate names are used to describe the various parts of South Asia.

As can be seen all throughout history is that the people inhabiting the gangetic plains and the subcontinent peninsula down to between the eastern and western knats have been very astute imitators of foreign cultures.

The people have always had an inheritent complex of identity, and were quick to adopt foreign cultural practises and traits, over time, gradually claiming those norms for themselves erroneously. This trait is applied over and over again all throughout history and may explain the inherent complex that many people have in South Asia in general, and as can be seen in this forum in general, the large numbers of indians who are Pakistan-fixated or fixated on other foreign things not indigenous to them.

Look at ancient hinduism (Note: the term hindu isnt even indigenous and was never used by the ancient practisers of ''hinduism'', it was introduced by foreigners after the 16th century - this is another discussion in itself) 
The religion was introduced and shares many similarities to the pagan Iranic (Aryan Tribes) the settled in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact, Aryan legend holds that they settled the trans-indus and later Panjab region/eastern Afghanistan from where there religion spread in various directions leaving an impression. what is interesting is that many scholars, notably Iranian ones but also others, note that while hinduism shows many similarities and most likely is derived from the ancient Iranic faiths, the people now practising it are definately not Iranic in the genetic sense. In essence, the inhabitants of hindustan have adopted a foreign religion and given it a local flavour(=hinduism) claiming it as their own.

Many foreign traditions, introduced by Central Asian turks, Afghans, Arabs in the form of music, dance, art, culture, mannerism have left their imprint on them. But ironically, up until even 1526 when Babur defeated the Delhi Sultanate (Battle of Panipat), he noted that the people of Hindustan lacked basic social skills and rules of engagement. For a central asian turk to speak of such findings, doesnt point to any ''civilization'' at all. Ironically, go to wikipedia and you'll find indians editing it to read, that Babur was ''an indian ruler''. A better read would be Baburnama which gives considerable insight into the mindset of the native aboriginal people and his impression of them.

For the Hindustani, the best thing imaginable, was the arrival of the British, who not only put an end to the longstanding rule of the Mughals (A central asian empire) but also of several other empires (Hyderabad's Asif jahs), Nawabs of Bengal, Afghan etc... but built up the continent with a series of massive infrastructure projects, communication and railworks, schools and training, empowered them. They applied the name india, previously used for a region straddling the 2 banks of the Indus river in Sindh in ancient Greek and Persian maps, and applied to the entire continent stretching from burma to eastern Afghanistan.

In 1947, left them with a country. In turn giving the people of Hindustan a foreign name, new found identity and new found culture, language(Hindi over indigenous languages; note: interestingly, Panini, the ancient sankrit master was from Ghandara, Pakistan)) a sense of history and civlization, tying them back incorrectly to the ancient times. Winston Churchill summed it up just right when he said that "India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator". Despite this, people living all the way in Bengal, Andra Pradesh, UP and Tamil Nadu, somehow feel ''connected'' with people from the indus river of Pakistan?? sounds absurd but not when you have generations of absorbing foreign cultures and claiming them as your own. It is said, that those without any history or culture are quick to point them out on other people and find remote links to themselves so as to improve their stature and origins... Sounds familiar (I'll just leave that one as that)

Wether ''indians'' themselves actively picked the name india or were meagre bystanders in the colonial game of cultural hijack and manipulation, distorting the history and facts about the region, one will never know for sure, but what can be said is, judging by the number of people who continue to discount this and are vehemently in opposition to it, the british did a good job at it! 

By the way, this is an interesting topic, I hope no one is offended by it, as it has considerable academic merit and people need to discuss it and be more aware of this cultural hijack and sabotage (one of many) inflicted by the British on the local peoples of South Asia


----------



## Comet

gogbot said:


> The reason, can be debated till the end of civilisation.
> 
> But we all believe our own versions,
> 
> And i like this one the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like it then send all your opinions to IDontGiveADam@DontReply.com





Hi,

Which religion is mentioned in the Last? Is it Christianity?


----------



## Kabir Panthi

Sparten80 said:


> Thats not true, infact, hindu scriptures refer to the regions of Pakistan particularly the Panjab regions (including both Pakistani and Sikh Panjab) to be off limit to devout practising hindus.



Whoa, the cities of Lahore and Kasur are said to have been founded by the sons of King Ram of Ayodhya, and the cities of Takshashila (Taxila) and Pushkalavati (Charsadda) are said to have been founded by the sons of his brother Bharat.

Gandhara is frequently mentioned in the Mahabharata, and there are many archeological relics related to deity Shiva that have been found in Afghanistan.


----------



## k!ng_0f_(~)3@rt$

I did not read the full topic but I have question

What was the original Ancient Punjab. As I seen on Wiki it from Hassan Abdal( or nearest city towards Peeshawar) to Delhi and Haryana, etc. all are one Punjab.

Did anyone have the details information regarding this?


----------



## MilesTogo

Sorry, I did not read the entire thread, but can anyone please tell what is the fight about?

Is it the claim to word "India"? If that is what it is then I will atleast not mind if Pakistan wants to take up the name India. We can always find some other name or may be switch to "Bharat" which is not as popular as "India"but is the official name in addition to "India". (correct me if I am wrong here)

Actually, I like the idea of Pakistan changing its name to 'India' or a derivative like "West India"?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilesTogo

*Let me put this question to Pakistanis here:

What if Pakistan was named India? How will things be different? Thanks*


----------



## somebozo

Here is my best guess..
The word "India" came from Indeginous which means native or local. The colonial british often reffered to local people as indians for eg: red indian. The largest population of indigenous people was encounterd in Bhatrat or so called "hindustan". Hence the name fell in popular favour as India. 

That is my best guess but I am no historian.


----------



## Sher Shah

anything east of the Indus has always been, historically India.

whatever happened this century doesnt mean a thing

east of indus= india

some indians didnt like each other so they made a separate india, and took some non indian lands while they were at it

pashtuns and balochis are not indians/desis. panjabis and muhajirs and sindhis are

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SONOFAGUN

Sher Shah said:


> anything east of the Indus has always been, historically India.
> 
> whatever happened this century doesnt mean a thing
> 
> east of indus= india
> 
> some indians didnt like each other so they made a separate india, and took some non indian lands while they were at it
> 
> pashtuns and balochis are not indians/desis. panjabis and muhajirs and sindhis are



Shershah>>> I think I will have agree with you. How come you have choosen Sher Shah as your avtar...he is a legend in India / Bihar..one of the greates warrior.


----------



## Jacobtheindoamerican

All the names India, Hind, Hindustan,Indo,Indies,Shendu come from the Indus river.

The name Indus is an English word for &#921;&#957;&#948;&#972;&#962; which means like "Indian".Indus evolved to India, Indian, Indo, Indies, etc.

Hind is everyone east of the Indus. Hindu is the mispronunciation of the Sanskrit word Sindhu by the Persians.Shendu comes from the Sanskrit word Sindhu also. Sindhu was the original Sanskrit name. Hindu never meant the Vedic religions. The British took this word "Hindu" and gathered ALL the Vedic religions and grouped as "Hinduism".

And the reality is all of "India's history" from all over India is a shared history.


----------



## SONOFAGUN

After going through all the post, I could figure out that Pakistani intellegentia is still trying to defend the decision of Pakistani formation.....Pakistanis have been taught these years successfully that " the little" teenei weenei is actually the father and its not the other way around. Tortured souls.... Bangladesh is so better off.......


----------



## Sher Shah

SONOFAGUN said:


> Shershah>>> I think I will have agree with you. How come you have choosen Sher Shah as your avtar...he is a legend in India / Bihar..one of the greates warrior.



Because friend, I am a Pakhtun and Sher Shah was arguably, the greatest Pashtun ever


----------



## rafay321

SONOFAGUN said:


> After going through all the post, I could figure out that Pakistani intellegentia is still trying to defend the decision of Pakistani formation.....Pakistanis have been taught these years successfully that " the little" teenei weenei is actually the father and its not the other way around. Tortured souls.... Bangladesh is so better off.......



I could smell agony...the Indian version.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Sher Shah said:


> anything east of the Indus has always been, historically India.
> 
> whatever happened this century doesnt mean a thing
> 
> east of indus= india
> 
> some indians didnt like each other so they made a separate india, and took some non indian lands while they were at it
> 
> pashtuns and balochis are not indians/desis. panjabis and muhajirs and sindhis are




Agree!
Pashtuns and Balochi are of Iranian origin genetically.

Also in epic India,tribes of Afghanistan(known as Aswaka back then) is shown as was a foreign kingdom.

*ontopic*
list of names of India.
Indoi - Greek

Hind- name in Arabic/Persian/Urdu

Hoddu - Hebrew

Aryavarta - name in Sanskrit.

Bharat - traditional/local name.

Tenjiku(meaning the heavenly center of the world) - Japanese.

Shendu - Chinese

finally

India - British / Latin / english.


From all the above names if you had to choose an official name that represents a country which in modern times is a pluralistic, multilingual, multiethnic ,multi-racial , secular and democratic.

*
India* is the only one which qualifies if you don't want it be biased in anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 53fd

_The reason, can be debated till the end of civilisation.

But we all believe our own versions,

And i like this one the best.



If you don't like it then send all your opinions to IDontGiveADam@DontReply.com_

What about Zoroastrianism and Judaism, which constitute 0.01% and 0.005% of India's total population respectively? Also, there are about 0.18% Bahais' in India as well. I guess you ran out of letters to fit those three in.


----------



## roadrunner

MilesTogo said:


> *Let me put this question to Pakistanis here:
> 
> What if Pakistan was named India? How will things be different? Thanks*



India wouldn't be able to claim Pakistani history such as the number zero, a lot of the mathematics, and a lot of Pakistani civilizations.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

roadrunner said:


> India wouldn't be able to claim Pakistani history such as the number zero, a lot of the mathematics, and a lot of Pakistani civilizations.



Not just pakistani history..'' ANCIENT '' pakistani history...lol..
btw..the fact of the matter is nobody has exclusive claim on ancient history or invention...it's a shared common history..both have equal rights on it. I am sure the persons who invented zero etc..would go crazy if they ever come to know about this type of desperate arguements.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## roadrunner

bhagathsingh said:


> Not just pakistani history..'' ANCIENT '' pakistani history...lol..
> btw..the fact of the matter is nobody has exclusive claim on ancient history or invention...it's a shared common history..both have equal rights on it. I am sure the persons who invented zero etc..would go crazy if they ever come to know about this type of desperate arguements.



The origin of the numerical system would be shared by those who invented it only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

It is usually not advisable to enter a thread late, unaware of what has gone on before, ignorant of explanations that may have been offered, and sufficiently cover the ground, enough at least to need no further detailing and without knowing the positions that various contributors have taken. This is an unusually tempting thread, even if one detects suspect themes behind its choice and introduction.

I would like to comment on Sparten80 most recent comments, among other reasons for the irresistible coda to his main arguments, which runs as follows: _By the way, this is an interesting topic, I hope no one is offended by it, as it has considerable academic merit and people need to discuss it and be more aware of this cultural hijack and sabotage (one of many) inflicted by the British on the local peoples of South Asia._ 

Since I disagree with a number of things that he has stated, but as he appears to have a sufficient degree of tolerance and broadmindedness to withstand a frontal attack on some of them, without losing his temper, firing nuclear missiles at his interlocutor or declaring jihad, this may be an interesting exercise. What's to lose?



Sparten80 said:


> Thats not true, infact, hindu scriptures refer to the regions of Pakistan particularly the Panjab regions (including both Pakistani and Sikh Panjab) to be off limit to devout practising hindus.



I am not sure what the original reference was, that provoked this remark.

We can examine its validity depending on whether or not to accept the cited sources, Hindu epics (not scriptures), as authentic historical sources. These are not usually considered authoritative historical sources, although based on hints found within, there have been inspired guesses made about obscure parts of Indian history which have as often as not proven to be true. In sum, we can read it for suggestions of answers to questions whose answers are not to be found in recorded secular texts with a reasonably long written trail. We cannot assume that they are authentic; there is too much mixture of myth within.

It might be argued that Herodotus, the 'father of history', also had myths within his 'Istoria', single-legged men, men who slept in the shade of their own ears, legends of how gold was collected in the fabled east, and the like. However, Herodotus never spoke about his actual protagonists having been engaged with mythical beings, or having encountered mythical things or objects, unlike the epics, which are full of such incidents. 

It is unwise and not historiographically correct to take Hindu epic sources as authentic. We shall deal with these at arms' length, therefore, and hope that this is clear to readers.

This particular reference was made in the Puranas, stating that the best practices were no longer to be found in the Punjab and its surroundings. The reference was made at a time when the language and culture of the incoming Aryans had gone deep into the Gangetic plain and was still moving east. 

We can make sense of it only by postulating that the Indian branch of the Indo-Iranian speaking wanderers on the Central Asian steppes came to the Punjab earlier than to the Gangetic plains, that they were moving in an easterly, perhaps even a south-easterly direction. As the borders of this culture spread, its older habitations were increasingly considered inauspicious, its inhabitants came to be seen as outside the pale.

It is not right on your part to ignore the identical description of, specifically, the Uttara Madra and the Parama Kamboja. The Parama Kamboja may have been considered cousins from the steppes, a typical Iranian speaking dweller of the steppes, nearly certainly part of the great Scythian mass.



Sparten80 said:


> Ironically, it is in the Panjab and the dessert regions south that the presence of hinduism both historically and even now was minimal.
> 
> This is proven by the fact that there are rarely any ancient hindu temples located in Pakistan bar a few exceptions, while in contrast, the number of ancient Zorastrian, Buddhist, Shamanist/Animist, Islamic and more recently, Christian sites are quite extensive.
> 
> From a historical point of view and even currently if one reads ancient hindu scriptures like the Puranas, Upanishads, Gita etc... The lands of Pakistan were off limits to devout hindus.
> 
> bearing this in mind, i dont understand how, many hindustani's today claim that in ancient times, hinduism spread far beyond and was a major religion outside of its current boundaries. Archeological, historical and even many indian scriptures themselves dispel such claims.



With the greatest respect to you personally, these views are extreme and completely untenable. Explaining why is a long procedure. Please bear with me. Another prior apology that needs to be rendered is that this exercise that follows is being done entirely from memory, so allowance may please be made for an elderly man to falter occasionally. It is hoped that there will not be a single major failure.

Instead of going at your arguments sentence and clause at a time, and fighting it out in the trenches, let us take a look at what we can postulate at a broad level. 

The evidence today is largely linguistic. We have first the Indo-European language to handle. This seems to have branched out into Indo-European and Indo-Iranian variations during the wandering of the people speaking it on the steppes. 

We know that there were five divisions (leaving aside the mysterious Boghaz Keui inscriptions for the moment) of the Indo-European variant: Greek, Latin, Celtic, Gothic or German and Tukharian. We know where each landed up, although it is a matter of speculation how the Tukharian landed up in the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang. 

The Indo-Iranians themselves seem to have split somewhere on the steppes around the Syr-Daria/Amu-Daria river complexes, and the split in their languages was sharpened and deepened in this physical split. 

As a result, and this gives us our first data point, some passages in the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta cannot be parsed without a reasonable knowledge of RgVedic Sanskrit; some passages in early hymns of the Rg Veda are comprehensible only given knowledge of Avestan. Again, linguistic analysis yields a figure of 1,700 to 1,100 BC for the Rg Veda, similar dates for the Avesta, leaving our fanatic Hindus and Zoroastrians and their dates in the 3rd and 4th millennium aside for the moment.

The second data point is the geographical references within the Vedas, which map on to features in the geography from the Syr Daria/Amu Daria river complexes, some on the mountains, and some on the foothills coming down from the high mountains;

The third data point is the tribes list from the Mahabharata, and the locations of the tribes, including, intriguingly, references to individual tribes and their peculiarities. A case in point is the Parama Kamboja tribe; horsemen, tall, fair, ferocious in battle, loyal to a fault, available as mercenaries to the feuding kings, source of wonderfully warm blankets, speakers of a language hauntingly familiar to the tribesmen in the Punjab, the Kauravas, but subtly different, and cautioned against by the high priests. 

Our best guess is that these Parama Kambojas were dwellers in the Ferghana Valley, part of the Scythian congeries, speakers of an Eastern Iranian dialect. After being pushed around in the time of troubles when the Yueh-chi, the Moon-borne, were expelled by the Hiung-nu, and in turn pushed out the Scythians from their Ferghana homeland, one branch landing up in Scythian-stan, or Sakasthan north of the Makran coast, known in contemporary times as Seistan; another branch lives on to this day in the Punjab as the Kamboh.

At this point, it is necessary to address your misgivings regarding the lack of an associated material culture. In brief, the position is this. The early Indo-Aryan speakers had no identifiable material culture. In their earlier, steppe-land avatar as the Scythians, there is a speculative link to the BMAC culture; at that stage, if we are to go by our best-established links, this was a horse-riding, gold-ornament wearing pastoral people, who travelled the steppes like mastermariners and were the people who taunted Darius by staying just over the horizon from his expedition to hunt them down. The material culture that is associated with them appears in the form of tumuli and graves. 

There was no corresponding material culture for the tribesmen who crossed the mountains and colonised the country beyond the foothills in the Punjab. They were in transition, and it is difficult to detect their traces until we come to Painted Grey Ware. There is, in fact, in South Asia, a long gap in material culture between the Mohenjo Daro remains, and the cult figures of the Buddha. Two major reasons define this phenomenon.

First, this was a society in transition from pastoral life on the steppes to initially just such a pastoral life on the pasture lands of the Indus river flats and then the Ganges river flats, followed, as their influence spread among autochthonous and peoples in the hinterland. As it happens, there has been no identification of any material culture with them. Taking the Ganges plain, for example, there is no trace of material culture to mark the passage of these people other than Painted Grey Ware in the period 1100 BC to 600 BC, that is, from after the time that the Vedas were thought to have been composed to the approximate time of the Buddha. 

Mention has been made of the failure to find temples and other public buildings. This mention could only have been made in complete ignorance of the culture and civilisation and the religious practices that were characteristic of the period before the Buddha. Those early Vedic Hindus, for lack of better terminology, had no temples for the same reason that the Scythians had no temples; they were not idol worshippers. Idol worship became a feature of religious life only during the counter-reformation initiated by the gradual decay of Buddhism and the desire of the Hindu priestly class to preach their religion once again, that is, during the period 400 AD onwards. How idols came into the religious life of South Asia is not certain, although the Indus Valley Civilisation certainly had no lack of suggestive iconography. For the Buddhists, the first depictions of the Buddha were prompted by the converted among the Greeks who set up the Bactrian kingdoms. It may be recalled that this was during the period of the supremacy of the Buddhist religion, and the earlier forms of Hinduism were dormant, a minority in society and unable, perhaps even unwilling, to seek prominence.

From 600 BC to 400 AD, Buddhism slowly prevailed, with increasing momentum, against the earliest, Vedic Hinduism, which had no idols, hence no temples, and left neither the evidence of temples nor of tumuli, thanks to the adoption of cremation with the availability of wood in plenty, from the surrounding forests and arborage of both the Indus plain and the Gangetic. While the Indus plain was no longer the haunt of rhinoceros and elephant, the desiccation of some of the river systems having accelerated during the aftermath of the Harappan civilisation, it was still green and plentifully supplied with trees. It is Buddhism, therefore, that left the first traces of archaeological remains for posterity to examine.

At this point, I will seek a break to go about my normal work. If, Sparten80, you find this useful and interesting, I should like to continue the commentary with your following observations. Please feel free to indicate frankly if this is too heavy for a defence site. When you decide, please be aware that what follows is likely to be rather more comprehensive and fundamental an examination than has been done up to this point.



Sparten80 said:


> I think it may be possible that the indian founding fathers Nehru, Gandhi etc.. were acutely aware of the lack of identity that the people of hindustan had or maybe they just got lucky and inherited the continuing legacy of what Colonial Britain left in their ''creation'' of the country india.
> 
> For all intent and purpose, india is an artificial country in a modern context. It never existed historically, nor does it have any base. Many biased indians will point to Ashoka's empire, but it was not referred to india either, not on any maps, not by Ashoka himself. No ancient map exists ever showing a place called ''india'' in this form, infact alternate names are used to describe the various parts of South Asia.
> 
> As can be seen all throughout history is that the people inhabiting the gangetic plains and the subcontinent peninsula down to between the eastern and western knats have been very astute imitators of foreign cultures.
> 
> The people have always had an inheritent complex of identity, and were quick to adopt foreign cultural practises and traits, over time, gradually claiming those norms for themselves erroneously. This trait is applied over and over again all throughout history and may explain the inherent complex that many people have in South Asia in general, and as can be seen in this forum in general, the large numbers of indians who are Pakistan-fixated or fixated on other foreign things not indigenous to them.
> 
> Look at ancient hinduism (Note: the term hindu isnt even indigenous and was never used by the ancient practisers of ''hinduism'', it was introduced by foreigners after the 16th century - this is another discussion in itself)
> The religion was introduced and shares many similarities to the pagan Iranic (Aryan Tribes) the settled in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact, Aryan legend holds that they settled the trans-indus and later Panjab region/eastern Afghanistan from where there religion spread in various directions leaving an impression. what is interesting is that many scholars, notably Iranian ones but also others, note that while hinduism shows many similarities and most likely is derived from the ancient Iranic faiths, the people now practising it are definately not Iranic in the genetic sense. In essence, the inhabitants of hindustan have adopted a foreign religion and given it a local flavour(=hinduism) claiming it as their own.
> 
> Many foreign traditions, introduced by Central Asian turks, Afghans, Arabs in the form of music, dance, art, culture, mannerism have left their imprint on them. But ironically, up until even 1526 when Babur defeated the Delhi Sultanate (Battle of Panipat), he noted that the people of Hindustan lacked basic social skills and rules of engagement. For a central asian turk to speak of such findings, doesnt point to any ''civilization'' at all. Ironically, go to wikipedia and you'll find indians editing it to read, that Babur was ''an indian ruler''. A better read would be Baburnama which gives considerable insight into the mindset of the native aboriginal people and his impression of them.
> 
> For the Hindustani, the best thing imaginable, was the arrival of the British, who not only put an end to the longstanding rule of the Mughals (A central asian empire) but also of several other empires (Hyderabad's Asif jahs), Nawabs of Bengal, Afghan etc... but built up the continent with a series of massive infrastructure projects, communication and railworks, schools and training, empowered them. They applied the name india, previously used for a region straddling the 2 banks of the Indus river in Sindh in ancient Greek and Persian maps, and applied to the entire continent stretching from burma to eastern Afghanistan.
> 
> In 1947, left them with a country. In turn giving the people of Hindustan a foreign name, new found identity and new found culture, language(Hindi over indigenous languages; note: interestingly, Panini, the ancient sankrit master was from Ghandara, Pakistan)) a sense of history and civlization, tying them back incorrectly to the ancient times. Winston Churchill summed it up just right when he said that "India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator". Despite this, people living all the way in Bengal, Andra Pradesh, UP and Tamil Nadu, somehow feel ''connected'' with people from the indus river of Pakistan?? sounds absurd but not when you have generations of absorbing foreign cultures and claiming them as your own. It is said, that those without any history or culture are quick to point them out on other people and find remote links to themselves so as to improve their stature and origins... Sounds familiar (I'll just leave that one as that)
> 
> Wether ''indians'' themselves actively picked the name india or were meagre bystanders in the colonial game of cultural hijack and manipulation, distorting the history and facts about the region, one will never know for sure, but what can be said is, judging by the number of people who continue to discount this and are vehemently in opposition to it, the british did a good job at it!
> 
> By the way, this is an interesting topic, I hope no one is offended by it, as it has considerable academic merit and people need to discuss it and be more aware of this cultural hijack and sabotage (one of many) inflicted by the British on the local peoples of South Asia





Kabir Panthi said:


> Whoa, the cities of Lahore and Kasur are said to have been founded by the sons of King Ram of Ayodhya, and the cities of Takshashila (Taxila) and Pushkalavati (Charsadda) are said to have been founded by the sons of his brother Bharat.
> 
> Gandhara is frequently mentioned in the Mahabharata, and there are many archeological relics related to deity Shiva that have been found in Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Pagla Dashu

Joe, your ability to compress hundreds of years of history in just few paragraphs, without even losing the nuances, just blows my mind away. That was an exceptionally well written synopsis of history of '_ancient Pakistan_' (I hope you are aware that here, on this forum, we have finally discovered this South Asian _Atlantis_).

I seem to be vaguely remembering from one of Michael Witzel's (or was it someone else?) essays that the temples are also conspicuous by their absence in Mahabharata. There are of course mentions of temples in Mahabharata, but only in texts that were added much later.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

roadrunner said:


> The origin of the numerical system would be shared by those who invented it only.


how can pakistan claim exclusively when 1/3 of land and more likely half of the original population is in modern india (considering the theory that they were pushed down south by aryans, large number of pak population today is outsiders or mixed breed because of constant attacks it faced, large population shift in partition days large number of hindus and muslims shifted to india while muslims from india shifted to pak )..
pubweb.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/indus/english/map.html


----------



## roadrunner

bhagathsingh said:


> how can pakistan claim exclusively when 1/3 of land and more likely half of the original population is in modern india



1/3 of Pakistan is in India? I don't think so. Pakistan is in Pakistan. Look on a map for the borders. 

Half the original population of Pakistan is not in India. You've based this on zero evidence, only a figure that will fit your hypothesis. 



> (considering the theory that they were pushed down south by aryans,



There's no theory that says anyone was pushed south out of Pakistan in its entire history. 



> large number of pak population today is outsiders or mixed breed because of constant attacks it faced,



Pakistan has had numerous invasions. So? Does that change the fact that someone inside of Pakistan's borders at some point in history came up with all the mathematics? No, that still remains the history of Pakistan, not of India. 



> large population shift in partition days large number of hindus and muslims shifted to india while muslims from india shifted to pak )..
> pubweb.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/indus/english/map.html



Partition wasn't that big a change. Probably 1 in 20 is a Muhajir in Pakistan and 1 in 100 a Muhajir in India.


----------



## RVS_108

Question 

If only Pakistan is the original India and..... u bravely asked us tht Why wud u named ur nation a India.... and u wer proposing tht modern India is not a part of Ancient India in ancient times, then tell me... today Why Indonesians Named their nation Indonesia which literally means a Indian Nation(land) in theirs own language "Bahasha"? ? ?


----------



## roadrunner

RVS_108 said:


> Question
> 
> If only Pakistan is the original India and..... u bravely asked us tht Why wud u named ur nation a India.... and u wer proposing tht modern India is not a part of Ancient India in ancient times, then tell me... today Why Indonesians Named their nation Indonesia which literally means a Indian Nation(land) in theirs own language "Bahasha"? ? ?



It was JR Logan a British Anthropologist that named it Indonesia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pagla Dashu

Joe, I am using this thread to reply to your message on my wall as I am unable to leave any message on your wall or send you any PM. Hopefully mods will allow this personal message. I just wanted to thank you for your kind words. I am going to treasure those words of inspiration for a long time to come. I would also like to inform you that I'm a not so old e-acquaintance of yours.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pagla Dashu said:


> Joe, I am using this thread to reply to your message on my wall as I am unable to leave any message on your wall or send you any PM. Hopefully mods will allow this personal message. I just wanted to thank you for your kind words. I am going to treasure those words of inspiration for a long time to come. I would also like to inform you that I'm a not so old e-acquaintance of yours.



Thank you for your message. I really look forward to your interventions, as to those of Abir, Captain Popeye and other sensible, non-jingoistic Indians (there are many more, all of an intelligent and reasonable point of view). Having said that, I admit that when a particularly cheap crack is taken apart and its utterer smacked down by a Kartic Sri, it is difficult not to cheer loudly.

On this thread, incidentally, I am hoping hard that Sparten80 will support a continuation of the commentary on his scintillating post. It astonished me. It is not usual to see such a thoughtful and intelligent post. I just hope that he is open to alternative ideas and allows a further discussion. Without such support, the discussion is liable to degenerate into an exchange of abuse and personalities; not my cup of tea, thank you very much. The discussion that was going on with some Chinese members has gone that way, with the intervention of gpit; there are some members whose presence is a sure sign of beastlliness about to happen, and who seem to be tolerated only because they specialise in insulting Indians, and he seems prominent among them. All in all, this is the only worthwhile thread left alive, and is an enthralling one, regardless of its great age!


----------



## KS

Joe Shearer said:


> Thank you for your message. I really look forward to your interventions, as to those of Abir, Captain Popeye and other sensible, non-jingoistic Indians (there are many more, all of an intelligent and reasonable point of view). *Having said that, I admit that when a particularly cheap crack is taken apart and its utterer smacked down by a Kartic Sri, it is difficult not to cheer loudly.*



 Am I being praised or reproached ?

Post # 317 - WoW !


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> I am not sure what the original reference was, that provoked this remark.
> 
> We can examine its validity depending on whether or not to accept the cited sources, Hindu epics (not scriptures), as authentic historical sources. These are not usually considered authoritative historical sources, although based on hints found within, there have been inspired guesses made about obscure parts of Indian history which have as often as not proven to be true. In sum, we can read it for suggestions of answers to questions whose answers are not to be found in recorded secular texts with a reasonably long written trail. We cannot assume that they are authentic; there is too much mixture of myth within.
> 
> It might be argued that Herodotus, the 'father of history', also had myths within his 'Istoria', single-legged men, men who slept in the shade of their own ears, legends of how gold was collected in the fabled east, and the like. However, Herodotus never spoke about his actual protagonists having been engaged with mythical beings, or having encountered mythical things or objects, unlike the epics, which are full of such incidents.
> 
> It is unwise and not historiographically correct to take Hindu epic sources as authentic. We shall deal with these at arms' length, therefore, and hope that this is clear to readers.
> 
> This particular reference was made in the Puranas, stating that the best practices were no longer to be found in the Punjab and its surroundings. The reference was made at a time when the language and culture of the incoming Aryans had gone deep into the Gangetic plain and was still moving east.
> 
> We can make sense of it only by postulating that the Indian branch of the Indo-Iranian speaking wanderers on the Central Asian steppes came to the Punjab earlier than to the Gangetic plains, that they were moving in an easterly, perhaps even a south-easterly direction. As the borders of this culture spread, its older habitations were increasingly considered inauspicious, its inhabitants came to be seen as outside the pale.
> 
> It is not right on your part to ignore the identical description of, specifically, the Uttara Madra and the Parama Kamboja. The Parama Kamboja may have been considered cousins from the steppes, a typical Iranian speaking dweller of the steppes, nearly certainly part of the great Scythian mass.


 
I got about as far as here, and it looks to be mostly incorrect. I think the reference Sparte80 is referring to are the ones from the Mahabarata (whether they're a historically inaccurate story or not is irrelevant, it is a sacred text) 

_Mahabharata, Book 8, Chapter 44 
Karna rebukes Shalya, who belong to a non-Vedic tribe named Madra, belonging to the category of Aratta-Vahikas

How can one go to heaven, having drunk milk in the town called Yugandhara, and resided in the place called Acyutasthala, and bathed in the spot called Bhutilaya? *There (Punjab) where the five rivers flow just after issuing from the mountains, there among the Aratta-Vahikas, no respectable person should dwell even for two days. *There are two Pishacas named Vahi and Hika in the river Vipasa. The Vahikas are the offspring of those two Pishacas.

The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other&#8217;s sacrifices. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices_

Mahisha Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

That is basically all of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RVS_108

> It was JR Logan a British Anthropologist that named it Indonesia.




yeah and why they named it if tht wasnt an Indian land/nation.
and why wud they named modern India a "British India" at the time of colonial period when ther wer Indian Empires wer like marathas and mughals wer calling India a Hindustan or maratha empire or mughal sultanate ???
Why Ancient Greeks historians called Patna"pataliputra" as an "Indian Town" ???

Because Modern India is a mainland of Ancient India and hence This Nation has a right to have a name INDIA in all sense.

What is Pakistan ???
Pakistan is not an ancient Indus's nation, hence it got nothing to do with claims of the inventions of people of Indus valley civilization ,the word "Ancient Pakistan" i donno frm whom did u get this hilarious idea ,cuz...
if u say the word "Ancient Pakistan" then u need to understand the history tht wud be very difficult to digest tht the ancestors of modern Pakistan are the childrens of the foreign Invaders who destroyed and killed almost all ancient Pakistanis, u know what i mean 

the word pakistan is created in 1940s ,creation of pakistan is itself is the proof tht they dont belong to this Ancient Civilization of India hence they want separation frm "hindus" ( descendents of Ancient India so ur "people of region of ancient pakistan also comes to tht") and like Jinnah rightly said Muslims and hindus belongs to two different civilizations, hence it also gives a hint tht the separation was not only between Hindus and muslims ,it was also between people of two different civilization and hence separation between people of invaders and people of defenders of Ancient India "Bharat Varsh" .

u know there was no such criteria like region/location based nation "based on specific Land/region " for creation of pakistan, so pakistan can be created in any part of British India but whereever there wer muslim domination so tht cud be a pakistan, so wer proposed and created a muslim nation as pakistan, the region of Sindh,punjab,baloch,afghan, & bengal wer places where we found muslim dominations it also coincides with the cruel history tht people of these regions wer the first victims of Islamic Invasion and Islamisation by muslim invaders and massacres of locals and the settlement of turks there, i hav read tht the sacred river indus flown red with the blood of millions of sindhis who wer massacred in process of islamisation of Sindh in 7th cent.
Ancient India was named after a river indus .
im glad tht our Sacred River Indus has no influence(spiritual bliss) on pakistan but still has a great influence(spiritual bliss) for its childrens "hindus" and the name India still belongs to modern india .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

RVS_108 said:


> yeah and why they named it if tht wasnt an Indian land/nation.



You could ask why native Americans were called Injuns. Just call everything India that looks non-European and it's a lot simpler. Will you be claiming America next in your Pan-India theories? 

The term Indonesia came from the Indian Archipelago. They recognized the people, culture, and history as different from Indians and wanted to come up with a name that wouldn't be confused with India. It was either Melayunesia or Indonesia. So the point was they named it Indonesia in order to say "this land is not India". 




> and why wud they named modern India a "British India" at the time of colonial period when ther wer Indian Empires wer like marathas and mughals wer calling India a Hindustan or maratha empire or mughal sultanate ???



It is much easier to rule a country when it is one unit, than when it is splintered into various tribes. Surely this is very obvious? 



> Why Ancient Greeks historians called Patna"pataliputra" as an "Indian Town" ???



The Greeks would have called it Palibothra. You should note that Patalibothra of the Greeks could very easily be a town in the Northwest of the subcontinent. 

http://indiafirsthand.com/2010/05/15/alexander-the-great-and-chandragupta-maurya/



> Because Modern India is a mainland of Ancient India and hence This Nation has a right to have a name INDIA in all sense.



You're not understanding this at all. Modern day India up until about 2,000 years ago was undiscovered. The Greeks believed the world ended at the Indus River. 

So how can modern India with a 2,000 year history be Ancient India with a 5,000 year history. The answer is it cannot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Spring Onion

where you had been RR. One of the best debaters on history.

man we need you here.and we missed you. hope all is ok

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LaBong

Don't we already have a thread about Ancient Pakistan?


----------



## LaBong

roadrunner said:


> I got about as far as here, and it looks to be mostly incorrect. I think the reference Sparte80 is referring to are the ones from the Mahabarata (whether they're a historically inaccurate story or not is irrelevant, it is a sacred text)
> 
> _Mahabharata, Book 8, Chapter 44
> Karna rebukes Shalya, who belong to a non-Vedic tribe named Madra, belonging to the category of Aratta-Vahikas
> 
> How can one go to heaven, having drunk milk in the town called Yugandhara, and resided in the place called Acyutasthala, and bathed in the spot called Bhutilaya? *There (Punjab) where the five rivers flow just after issuing from the mountains, there among the Aratta-Vahikas, no respectable person should dwell even for two days. *There are two Pishacas named Vahi and Hika in the river Vipasa. The Vahikas are the offspring of those two Pishacas.
> 
> The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other&#8217;s sacrifices. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices_
> 
> Mahisha Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> That is basically all of Pakistan.



It only proves when the passage was composed, Vahikas practise no more was considered to be best practise. They were considered Brahmins nevertheless, but cultural/religious focus shifted to Ganjetic plane. 




Joe Shearer said:


> This particular reference was made in the Puranas, stating that the best practices were no longer to be found in the Punjab and its surroundings. The reference was made at a time when the language and culture of the incoming Aryans had gone deep into the Gangetic plain and was still moving east.
> 
> We can make sense of it only by postulating that the Indian branch of the Indo-Iranian speaking wanderers on the Central Asian steppes came to the Punjab earlier than to the Gangetic plains, that they were moving in an easterly, perhaps even a south-easterly direction. As the borders of this culture spread, its older habitations were increasingly considered inauspicious, its inhabitants came to be seen as outside the pale.


----------



## roadrunner

Abir said:


> It only proves when the passage was composed, Vahikas practise no more was considered to be best practise. They were considered Brahmins nevertheless, but cultural/religious focus shifted to Ganjetic plane.



The lowest of the Brahmins might have been residing among the Vahikas, but the Vahikas were not considered Brahmins. It's fairly clear. No respectable person would mean any devout Hindu (excluding Shudras) should dwell there. So it pretty much confirms what Sparten80 suggested. Saying it was no longer considered "best practise" is trying to downplay it. It's quite clear that no respectable person should even live in that place. That is a bit more than "best practise".


----------



## Tameem

Sir (Roadrunner),

I just wana Salute




you on your thorough knowledge of our ancient history. Actually, we belong to great Indian Civilization and the people beyond sandy lands(Today's Bharat) are just lame Paindos, Great.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> The lowest of the Brahmins might have been residing among the Vahikas, but the Vahikas were not considered Brahmins. It's fairly clear. No respectable person would mean any devout Hindu (excluding Shudras) should dwell there. So it pretty much confirms what Sparten80 suggested. Saying it was no longer considered "best practise" is trying to downplay it. It's quite clear that no respectable person should even live in that place. That is a bit more than "best practise".



The ancients said, no doubt when faced with a situation like this,

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or drink not of the Peirian spring."

Even an eight-year old familiar with the Mahabharata, and not coming to it from Wikipedia, of all things, would catch the obvious howler in the passage quoted from the Mahabharata.

To find out why everyone who has read the Mahabharata is laughing at such a display of high scholarship, look up (in the Mahabharata, preferably, of which there are many good English translations, otherwise in Wikipedia, since it seems to agree so well) *Madri *daughter of the Madras (and incidentally sister to Shalya), and *Gandhari *daughter of the Gandharas. 

Is it possible that Karna, born to a Suta, would have dared to speak so slightingly about the homeland of two of the most powerful royal women, one of them the Queen herself, and mother of his patron Duryodhana, the other the sister of the man standing in front of him? And are we even considering the role of the brother of Gandhari, the prince Shakuni, in the events that took place? Or would the royal family of the Kurus, the highest in the land, have accepted princesses from debased regions, as this nincompoop, a muscle-brained, fighting machine, is made to call them?

This is a late era interpolation, one of thousands that have been detected, and highlights the constant tussle for one set of Brahmins to discredit and take over the positions of others, earlier dominant. 

Read the stilted language; this is no proud Aryan warrior speaking. 

This was purportedly part of a battle-field squabble about precedence between the two Kings, one, Shalya, genuinely head of his ancient and noble family, the other, Karna, a fighting genius, but not from the nobility, supposedly the son of a charioteer, elevated above the heads of all by his patron Duryodhana to bind him to Duryodhana's cause for all time. And what do we get? An angry warrior asserting his equality to a noble of an ancient house? No, a quibbler droning on about the respective merits and demerits of a dhobi-list of kingdoms, some hardly heard of, obscure places of no relevance, the others among the greatest seats of power in the times in which the epic took place, rapidly losing importance in later centuries.

Even through their being inserted in the mouth of such a person, the didactic, dry-as-dust words from an anthropology-mixed-with-theology lecture that have been put in, should sound a warning: it was not an original part of the great epic poem, it was an interpolation, one of thousands detected by the very late Sanskrit used, which stands out from the rhythm and vigour of the original verses like sore thumbs.

For your further information, just to figure out what was going on, and whose interests were being served, these words so gullibly quoted were put in the mouth of the King of Anga, now approximately Bihar, but east of Magadha. 

For all those who evidently fail to 'get' it, and depend on Wikipedia for their brilliant flashes of insight, Anga (and Vanga, ancient Bengal) were forbidden lands at the time of the later Vedas (Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda), at which time the incoming tribes were still grouped around the north-west, still fighting hard to survive and to find their feet; although finding mention in these later Vedas (not in the earlier), these deep eastern lands were lands "without caste". Nobody east of Gaya was considered, at one time, at the time of Baudhayan*, for instance, a very late-age commentator writing in his Dharma Sutra, to be a twice-borne Hindu, except for a handful of Brahmins, grudgingly accepted. 

Four hundred years later, when the first recensions of the sung epic, the Mahabharata, were sought to be standardised, things had changed radically. By the 4th century BC, the centre of power was with the Janapadas, sixteen of them, hundreds of miles east of the bridgeheads established by the steppe-dwellers when they came to India through the passes, bridgeheads no longer held in honour but in contempt and suspicion. 

Power was no longer with the old patriarchal tribes that were described by the Mahabharata, that belonged to an age long left behind. The centre of power was now Magadha; a mere hundred years later, Alexander broke into the Punjab, but couldn't motivate his last remaining Greek soldiers to cross the river to attack the Magadhan empire of the Nandas.

This was the revenge of some intriguer from the east on the previously eminent Punjabis. Wait a minute: what was that again? Ironic: as the Bengali proverb goes, _"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."_ We've seen this one before.

I really wish that these epics could be treated with some respect. Those who haven't even read it should stay away and not try their hand at making up history and anthropology.

* This is not Baudhayan the mathematician, before some more aspiring geniuses rush to the Internet to fill in the holes in their knowledge. The mathematician wrote a Sulba Sutra, which forms part of the Srauta Sutras, written jointly by some of the oldest mathematicians - correctly speaking, geometricians. Either he, or his namesake, wrote the Dharmasutra, which is what is being referred to here. 

His dates are contemporary with the Yajur Veda, about 800 BC. The Mahabharata, according to conservative scholars, was sung and recited earlier, but was compiled only around the 4th century BC, and frozen by the late Gupta era, the 4th century AD. And that, to cite a somewhat more familiar filmic rather than epic authority, is all I have to say about that.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## BATMAN

Tameem said:


> Sir (Roadrunner),
> 
> I just wana Salute
> 
> 
> 
> you on your thorough knowledge of our ancient history. Actually, we belong to *great Indian Civilization* and the people beyond sandy lands(Today's Bharat) are just lame Paindos, Great.



Not Indian, Not great, simply Indus civilization.
British India was the name given by English, in reference to Indus civilization. Adopted the ancient civilization.
After partition only word British was annexed but India was kept... keeping the iconic reference to Indus civilization. 
Ironically, the land of civilization fell in geography of Pakistan.

Before Mughals, those were many tiny states world apart.


----------



## RVS_108

@RR & BTMN

IVC is a dravidian in origin and guess what Dravidians are there in INDIA i.e South INDIA 

This makes India a nation which is exclusively a continuation of IVC .
whts there so hard to understand,Native Americans wer called Indian becos columbus thought tht he reached Indian land everybody knows this, and If greeks didnt discovered India 2000yrs before than tht doesnt mean India didnt exist LOlz ,i donno how cud u say tht???,anyways the findings in arabian coast says tht Ancient Egypt had trade relations with Ancient India(modern India comes to tht) like 3000yrs ago and this trade route is known as Spice sea route.
So Ancient Indians Discovered Ancient Egypt ever before the existence of Ancient Greeks .and there are The civilizations which are said tobe oldest civilisation are tie between Sumerain,Indian and Egyptian therefore u cant 100% rely on greeks discovery cos tht discovery happened many many millenia after the existence of Ancient Civilisations of India,Egypt and Sumerians.hence Greeks discoveries and ancient texts are merely a guidelines coz greek civilisation itself is not older than Egyptian or Indian or Sumerian therefore when u say India wasnt discovered by greeks like 2000yrs before tht doesnt mean India didnt exist 2000 yrs before. and the new findings like Ancient Puratan Town "dwaraka" under the sea coastal of gujarat,& ancient Town of Krshna in tamil nadu coast which is again is under the sea such findings says tht these cud b 10000yrs old towns which makes it 5000yrs older than " IVC " tht makes IVC was just a very very small part of Rich Ancient Indian Civilisation Which was in Main Land of India . 

India is a continuation of 10000+ yrs old Ancient India.


Pakistan is just a Indian land given to muslim league when jinnah asked for the Indian land for muslim league frm Nehru ,If gandhi and nehru migth hav refused than there wud be no pakistan at all cos muslim leagues ministers nvr won any of the elections against congress ministers in any part of the Indian Subcontinent. history also says tht even extremist Islamic regions like Paktooni regions there also congress won the election. 
source:Nejam Sethi's video on pakistan's distorted history

in one of those videos he also said tht muslim leagues number one objective was "Hum British ke Wafadaar" lolz nobody can doubt it cuz if we read the history of political pakistan we can understand tht how u guys wer working for the Anglo-american interest in Asia and south Asia
hence in my understanding Nation of PAKISTAN is more like far eastern provinces of british empire(which is inherited as Anglo-American Empire) ...NO offence


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> The ancients said, no doubt when faced with a situation like this,
> 
> "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
> Drink deep or drink not of the Peirian spring."
> 
> Even an eight-year old familiar with the Mahabharata, and not coming to it from Wikipedia, of all things, would catch the obvious howler in the passage quoted from the Mahabharata.
> 
> To find out why everyone who has read the Mahabharata is laughing at such a display of high scholarship, look up (in the Mahabharata, preferably, of which there are many good English translations, otherwise in Wikipedia, since it seems to agree so well) *Madri *daughter of the Madras (and incidentally sister to Shalya), and *Gandhari *daughter of the Gandharas.
> 
> Is it possible that Karna, born to a Suta, would have dared to speak so slightingly about the homeland of two of the most powerful royal women, one of them the Queen herself, and mother of his patron Duryodhana, the other the sister of the man standing in front of him? And are we even considering the role of the brother of Gandhari, the prince Shakuni, in the events that took place? Or would the royal family of the Kurus, the highest in the land, have accepted princesses from debased regions, as this nincompoop, a muscle-brained, fighting machine, is made to call them?
> 
> This is a late era interpolation, one of thousands that have been detected, and highlights the constant tussle for one set of Brahmins to discredit and take over the positions of others, earlier dominant.
> 
> Read the stilted language; this is no proud Aryan warrior speaking.
> 
> This was purportedly part of a battle-field squabble about precedence between the two Kings, one, Shalya, genuinely head of his ancient and noble family, the other, Karna, a fighting genius, but not from the nobility, supposedly the son of a charioteer, elevated above the heads of all by his patron Duryodhana to bind him to Duryodhana's cause for all time. And what do we get? An angry warrior asserting his equality to a noble of an ancient house? No, a quibbler droning on about the respective merits and demerits of a dhobi-list of kingdoms, some hardly heard of, obscure places of no relevance, the others among the greatest seats of power in the times in which the epic took place, rapidly losing importance in later centuries.
> 
> Even through their being inserted in the mouth of such a person, the didactic, dry-as-dust words from an anthropology-mixed-with-theology lecture that have been put in, should sound a warning: it was not an original part of the great epic poem, it was an interpolation, one of thousands detected by the very late Sanskrit used, which stands out from the rhythm and vigour of the original verses like sore thumbs.
> 
> For your further information, just to figure out what was going on, and whose interests were being served, these words so gullibly quoted were put in the mouth of the King of Anga, now approximately Bihar, but east of Magadha.
> 
> For all those who evidently fail to 'get' it, and depend on Wikipedia for their brilliant flashes of insight, Anga (and Vanga, ancient Bengal) were forbidden lands at the time of the later Vedas (Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda), at which time the incoming tribes were still grouped around the north-west, still fighting hard to survive and to find their feet; although finding mention in these later Vedas (not in the earlier), these deep eastern lands were lands "without caste". Nobody east of Gaya was considered, at one time, at the time of Baudhayan*, for instance, a very late-age commentator writing in his Dharma Sutra, to be a twice-borne Hindu, except for a handful of Brahmins, grudgingly accepted.
> 
> Four hundred years later, when the first recensions of the sung epic, the Mahabharata, were sought to be standardised, things had changed radically. By the 4th century BC, the centre of power was with the Janapadas, sixteen of them, hundreds of miles east of the bridgeheads established by the steppe-dwellers when they came to India through the passes, bridgeheads no longer held in honour but in contempt and suspicion.
> 
> Power was no longer with the old patriarchal tribes that were described by the Mahabharata, that belonged to an age long left behind. The centre of power was now Magadha; a mere hundred years later, Alexander broke into the Punjab, but couldn't motivate his last remaining Greek soldiers to cross the river to attack the Magadhan empire of the Nandas.
> 
> This was the revenge of some intriguer from the east on the previously eminent Punjabis. Wait a minute: what was that again? Ironic: as the Bengali proverb goes, _"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."_ We've seen this one before.
> 
> I really wish that these epics could be treated with some respect. Those who haven't even read it should stay away and not try their hand at making up history and anthropology.
> 
> * This is not Baudhayan the mathematician, before some more aspiring geniuses rush to the Internet to fill in the holes in their knowledge. The mathematician wrote a Sulba Sutra, which forms part of the Srauta Sutras, written jointly by some of the oldest mathematicians - correctly speaking, geometricians. Either he, or his namesake, wrote the Dharmasutra, which is what is being referred to here.
> 
> His dates are contemporary with the Yajur Veda, about 800 BC. The Mahabharata, according to conservative scholars, was sung and recited earlier, but was compiled only around the 4th century BC, and frozen by the late Gupta era, the 4th century AD. And that, to cite a somewhat more familiar filmic rather than epic authority, is all I have to say about that.



You don't need to believe wiki. You can read the official version which is even more offensive than the wiki version. 

_"'Shalya said, "These, O Karna, are ravings that thou utterest regarding the foe. As regards myself without a 1,000 Karnas I am able to vanquish the foe in battle.'"

"Sanjaya continued, 'Unto the ruler of Madras, of harsh features, who was saying such disagreeable things unto Karna, the latter once more said words that were twice bitter.

"'Karna said, "Listen with devoted attention to this, O ruler of the Madras, that was heard by me while it was recited in the presence of Dhritarashtra. In Dhritarashtra's abode the brahmanas used to narrate the accounts of diverse delightful regions and many kings of ancient times. A foremost one among brahmanas, venerable in years while reciting old histories, said these words, blaming the Vahikas and Madrakas, *'One should always avoid the Vahikas, those impure people* that are out of the pale of virtue, and that live away from the Himavat and the Ganga and Sarasvati and Yamuna and Kurukshetra and the Sindhu and its five tributary rivers. I remember from the days of my youth that a slaughter-ground for kine and a space for storing intoxicating spirits always distinguish the entrances of the abodes of the (Vahika) kings. On some very secret mission I had to live among the Vahikas. In consequence of such residence the conduct of these people is well known to me. There is a town of the name of Sakala, a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the Jarttikas. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the liquor called Gauda, and eat fried barley with it. They also eat beef with garlic. They also eat cakes of flour mixed with meat, and boiled rice that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none. Their women, intoxicated with drink and divested of robes, laugh and dance outside the walls of the houses in cities, without garlands and unguents, singing while drunk obscene songs of diverse kinds that are as musical as the bray of the *** or the bleat of the camel. In intercourse they are absolutely without any restraint, and in all other matters they act as they like. Maddened with drink, they call upon one another, using many endearing epithets. Addressing many drunken exclamations to their husbands and lords, the fallen women among the Vahikas, without observing restrictions even on sacred days, give themselves up to dancing. One of those wicked Vahikas,--one that is, that lived amongst those arrogant women,--who happened to live for some days in Kurujangala, burst out with cheerless heart, saying, "Alas, that (Vahika) maiden of large proportions, dressed in thin blankets, is thinking of me,--her Vahika lover--that is now passing his days in Kurujangala, at the hour of her going to bed." Crossing the Sutlej and the delightful Iravati, and arriving at my own country, when shall I cast my eyes upon those beautiful women with thick frontal bones, with blazing circlets of red arsenic on their foreheads, with streaks of jet black collyrium on their eyes, and their beautiful forms attired in blankets and skins and themselves uttering shrill cries! When shall I be happy, in the company of those intoxicated ladies amid the music of drums and kettle-drums and conchs sweet as the cries of ***** and camels and mules! When shall I be amongst those ladies eating cakes of flour and meat and balls of pounded barley mixed with skimmed milk, in the forests, having many pleasant paths of Sami and Pilu and Karira! When shall I, amid my own countrymen, mustering in strength on the high-roads, fall upon passengers, and snatching their robes and attires beat them repeatedly! *What man is there that would willingly dwell, even for a moment amongst the Vahikas that are so fallen and wicked, and so depraved in their practises?' *Even thus did that brahmana describe the Vahikas of base behaviour, a sixth of whose merits and demerits is thine, O Shalya. Having said this, that pious brahmana began once more to say what I am about to repeat respecting the wicked Vahikas. Listen to what I say, 'In the large and populous town of Sakala, a Rakshasa woman used to sing on every fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, in accompaniment with a drum, "When shall I next sing the songs of the Vahikas in this Sakala town, having gorged myself with beef and drunk the Gauda liquor? When shall I again, decked in ornaments, and with those maidens and ladies of large proportions, gorge upon a large number of sheep and large quantities of pork and beef and the meat of fowls and ***** and camels? They who do not eat sheep live in vain!"' Even thus, O Shalya, the young and old, among the inhabitants of Sakala, intoxicated with spirits, sing and cry. How can virtue be met with among such a people? Thou shouldst know this. I must, however, speak again to thee about what another brahmana had said unto us in the Kuru court, 'There where forests of Pilus stand, and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. *Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.' *That learned brahmana had also said in the Kuru court, 'The Vahikas, without any feelings of revulsion, eat of wooden vessels having deep stomachs and earthen plates and vessels that have been licked by dogs and that are stained with pounded barley and other corn. The Vahikas drink the milk of sheep and camels and ***** and eat curds and other preparations from those different kinds of milk. *Those degraded people number many bastards among them. * There is no food and no milk that they do not take. The Aratta-Vahikas that are steeped in ignorance, should be avoided.' Thou shouldst know this, O Shalya. I must, however, again speak to thee about what another brahmana had said unto me in the Kuru court, *'How can one go to heaven, having drunk milk in the town called Yugandhara, and resided in the place called Acyutasthala, and bathed in the spot called Bhutilaya? There where the five rivers flow just after issuing from the mountains, there among the Aratta-Vahikas, no respectable person should dwell even for two days. **There are two Pishacas named Vahi and Hika in the river Vipasa. The Vahikas are the offspring of those two Pishacas. They are not creatures created by the Creator. Being of such low origin, how can they be conversant with the duties ordained in the scriptures? The Karashakas, the Mahishakas, the Kalingas, the Keralas, the Karkotakas, the Virakas, and other peoples of no religion, one should always avoid.'* Even thus did a Rakshasa woman of gigantic hips speak unto a brahmana who on a certain occasion went to that country for bathing in a sacred water and passed a single night there. *The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other's sacrifices. They are all fallen and many amongst them have been begotten by Shudras upon other peoples' girls. The gods never accept any gifts from them. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices.'"*_
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08044.htm

Is this translation incorrect also?


----------



## roadrunner

Tameem said:


> Sir (Roadrunner),
> 
> I just wana Salute
> 
> 
> 
> you on your thorough knowledge of our ancient history. Actually, we belong to great Indian Civilization and the people beyond sandy lands(Today's Bharat) are just lame Paindos, Great.



If Indian civilization in this case means those Ancient civilizations around the Indus River, then indeed Pakistanis do. If Indian civilization means modern day India, then no.


----------



## roadrunner

BATMAN said:


> Not Indian, Not great, simply Indus civilization.



They were Indian, but not modern day Indian. I would say they were famous and great civilizations.


----------



## roadrunner

RVS_108 said:


> @RR & BTMN
> 
> IVC is a dravidian in origin and guess what Dravidians are there in INDIA i.e South INDIA



The language of the IVC isn't known. 



> This makes India a nation which is exclusively a continuation of IVC .
> whts there so hard to understand,Native Americans wer called Indian becos columbus thought tht he reached Indian land everybody knows this, and If greeks didnt discovered India 2000yrs before than tht doesnt mean India didnt exist LOlz ,i donno how cud u say tht???,



Ancient Indian history from between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago all occurred in what is now Pakistan. The Greeks did not realize modern day India existed until much later. So how can Ancient Indian history refer to the history of modern day India? 



> anyways the findings in arabian coast says tht Ancient Egypt had trade relations with Ancient India(modern India comes to tht) like 3000yrs ago and this trade route is known as Spice sea route.



Some people might have known about the existence of Ancient Bharat. It's possible, but they didn't record it too well. 



> therefore when u say India wasnt discovered by greeks like 2000yrs before tht doesnt mean India didnt exist 2000 yrs before.



Bharat existed but much of the history of Ancient India was saved by the Greeks. They didn't even know of any land east of the Indus River. 



> ancient Town of Krshna in tamil nadu coast which is again is under the sea



So Bharati cities under the sea? 



> Pakistan is just a Indian land given to muslim league when jinnah asked for the Indian land for muslim league frm Nehru ,If gandhi and nehru migth hav refused than there wud be no pakistan at all cos muslim leagues ministers nvr won any of the elections against congress ministers in any part of the Indian Subcontinent. history also says tht even extremist Islamic regions like Paktooni regions there also congress won the election.
> source:Nejam Sethi's video on pakistan's distorted history
> 
> in one of those videos he also said tht muslim leagues number one objective was "Hum British ke Wafadaar" lolz nobody can doubt it cuz if we read the history of political pakistan we can understand tht how u guys wer working for the Anglo-american interest in Asia and south Asia
> hence in my understanding Nation of PAKISTAN is more like far eastern provinces of british empire(which is inherited as Anglo-American Empire) ...NO offence


 
All this is quite stupid.


----------



## Pagla Dashu

roadrunner said:


> You don't need to believe wiki. You can read the official version which is even more offensive than the wiki version.
> 
> ~ snip ~
> 
> Is this translation incorrect also?



You have completely missed Joe's point. The apparent anomaly is due to interpolation of text. Mahabharata was not written by a single author, neither was it written in a single unbroken span of time. It was written by several authors, (three or four names are available within Mahabharata itself) at different times over a period of more than 400 years. This has resulted in something which can be loosely called bias of time, many of which can be detected by observing the tell-tale signs.

The passage that you have quoted is one such incidence of interpolation, and he has taken great pains to detail those tell-tale signs which, if read not in isolation and with a critical mind, give it away. 

Reading these passages in complete isolation is akin to r@ping this epic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

roadrunner said:


> The language of the IVC isn't known.
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient Indian history from between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago all occurred in what is now Pakistan. The Greeks did not realize modern day India existed until much later. So how can Ancient Indian history refer to the history of modern day India?
> 
> 
> 
> Some people might have known about the existence of Ancient Bharat. It's possible, but they didn't record it too well.
> 
> 
> 
> Bharat existed but much of the history of Ancient India was saved by the Greeks. They didn't even know of any land east of the Indus River.
> 
> 
> 
> So Bharati cities under the sea?
> 
> 
> 
> All this is quite stupid.



First, It is none of anybody's concern why India was named "India", but Indians

Second, we Indian never believed in the two nation theory(Jinnah would have liked India be named "Hindustan")

Third, either you don't know anything on IVC or deliberately misrepresenting or misinterpreting IVC. There lot of questions that arise from you posts: What is Aryan invasion? Why were IVC cities were burned and destroyed? Why most Hindu scripts originated from the banks of Indus? Why until now IVC scripts were not understood? Why there is no continuity of IVC?

Answer these and you will have much clearer idea on IVC and its legacy


----------



## roadrunner

Pagla Dashu said:


> You have completely missed Joe's point. The apparent anomaly is due to interpolation of text. Mahabharata was not written by a single author, neither was it written in a single unbroken span of time. It was written by several authors, (three or four names are available within Mahabharata itself) at different times over a period of more than 400 years. This has resulted in something which can be loosely called bias of time, many of which can be detected by observing the tell-tale signs.
> 
> The passage that you have quoted is one such incidence of interpolation, and he has taken great pains to detail those tell-tale signs which, if read not in isolation and with a critical mind, give it away.
> 
> Reading these passages in complete isolation is akin to r@ping this epic.



interpolation: a message (spoken or written) that is introduced or inserted 

So you're saying it's all made-up, despite being in the official translation?


----------



## roadrunner

jade1982 said:


> First, It is none of anybody's concern why India was named "India", but Indians



And Pakistanis since you're trying to steal Pakistani history with it.


----------



## Jade

roadrunner said:


> And Pakistanis since you're trying to steal Pakistani history with it.




And there is no Pakistan before 1947


----------



## Pagla Dashu

roadrunner said:


> interpolation: a message (spoken or written) that is introduced or inserted
> 
> So you're saying it's all made-up, despite being in the official translation?


I give up. Because if I don't, I run a very real and serious risk of my head spontaneously exploding.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ajtr

Actually i think Patel and nehru wanted to tease jinnah so they chose india name.


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> You don't need to believe wiki. You can read the official version which is even more offensive than the wiki version.
> 
> _"'Shalya said, "These, O Karna, are ravings that thou utterest regarding the foe. As regards myself without a 1,000 Karnas I am able to vanquish the foe in battle.'"
> 
> "Sanjaya continued, 'Unto the ruler of Madras, of harsh features, who was saying such disagreeable things unto Karna, the latter once more said words that were twice bitter.
> 
> "'Karna said, "Listen with devoted attention to this, O ruler of the Madras, that was heard by me while it was recited in the presence of Dhritarashtra. In Dhritarashtra's abode the brahmanas used to narrate the accounts of diverse delightful regions and many kings of ancient times. A foremost one among brahmanas, venerable in years while reciting old histories, said these words, blaming the Vahikas and Madrakas, *'One should always avoid the Vahikas, those impure people* that are out of the pale of virtue, and that live away from the Himavat and the Ganga and Sarasvati and Yamuna and Kurukshetra and the Sindhu and its five tributary rivers. I remember from the days of my youth that a slaughter-ground for kine and a space for storing intoxicating spirits always distinguish the entrances of the abodes of the (Vahika) kings. On some very secret mission I had to live among the Vahikas. In consequence of such residence the conduct of these people is well known to me. There is a town of the name of Sakala, a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the Jarttikas. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the liquor called Gauda, and eat fried barley with it. They also eat beef with garlic. They also eat cakes of flour mixed with meat, and boiled rice that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none. Their women, intoxicated with drink and divested of robes, laugh and dance outside the walls of the houses in cities, without garlands and unguents, singing while drunk obscene songs of diverse kinds that are as musical as the bray of the *** or the bleat of the camel. In intercourse they are absolutely without any restraint, and in all other matters they act as they like. Maddened with drink, they call upon one another, using many endearing epithets. Addressing many drunken exclamations to their husbands and lords, the fallen women among the Vahikas, without observing restrictions even on sacred days, give themselves up to dancing. One of those wicked Vahikas,--one that is, that lived amongst those arrogant women,--who happened to live for some days in Kurujangala, burst out with cheerless heart, saying, "Alas, that (Vahika) maiden of large proportions, dressed in thin blankets, is thinking of me,--her Vahika lover--that is now passing his days in Kurujangala, at the hour of her going to bed." Crossing the Sutlej and the delightful Iravati, and arriving at my own country, when shall I cast my eyes upon those beautiful women with thick frontal bones, with blazing circlets of red arsenic on their foreheads, with streaks of jet black collyrium on their eyes, and their beautiful forms attired in blankets and skins and themselves uttering shrill cries! When shall I be happy, in the company of those intoxicated ladies amid the music of drums and kettle-drums and conchs sweet as the cries of ***** and camels and mules! When shall I be amongst those ladies eating cakes of flour and meat and balls of pounded barley mixed with skimmed milk, in the forests, having many pleasant paths of Sami and Pilu and Karira! When shall I, amid my own countrymen, mustering in strength on the high-roads, fall upon passengers, and snatching their robes and attires beat them repeatedly! *What man is there that would willingly dwell, even for a moment amongst the Vahikas that are so fallen and wicked, and so depraved in their practises?' *Even thus did that brahmana describe the Vahikas of base behaviour, a sixth of whose merits and demerits is thine, O Shalya. Having said this, that pious brahmana began once more to say what I am about to repeat respecting the wicked Vahikas. Listen to what I say, 'In the large and populous town of Sakala, a Rakshasa woman used to sing on every fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, in accompaniment with a drum, "When shall I next sing the songs of the Vahikas in this Sakala town, having gorged myself with beef and drunk the Gauda liquor? When shall I again, decked in ornaments, and with those maidens and ladies of large proportions, gorge upon a large number of sheep and large quantities of pork and beef and the meat of fowls and ***** and camels? They who do not eat sheep live in vain!"' Even thus, O Shalya, the young and old, among the inhabitants of Sakala, intoxicated with spirits, sing and cry. How can virtue be met with among such a people? Thou shouldst know this. I must, however, speak again to thee about what another brahmana had said unto us in the Kuru court, 'There where forests of Pilus stand, and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. *Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.' *That learned brahmana had also said in the Kuru court, 'The Vahikas, without any feelings of revulsion, eat of wooden vessels having deep stomachs and earthen plates and vessels that have been licked by dogs and that are stained with pounded barley and other corn. The Vahikas drink the milk of sheep and camels and ***** and eat curds and other preparations from those different kinds of milk. *Those degraded people number many bastards among them. * There is no food and no milk that they do not take. The Aratta-Vahikas that are steeped in ignorance, should be avoided.' Thou shouldst know this, O Shalya. I must, however, again speak to thee about what another brahmana had said unto me in the Kuru court, *'How can one go to heaven, having drunk milk in the town called Yugandhara, and resided in the place called Acyutasthala, and bathed in the spot called Bhutilaya? There where the five rivers flow just after issuing from the mountains, there among the Aratta-Vahikas, no respectable person should dwell even for two days. **There are two Pishacas named Vahi and Hika in the river Vipasa. The Vahikas are the offspring of those two Pishacas. They are not creatures created by the Creator. Being of such low origin, how can they be conversant with the duties ordained in the scriptures? The Karashakas, the Mahishakas, the Kalingas, the Keralas, the Karkotakas, the Virakas, and other peoples of no religion, one should always avoid.'* Even thus did a Rakshasa woman of gigantic hips speak unto a brahmana who on a certain occasion went to that country for bathing in a sacred water and passed a single night there. *The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other's sacrifices. They are all fallen and many amongst them have been begotten by Shudras upon other peoples' girls. The gods never accept any gifts from them. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices.'"*_
> The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 44
> 
> Is this translation incorrect also?



No, this translation is not incorrect. Nor was the earlier translation incorrect. It was not about translation at all, but about context.

The mistake that is apparent is to assume that all parts of the epic are of the same age. Unlike the holy book that you are presumably used to, which permits of one and only one meaning, this source, the Mahabharata, is firstly NOT a holy book but an epic. If examples of epics from other cultures are needed, Shah-nameh by Firdausi is an example, or Homer's Iliad or Odyssey. Homer's works are now suspected to have been written by several hands; the Mahabharata is _known_ to have been written by many hands. The difference in the Sanskrit used is vast; there are clear traces of centuries having elapsed in the usages between one section and another.

This reflects scholarly opinion; the reason for warning you (and others) against Wikipedia, as opposed to historically accurate analysis written by professional historians, is that these issues are frequently not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing in Wikipedia, and are difficult for the layman to detect. Which is what has happened in the present case.

The difficulty with using this passage is simply that later sections have been interpolated, and they have been interpolated, if one detects them as interpolations, for a purpose. In this case, as has been explained again and again, it is clearly the interpolation of a late period in history, possibly during the Gupta period, when the priesthood was located in middle India, in the present day Oudh and Bihar, and had a major propaganda objective of discrediting Brahmins from other points of the settlements of the incoming tribesmen, in order to secure for themselves a greater share of the fruits of priesthood - land, cows, money. 

This passage disparages the Punjab and points further to the north and west for a purpose, for this purpose. It also disparages the original food habits and the original social norms and practices of the steppe tribesmen, in order to uphold the new social order that post-Vedic Hinduism sought to bring in, precisely with the support of those who were writing these passages.

The passage means everything in the context of these struggles, and means nothing as far as the objective of proving the people of the north-west alien is concerned. 

This, and similar reasons, is precisely why in my original post, I had cautioned against using epics as sources of anthropological or soiological evidence. The study of these texts is a long and elaborate one, and some have spent entire lives on understanding them and their ramifications. It is not something to be acquired with a quick read of Wikipedia, or a first reading of the text itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RVS_108

> The language of the IVC isn't known.
> 
> 
> Ancient Indian history from between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago all occurred in what is now Pakistan. The Greeks did not realize modern day India existed until much later. So how can Ancient Indian history refer to the history of modern day India?
> 
> 
> Some people might have known about the existence of Ancient Bharat. It's possible, but they didn't record it too well.
> 
> 
> Bharat existed but much of the history of Ancient India was saved by the Greeks. They didn't even know of any land east of the Indus River.
> 
> So Bharati cities under the sea?



Ancient India and Ancient Egypt relation 5000+yrs ago

Peter Von Bohlen (1796-1840) German Indologist, compared India with ancient Egypt. He thought there was a cultural connection between the two in ancient times. 

(source: German Indologists: Biographies of Scholars in Indian Studies writing in German - By Valentine Stache-Rosen. p.15-16).

In his book, Empire of the Soul: Some Journeys in India, Paul William Roberts, states: 

" Recent research and scholarship make it increasingly possible to believe that the Vedic era was the lost civilization whose legacy the Egyptians and the Indians inherited. There must have been one. There are too many similarities between hieroglyphic texts and Vedic ones, these in turn echoed in somewhat diluted form and a confused fashion by the authors of Babylonian texts and the Old Testament." 

(source: Empire of the Soul: Some Journeys in India - By Paul William Roberts p. 300).

It is believed that the Dravidians from India went to Egypt and laid the foundation of its civilization there. the Egyptians themselves had the tradition that they originally came from the South, from a land called Punt, which an historian of the West, Dr. H.R. Hall, thought referred to some part of India.

The Indus Valley civilization is, according to Sir John Marshall who was in charge of the excavations, the oldest of all civilizations unearthed (c. 4000 B.C.) It is older than the Sumerian and it is believed by many that the latter was a branch of the former. 

(source: The Bhagvad Gita: A Scripture for the Future - Translation and Commentary by Sachindra K. Majumdar p. 28).

Adolf Erman (1854-1937) author of Life in ancient Egypt and A handbook of Egyptian religion, says that the persons who were responsible for a highly developed Egyptian civilization were from Punt, an Asiatic country, a description of which is unveiled by this scholar from the old legends - a distant country washed by the great seas, full of valleys, incense, balsum, precious metals and stones; rich in animals, cheetahs, panthers, dog-headed apes and long tailed monkeys, winged creatures with strange feathers to fly up to the boughs of wonderful trees, especially the incense tree and the coconut trees. 

Dr. Erman further says that analyzing the Egyptian legends makes it clear that from Punt the heavenly beings headed by Amen, Horus and Hather, passed into the Nile valley...To this same country belongs that idol of Bes, the ancient figure of the deity in the Land of Punt.

M A Murray author of Legends of Ancient Egypt rightly observes that as a race the Egyptians are more Asiatic than African. He cites the type 'P' as depicted by Hatshepsut's artists as his support.

(source: The Aryan Hoax: That Dupes The Indians - By Paramesh Choudhary p. 225).

Klaus K. Klostermaier, in his book A Survey of Hinduism p. 18 says: 

"For several centuries a lively commerce developed between the ancient Mediterranean world and India, particularly the ports on the Western coast. The most famous of these ports was Sopara, not far from modern Bombay, which was recently renamed Mumbai. Present day Cranganore in Kerala, identified with the ancient Muziris, claims to have had trade contacts with Ancient Egypt under Queen Hatsheput, who sent five ships to obtain spices, as well as with ancient Israel during King Soloman's reign. Apparently, the contact did not break off after Egypt was conquered by Greece and later by Rome. 






India - Yaksha (dwarf) image discovered in cave 2nd century BC. Egypt Bes. depicted as a deformed dwarf. 3rd century BC.


Louis Jacolliot (1837-1890), who worked in French India as a government official and was at one time President of the Court in Chandranagar, translated numerous Vedic hymns, the Manusmriti, and the Tamil work, Kural. This French savant and author of La Bible Dans L'Inde says:

"With such congruence before us, no one, I imagine, will appear to contest the purely Hindu origin of Egypt, unless to suggest that: "And who tells you that it was not Indian that copied Egypt? Any of you require that this affirmation shall be refuted by proofs leaving no room for even a shadow of doubt?

"To be quite logical, then deprive India of the Sanskrit, that language which formed all other; but show me in India a leaf of papyrus, a columnar inscription, a temple bas relief tending to prove Egyptian birth."

(source: Hinduism in the Space Age - by E. Vedavyas p.117).

Heinrich Karl Brugsch agrees with this view and writes in his History of Egypt that, 

"We have a right to more than suspect that India, eight thousand years ago, sent a colony of emigrants who carried their arts and high civilization into what is now known as Egypt." The Egyptians came, according to their records, from a mysterious land (now known to lie on the shores of the Indian Ocean)."

Col. Henry Steel Olcott, a former president of the Theosophical Society, who explained in a March, 1881 edition of The Theosophist (page 123) that: 

"We have a right to more than suspect that India, eight thousand years ago, sent a colony of emigrants who carried their arts and high civilization into what is now known to us as Egypt...This is what Bengsch Bey, the modern as well as the most trusted Egyptologer and antiquarian says on the origin of the old Egyptians. Regarding these as a branch of the Caucasian family having a close affinity with the Indo-Germanic races, he insists that they 'migrated from India before historic memory, and crossed that bridge of nations, the Isthus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the banks of the Nile."


The Egyptians came, according to their own records, from a mysterious land...on the shore of the Indian Ocean, the sacred Punt; the original home of their gods...who followed thence after their people who had abandoned them to the valley of the Nile, led by Amon, Hor and Hathor. This region was the Egyptian 'Land of the Gods,' Pa-Nuter, in old Egyptian, or Holyland, and now proved beyond any doubt to have been quite a different place from the Holyland of Sinai. By the pictorial hieroglyphic inscription found on the walls of the temple of the Queen Haslitop at Der-el-babri, we see that this Punt can be no other than India. For many ages the Egyptians traded with their old homes, and the reference here made by them to the names of the Princes of Punt and its fauna and flora, especially the nonmenclature of various precious woods to be found but in India, leave us scarcely room for the smallest doubt that the old civilization of Egypt is the direct outcome of that the older India."

(source: Theosophist for March 1881 p. 123).



A representation of the physical characteristics of Ita, wife of the chief of Punt - People of Punt carrying baskets of myrrh.

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 32).




River Goddess Ganga, Rameshvara Caves. Ellora. Hapi, god of the River Nile. Temple of Abydos, Egypt. 

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 8 - 9).

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 70 - 71).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RVS_108

*The Persian Connection
*

F. Max Muller speaks of the colonization of Persia by the Hindus. Discussing the word 'Arya', he says: "But it was more faithfully preserved by the Zoroastrians, who migrated from India to the North-west and whose religion has been preserved to us in the Zind Avesta, though in fragments only. He again says: "The Zoroastrians were a colony from Northern India."

(source: Science of Language - By Max Muller p. 242-253).

Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeran says: "In point of fact that Zind is derived from the Sanskrit, and a passage to have descended from the Hindus of the second or warrior caste."

(source: Historical researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians - By A. H. Heeren Volume II p. 220).

Sir William Jones writes: "I was not a little surprised to find that out of words in Du Perron's Zind Dictionary, six or seven were pure Sanskrit."

(source: Sir William Jones' Works Volume I p. 82-82). 






h o m e


i n d i a a n d e g y p t


c o n t e n t s

* Quotes
o 1-20
o 21-40
o 41-60
o 61-80
o 81-100
o 101-120
o 121-140
o 141-160
o 161-180
o 181-200
o 201-220
o 221-250
o 251-270
o 271-300
o 301-320
o 321-340
o 341-360
o 361-380
o 381-400
o 401-420
o 421-440
o 441-460
o Thoughts 
* Basics
o Introduction
o Symbolism
o Scriptures
o Nature Worship
o Hindu Art
o Culture - I
o Culture - II
o Education
o Music 
* Science
o Cosmology
o Advanced Concepts
o Vimanas
o War In Ancient India
o Sanskrit
o Yantras
o Yoga 
* History
o Dwaraka
o India and Egypt
o India and China
o Suvarnabhumi Greater India
o Sacred Angkor I
o Sacred Angkor II
o Sacred Angkor III
o Sacred Angkor IV
o Pacific Waves
o Seafaring
o India and Greece
o Influence
o Islamic Onslaught
o European Imperialism 
* Social
o Caste System
o Conversion
o Aryan Invasion Theory
o Women In Hinduism
o Revivalists
o Indologists 
* Glimpses
o Glimpses XXIV
o Glimpses XXIII
o Glimpses XXII
o Glimpses XXI
o Glimpses XX
o Glimpses XIX
o Glimpses XVIII
o Glimpses XVII
o Glimpses XVI
o Glimpses XV
o Glimpses XIV
o Glimpses XIII
o Glimpses XII
o Glimpses XI
o Glimpses X
o Glimpses IX
o Glimpses VIII
o Glimpses VII
o Glimpses VI
o Glimpses V
o Glimpses IV
o Glimpses III
o Glimpses II
o Glimpses I 
* Other
o Guest Book
o Old Guest Book
o Visitor Emails
o What's New
o 10 Year Anniversary
o Featured At
o Articles
o Images
o Links
o Recommended Books 



Neither historical events nor cross-cultural currents can explain the unique parallels in the myths and imagery of ancient Egypt and India. Walafrid Strabo (c. 809&#8211;849) German scholar has said: "The lotus flower, sacred to Buddha and to Osiris, has five petals which symbolizes the four limbs and the head; the five senses; the five digits; and like the pyramid, the four parts of the compass and the zenith. Other esoteric meanings abound: for myths are seldom simple, and never irresponsible." 

Indian contacts with the Western world date back to prehistoric times. Trade relations, preceded by the migration of peoples, inevitably developed into cultural relations. Evidence of Indian contact with the ancient civilizations to her west, however is certain. Knobbed pottery vases came to Sumer from India and so did cotton. In the Akkadian tongue, Indian cotton was expressed by ideographs meaning "vegetable cloth." Assurbanipal (668-626 B.C) cultivated Indian plants including the "wool-bearing trees" of India. 

According to the Skandha Purana, Egypt (Africa) was known as Sancha-dvipa continent mentioned in Sir Willliams Jones' dissertation on Egypt. At Alexandria, in Egypt, Indian scholars were a common sight: they are mentioned both by Dio Chrysostom (c. 100 A.D.) and by Clement (c. 200 A.D.) Indirect contact between ancient India and Egypt through Mesopotamia is generally admitted, but evidence of a direct relationship between the two is at best fragmentary. Peter Von Bohlen (1796-1840) German Indologist, compared India with ancient Egypt. He thought there was a cultural connection between the two in ancient times. There are elements of folk art, language, and rural culture of Bengal which have an affinity with their Egyptian counterparts and which have not been explained satisfactorily in terms of Aryan, Mongolian, or Dravidian influences. There are similarities between place names in Bengal and Egypt and recently an Egyptian scholar, El Mansouri, has pointed out that in both Egypt and India the worship of cow, sun, snake, and river are common. 

Recently, more definitive evidence suggesting contact between India and Egypt has become available. A terracotta mummy from Lothal vaguely resembles an Egyptian mummy and a similar terracotta mummy is found also at Mohenjodaro. In this context it is of interest to note that the Egyptian mummies are said to have been wrapped in Indian muslin. Characters similar to those on the Indus seals have also been found on tablets excavated from Easter Island.

Of all the Egyptian objects and motifs indicating some contact between India and Egypt during the Indus Valley period, "the cord pattern occurring in a copper tablet in the Indus Valley and on three Egyptian seals is the most striking link between the two countries. Gordon Childe has said, "In other words, in the third millennium B.C. India was already in a position to contribute to the building up of the cultural tradition that constitutes our spiritual heritage as she notoriously has done since the time of Alexander." 



Introduction
The Lotus and the River
Cultural Contacts with Egypt
The Sun King and Dasharatha
The Persian Connection
Links to Ancient Egypt
Conclusion

***

Introduction

Peter Von Bohlen (1796-1840) German Indologist, compared India with ancient Egypt. He thought there was a cultural connection between the two in ancient times. 

(source: German Indologists: Biographies of Scholars in Indian Studies writing in German - By Valentine Stache-Rosen. p.15-16).

In his book, Empire of the Soul: Some Journeys in India, Paul William Roberts, states: 

" Recent research and scholarship make it increasingly possible to believe that the Vedic era was the lost civilization whose legacy the Egyptians and the Indians inherited. There must have been one. There are too many similarities between hieroglyphic texts and Vedic ones, these in turn echoed in somewhat diluted form and a confused fashion by the authors of Babylonian texts and the Old Testament." 

(source: Empire of the Soul: Some Journeys in India - By Paul William Roberts p. 300).

It is believed that the Dravidians from India went to Egypt and laid the foundation of its civilization there. the Egyptians themselves had the tradition that they originally came from the South, from a land called Punt, which an historian of the West, Dr. H.R. Hall, thought referred to some part of India.

The Indus Valley civilization is, according to Sir John Marshall who was in charge of the excavations, the oldest of all civilizations unearthed (c. 4000 B.C.) It is older than the Sumerian and it is believed by many that the latter was a branch of the former. 

(source: The Bhagvad Gita: A Scripture for the Future - Translation and Commentary by Sachindra K. Majumdar p. 28).

Adolf Erman (1854-1937) author of Life in ancient Egypt and A handbook of Egyptian religion, says that the persons who were responsible for a highly developed Egyptian civilization were from Punt, an Asiatic country, a description of which is unveiled by this scholar from the old legends - a distant country washed by the great seas, full of valleys, incense, balsum, precious metals and stones; rich in animals, cheetahs, panthers, dog-headed apes and long tailed monkeys, winged creatures with strange feathers to fly up to the boughs of wonderful trees, especially the incense tree and the coconut trees. 

Dr. Erman further says that analyzing the Egyptian legends makes it clear that from Punt the heavenly beings headed by Amen, Horus and Hather, passed into the Nile valley...To this same country belongs that idol of Bes, the ancient figure of the deity in the Land of Punt.

M A Murray author of Legends of Ancient Egypt rightly observes that as a race the Egyptians are more Asiatic than African. He cites the type 'P' as depicted by Hatshepsut's artists as his support.

(source: The Aryan Hoax: That Dupes The Indians - By Paramesh Choudhary p. 225).

Klaus K. Klostermaier, in his book A Survey of Hinduism p. 18 says: 

"For several centuries a lively commerce developed between the ancient Mediterranean world and India, particularly the ports on the Western coast. The most famous of these ports was Sopara, not far from modern Bombay, which was recently renamed Mumbai. Present day Cranganore in Kerala, identified with the ancient Muziris, claims to have had trade contacts with Ancient Egypt under Queen Hatsheput, who sent five ships to obtain spices, as well as with ancient Israel during King Soloman's reign. Apparently, the contact did not break off after Egypt was conquered by Greece and later by Rome. 





India - Yaksha (dwarf) image discovered in cave 2nd century BC. Egypt Bes. depicted as a deformed dwarf. 3rd century BC.

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 70 - 71).

For more refer to chapter on Greater India: Suvarnabhumi and Sacred Angkor

***

Max Muller had also observed that the mythology of Egyptians (and also that of the Greeks and Assyrians) is wholly founded on Vedic traditions. Eusebius, a Greek writer, has also recorded that the early Ethiopians emigrated from the river Indus and first settled in the vicinity of Egypt. 

In an essay entitled On Egypt from the Ancient Book of the Hindus (Asiatic Researchers Vol. III, 1792), British Lt. Colonel Wilford gave abundant evidence proving that ancient Indians colonized and settled in Egypt. The British explorer John Hanning Speke, who in 1862 discovered the source of the Nile in Lake Victoria, acknowledged that the Egyptians themselves didn't have the slightest knowledge of where the Nile's source was. However, Lt. Colonel Wilford's description of the Hindus' intimate acquaintance with ancient Egypt led Speke to Ripon Falls, at the edge of Lake Victoria. 

Louis Jacolliot (1837-1890), who worked in French India as a government official and was at one time President of the Court in Chandranagar, translated numerous Vedic hymns, the Manusmriti, and the Tamil work, Kural. This French savant and author of La Bible Dans L'Inde says:

"With such congruence before us, no one, I imagine, will appear to contest the purely Hindu origin of Egypt, unless to suggest that: "And who tells you that it was not Indian that copied Egypt? Any of you require that this affirmation shall be refuted by proofs leaving no room for even a shadow of doubt?

"To be quite logical, then deprive India of the Sanskrit, that language which formed all other; but show me in India a leaf of papyrus, a columnar inscription, a temple bas relief tending to prove Egyptian birth."

(source: Hinduism in the Space Age - by E. Vedavyas p.117).

Heinrich Karl Brugsch agrees with this view and writes in his History of Egypt that, 

"We have a right to more than suspect that India, eight thousand years ago, sent a colony of emigrants who carried their arts and high civilization into what is now known as Egypt." The Egyptians came, according to their records, from a mysterious land (now known to lie on the shores of the Indian Ocean)."

Col. Henry Steel Olcott, a former president of the Theosophical Society, who explained in a March, 1881 edition of The Theosophist (page 123) that: 

"We have a right to more than suspect that India, eight thousand years ago, sent a colony of emigrants who carried their arts and high civilization into what is now known to us as Egypt...This is what Bengsch Bey, the modern as well as the most trusted Egyptologer and antiquarian says on the origin of the old Egyptians. Regarding these as a branch of the Caucasian family having a close affinity with the Indo-Germanic races, he insists that they 'migrated from India before historic memory, and crossed that bridge of nations, the Isthus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the banks of the Nile."

The Egyptians came, according to their own records, from a mysterious land...on the shore of the Indian Ocean, the sacred Punt; the original home of their gods...who followed thence after their people who had abandoned them to the valley of the Nile, led by Amon, Hor and Hathor. This region was the Egyptian 'Land of the Gods,' Pa-Nuter, in old Egyptian, or Holyland, and now proved beyond any doubt to have been quite a different place from the Holyland of Sinai. By the pictorial hieroglyphic inscription found on the walls of the temple of the Queen Haslitop at Der-el-babri, we see that this Punt can be no other than India. For many ages the Egyptians traded with their old homes, and the reference here made by them to the names of the Princes of Punt and its fauna and flora, especially the nonmenclature of various precious woods to be found but in India, leave us scarcely room for the smallest doubt that the old civilization of Egypt is the direct outcome of that the older India."

(source: Theosophist for March 1881 p. 123).



A representation of the physical characteristics of Ita, wife of the chief of Punt - People of Punt carrying baskets of myrrh.

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 32).

Watch Lost / Submerged city of Dwaraka &#8211; The Learning Channel video

***

Edward Pococke (1604&#8211;1691) English Orientalist says: "At the mouths of the Indus dwell a seafaring people, active, ingenious, and enterprising as when, ages subsequent to this great movement.....these people coast along the shores of Mekran, traverse the mouth of the Persian Gulf, and again adhering to the sea-board of Oman, Hadramant, and Yeman (the Eastern Arabia), they sail up the Red Sea; and again ascending mighty stream that fertilizes a land of wonders, found the kingdom of Egypt, Nubia and Abyssinia. These are the same stock that, centuries subsequently to this colonization, spread the blessings of civilization over Hellas and her islands."

(source: India in Greece - By Edward Pococke p. 42).

Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren (1760-1842) an Egyptologist has observed: "It is perfectly agreeable to Hindu manners that colonies from India, i.e., Banian families should have passed over Africa, and carried with them their industry, and perhaps also their religious worship." "Whatever weight may be attached to Indian tradition and the express testimony of Eusebius confirming the report of migrations from the banks of the Indus into Egypt, there is certainly nothing improbable in the event itself, as a desire of gain would have formed a sufficient inducement."

(source: Historical Researches - Heeran p. 309).

Ethiopia, as is universally admitted now, was colonized by the Hindus. Sir William Jones says: "Ethiopia and Hindustan were possessed or colonized by the same extraordinary race."

(source: Asiatic Researches - volume I p. 426).

Louis Jacolliot has written:

&#8220;Egypt received from India, by Manes or Manu, its social institutions and laws, which resulted in division of the people into four castes, and placing the priest in the first rank; in the second, kings; then traders and artisans; and last in the social scale, the proletaire &#8211; the menial almost a slave.&#8221;

Manu &#8211; Manes &#8211; Minos &#8211; Moses 

A philosopher gives political and religious institutions to India and named Manu. The Egyptian legislator receives the name of Manes. 

A Cretan visits Egypt to study the institutions with which he desired to endow his country, and history preserves his memory under the name of Minos. 

Lastly, the liberation of the servile caste of He brews founds a new society and is named Moses. 

Manu, Manes, Minos, Moses &#8211; these four names overshadow the entire ancient world, they appear at the cradles of four different peoples to play the same role. 

Let us beware, the times of Brahminism, of Sacerdotalism, of Levitism, in India, in Egypt, in Judes, presents nothing to compare with the flames of Inquisition, the Vandois massacres, or St. Bartholomew&#8217;s resound with Te Deum of exultation. 

(source: Bible in India: Hindoo Origin of Hebrew and Christian Revelation p 60 - 67 and 125).

Philostratus introduces the Brahman Iarchus by stating to his auditor that the Ethiopians were originally an Indian race compelled to leave India for the impurity contracted by slaying a certain monarch to whom they owed allegiance."

Two ancient civilizations, contemporaneous, both growing along the banks of rivers which flow down from mountains, through desert. Both rivers support crocodiles and both people worship river gods and crocodiles and worship cows and have a wonderfully developed cosmogony. Both have a form of caste system. Both have contributed immensely to world culture in almost every field. Surely they must have interacted despite the vast geographical distances involved. There is evidence to suggest contact between the two from around BCE 3000 with the findings of Indian muslin, cotton and dhania (coriander) in Egypt. After about the third century BCE, during the time of Ptolemy Euergetes an Indian sailor was found shipwrecked on the coast of the Red Sea. He was taken to Alexandria where, in exchange for hospitality, he agreed to show the Ptolemy's men a direct sea route to India across the Indian Ocean. Thus began a most profitable period of contact between these two nations. During Emperor Ashoka's reign ambassadors were exchanged. Contact continued until Egypt came under Roman Law. After a short hiatus renewed ventures were undertaken now bigger and powerful markets of Rome clamoring for goods. Although trade was the reason for exchange many ideas that influenced each other's art and iconography also passed back and forth. There is a large body of evidence which documents the close relationships between these two countries. There has always been evidence to suggest indirect means of contact between these two.

"It is testified by Herdotus, Plato, Salon, Pythagoras, and Philostratus that the religion of Egypt proceeded from India....It is testified by Neibuhr, Valentia, Champollian and Weddington that the temples of upper Egypt are of greater antiquity than those of lower Egypt...that consequently the religion of Egypt, according to the testimony of those monuments....came from India...The chronicles found in the temples of Abydos and Sais and which have been transmitted by Josephus, Julius Africanus, and Eusebius, all testify that the religious system of the Egyptians proceeded from India."

"We have Hindu chronologies (besides those of the Puranas concerning the Yuga) which go still further back in time than the Tables of the Egyptian kings according to Manetho."

There was intimate relations between India and Egypt. It is pointed out that in the processions of Ptolemy Philadelphus (265-246 BCE) were to be seen Indian women, Indian hunting dogs, Indian cows, and Indian spices. 

According to the Jewish chronicles, there was a sea voyage to the East in the time of Soloman (c. 800 BCE). and many articles were brought from there. The use of the Indian names for merchandise raises a strong presumption in favor of their Indian origin. The word 'Sindhu' found in the library of Assurbanipal, is used in the sense of Indian cotton. The Hebrew Karpas is derived from the Sanskrit Karpassa.

One of the Jataka stories makes a reference to a trading voyage to the kingdom of Baveru and scholars have interpreted it as the Indian form of Babylon. This points to trade between India and Babylon. The Boghz koi inscriptions of the 14th century BCE. contain the names of such deities as Mitra, Varuna, Indra etc. These names indicate that there was a very close contact between India and Western Asia before the 14th century BCE. There are imported Indian iron, and steel, and Indian cotton cloth; the broad cloth called monache and that called sagmatogene, and girdles, and coats of skin and mallow-colored cloth, and a few muslins, and colored lac.

Gustav Oppert (1836-1908) born in Hamburg, Germany, he taught Sanskrit and comparative linguistics at the Presidency College, Madras for 21 years. He was the Telugu translator to the Government and Curator, Government Oriental Manuscript Library. He wrote a book Die Gottheiten der Indier ("The Gods of the Indians") in 1905. 

In his book Oppert discussed the chief gods of the Aryans and he compares Aditi with Egyptian Isis and the Babylonian Ea. 

(source: German Indologists: Biographies of Scholars in Indian Studies writing in German - By Valentine Stache-Rosen. p.81-82).

We are not completely in the dark on the question of Indian influence on Greece. Speaking of ascetic practices in the West, Professor Sir Flinders Petrie (1853-1942) British archaeologist and Egyptologist, author of Egypt and Israel (1911) observes:

"The presence of a large body of Indian troops in the Persian army in Greece in 480 B.C. shows how far west the Indian connections were carried; and the discovery of modeled heads of Indians at Memphis, of about the fifth century B.C. shows that Indians were living there for trade. Hence there is no difficulty in regarding India as the source of the entirely new ideal of asceticism in the West."

(source: Eastern Religions & Western Thought - By S. Radhakrishnan p. 150).

He feels that the doctrine of rebirth, favored by keeping all bodily senses in abeyance, and brought to pass by driving out the twelve inner torments by their antitheses, was accepted in Egypt under the Indian influence.

(source: Religious Life in Egypt - By W. M Flinders Petrie p. 211).

Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von Bissing (1873-1956) wrote: 

"The land of Punt in the Egyptian ethnological traditions has been identified by the scholars with the Malabar coast of Deccan. From this land ebony, and other rich woods, incense, balsam, precious metals, etc. used to be imported into Egypt."

(source: Prehistoricsche Topfen aus Indien and Aegypten - By Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von Bissing. Chapter VIII ).

The Egyptians similarly called their ancient land Puanit (land of Panis (poenis or traders) in Egyptian : Word corrupted to a meaningless Punt) and before that, Amenti. Puanit can be reached leading off the Red Sea (South-east direction) to India [specifically East India, since Egyptians had more in common culturally with East India , theologically similar cat headed goddess Shashti, ancient references to embalming and afterlife in the area and the unmistakable 'bengali' accent in Egyptian (v becomes b, a becomes o or u (Eg Vena becomes Benu)] and Amenti should be Indonesia. The polynesians both in Madagascar and in Fiji seem to trace their origins to Indonesia. Indonesia is also geographically central to almost all ancient temple-building cultures, barring Europe

Top of Page 

The Lotus and the River

The flower so prolific in the imagery of both India and Egypt, grows out of the waters and opens its petals to be warmed by the sun: to be fertilized. From the earliest imagery in stone at Sanchi, of the first century BC in India, the lotus is associated with Sri, the goddess of fertility, who is later invoked as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and abundance - being worshipped by Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus alike. The lotus is held in each hand by Surya, signifying the fertilizing powers of the sun as he travels through the universe. 

In Egypt, the blue lotus appears in the earliest wall paintings of the VI Dynasty at the pyramids of Saqqara and in all funerary stelae. They are offered to the deceased, and held in the hand as thought they possess the power to revitalize them: to bring the deceased back to life. Carved out of blue lapis, along with the golden falcon and the sun that are the symbols of the god Horus, the lotus appears among the funerary treasures from the tomb of Tutankhamen.

The lotus then, becomes a leitmotiv, a symbol most apt since its links the waters with the sun, the earth to sky - signifying fertility and regeneration in both Egypt and India. For, it is the seed of the plant which spells out the cycle of birth-decay-death and rebirth that forms the essential pattern of belief in these two riverine and agricultural societies. In India and Egypt, the rivers Saraswati and Ganga and the Nile have brought sustenance to the land and nourished these civilizations which have survived five millennia. Both these rivers, the Ganga and the Nile, are personified and worshipped. They provide the dramatic backdrop against which myths and indeed created, to explain the topographic conditions of the land.



Lotus in full bloom. Railing pillar in stupa, Sanchi Gajalakshmi seated on Lotus. Kalaghat painting 

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 4).

Watch Scientific verification of Vedic knowledge

***

From its source in the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal, the Ganga flows some two thousand five hundred kilometers, through the rich deltaic region which is known as Aryavarta, in the most densely populated area of India. Puranic myths recount the divine origins of Ganga, as she fell from heaven to earth in response to penance performed by the sage Bhagiratha: to bring the powers of water to an earth parched for over a thousand years. At the seventh century seaport of Mahabalipuram in south India, this epic theme is entirely carved out of a granite rock spanning almost fifty feet. A natural cleft in the rock allows the rain water to pour down in great ******** - as though this were the descent of a mighty river. Besides this cleft are carved the serpentine forms of the naga devatas (snake divinities), the sun and the moon, the gandharvas and kinnaras (celestial beings), the hunters and animals of the forest - all of them rejoicing in this great event where the divine rive is celebrated as the savior of all mankind.

Here is a spectacular instance of the way in which myth is used to relate man to the environment. In this myth one senses an acute awareness of the ecological balance which needs to be maintained: of the vapors of the sea rising to the sky through heat, described in the myth as tapas, and then falling back to earth as the divine river, to flow down through the matted locks of Lord Shiva, on to the Himalayas, to flow back into the ocean.



River Goddess Ganga, Rameshvara Caves. Ellora. Hapi, god of the River Nile. Temple of Abydos, Egypt. 

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 8 - 9).

***

As in India, so in Egypt, the river is personified in human form. A sandstone relief from the temple of Rameses II at Abydos depicts Hapi, god of the Nile, holding a pair of blue lotus stalks in his hands; suspended from the god's right arm is the ankh, the symbol of life. Unlike the Ganga, the blue god of the Nile is male, but with one female breast to symbolize his role as nourisher - releasing the waters each year to provide sustenance to mankind. 

The main presiding deity of the Egyptian pantheon is Osiris, like Yama, god of the dead, whose story of life, death and regeneration has been transmitted to us in great detail by Plutarch. 

Some extraordinary parallels with the Osirian myth are found among the myths and images of India. Lord Vishnu lied recumbent on the bed of the ocean asleep, as indeed Osiris lied prostate and dead on a bier. 

The Hindi word for cow means also "ray of illumination," and in Egyptian lore a cow is sometimes depicted as the source of light in the sky.

***

The Puranas, Nile and Lake Amara

Significant also is the fact that Lieutenant Speake, when planning his discovery of the source of the Nile, secured his best information from a map reconstructed out of Puranas. (Journal, pp. 27, 77, 216; Wilford, in Asiatic Researches, III). 

It traced the course of the river, the "Great Krishna," through Cusha-dvipa, from a great lake in Chandristhan, "Country of the Moon," which it gave the correct position in relation to the Zanzibar islands. The name was from the native Unya-muezi, having the same meaning; and the map correctly mentioned another native name, Amara, applied to the district bordering Lake Victoria Nyanza.

"All our previous information," says Speake, "concerning the hydrography of these regions, originated with the ancient Hindus, who told it to the priests of the Nile; and all these busy Egyptian geographers, who disseminated their knowledge with a view to be famous for their long-sightedness, in solving the mystery which enshrouded the source of their holy river, were so many hypothetical humbugs. The Hindu traders had a firm basis to stand upon through their intercourse with the Abyssinians."

(source: Periplus of the Erythrean Sea - W.H. Schoff p. 229-230).

The Puranas have a remarkable connection with one of the most important discoveries of the 19th century. In 1858, John Hanning Speke (1827-1864) &#8211; Speke was commissioned in the British Indian Army in 1844 &#8211; made the discovery that Lake Victoria was the source of the River Nile in Africa. Speke wrote that to some Indian Pundits (Hindu scholars) the Nile was known as Nila, and also as Kaali. Nila means blue and Kaali means dark &#8211; both apt descriptions for the Nile near its source. These are mentioned in several Puranas including the Bhavishaya. 

This went against the conventional wisdom, for Lake Victoria was unknown at the time. Sir Richard Burton, the leader of the Nile expedition, had identified Lake Tangyanika as the source. Speke, however, following upon the advice of a Benares (Varansi) Pundit, insisted that the real source was a much large lake that lay to the north. Following this advice Speke went on to discover Victoria. The Pundit had also told him that the real source were twin peaks as Somagiri, &#8216;Soma&#8217; in Sanskrit stands for moon and &#8216;giri&#8217; means peak, and Somagiri therefore are none other than the fabled Mountains of the Moon in Central Africa! The Pundit must have known all this. He published his book Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile in 1863.

(source: Nostradamus and Beyond &#8211; N S Rajaram p. 60 - 67). 

Colonel Rigby now gave me a most interesting paper, with a map attached to it, about the Nile and the Mountains of the Moon. It was written by Lieutenant Wilford, from the "Purans" of the Ancient Hindus. As it exemplifies, to a certain extent, the supposition I formerly arrived at concerning the Mountains of the Moon being associated with the country of the Moon, I would fain draw the attention of the reader of my travels to the volume of the "Asiatic Researches" in which it was published. It is remarkable that the Hindus have christened the source of the Nile Amara, which is the name of a country at the north-east corner of the Victoria N'yanza. This, I think, shows clearly, that the ancient Hindus must have had some kind of communication with both the northern and southern ends of the Victoria N'yanza. 

(source: Journal of the Discovery of The Source of the Nile - http:/www.capitalnet.com/~jcbyers/Speke/nile-chap01.htm).

Top of Page

Cultural Contacts with Egypt

All through the ages the peoples of India have had active intercourse with the other peoples of the world. Since the days of Mohenjo daro culture, the Hindus have never lived in an alleged "splendid isolation." It is generally assumed that internationalism or cosmopolitism is a very recent phenomenon in human affairs. As a matter of fact, however, culture has ever been international. 

The dawn of human civilization finds the Hindus as captains of industry and entrepreneurs of commerce. They were in touch with the Pharaohs of Egypt. The mummies of the Egyptians were wrapped in muslin which was imported from India. Hindu trade gave to the land of the Nile ivory, gold, spices, tamarind-wood, sandal-wood, monkeys, and other characteristic Indian plants and animals. It is also believed that the textile craftsmen of Egypt dyed their cloth with Hindu indigo. Hindu ships brought the Indian commodities to the Arabian ports, or to the Land of Punt; and from there these were transported to Luxor, Karnak and Memphis.

Hindu commerce with the land of the Euphrates was more intimate and direct. As early as about 3000 B.C. the Hindus supplied the Chaldean city of Ur on the Euphrates with teak-wood. The Assyrians also, like the Egyptians, got their muslin from India. In fact, vegetable "wool", i.e. cotton, and wool producing plants have been some of the earliest gifts of Hindu merchants to the world. From the tenth to the sixth century B.C. the Assyro-Babylonian trade of the Hindus seems to have been very brisk. Hindus brought with them apes, elephants, cedar, teak, peacocks, tigers, rice, ivory, and other articles to Babylon, the Rome of Western Asia. It was through this Indo-Mesopotamian trade that the Athenians of the sixth century B.C. came to know of rice and peacocks.





(India) vanadevata's (wood spirit) hand issuing from tree trunk offering water - (Egypt) deceased drinking water offered by tree divinity 

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 69).

***

This expansion of Hindu activity influenced the literature of the time, e.g. the Vedas and Jatakas. A cylinder seal of about 2,000 B.C. bearing cuneiform inscriptions and images of Chaldean deities have been unearthed in Central India. In Southern India has been found a Babylonian sarcophagus. 

Hindu trade with the Hebrews also was considerable. Soloman (1015 B.C), King of Judaea, was a great internationalist. In order to promote the trade of his land he set up a port at the head of the right arm of the Red Sea. He made his race the medium of intercourse between Phoenicians and Hindus. The port of Ophir (in Southern India) is famous in Hebrew literature for its trade in gold under Soloman. The Books of Genesis, Kings and Ezekiel indicate the nature and amount of Hindu contact with Asia Minor. It is held by Biblical scholars that the stones in the breast plate of the high priest may have come from India. The Hindus supplied also the demand of Syria for ivory and ebony. The Hebrew word, tuki (peacock), is derived from Tamil (South Indian) tokei, and ahalin (aloe) from aghil.

Top of Page

The Sun King and Dasharatha

Subhash Kak has observed: "A sad consequence of the racist historiography of the 19th century Indologists and their successors is the neglect of India's interaction with Africa. Cyril A Hromnik's Indo-Africa : towards a new understanding of the history of sub-Saharan Africa (1981) is the only book on the Indian contribution to the history of sub-Saharan Africa that I am aware of, but it is just an exploratory study.

The Sun King and Dasharatha - Two historical persons with Indic connections -- one from North Mesopotamia and the other from Egypt.

The Sun King Akhenaten of Egypt (ruled 1352-1336 BC according to the mainstream view) was the son-in-law to Dasharatha, the Mitanni king of North Syria, through the queen, Kiya. (The name Dasharatha is spelled Tushratta in the Hittite cuneiform script, which does not distinguish between 'd' and 't' very well. Some have suggested that the Sanskrit original is Tvesharatha, &#8220;having splendid chariots.&#8221 Letters exchanged between Akhenaten and Dasharatha have been found in Amarna in Egypt and other evidence comes from the tombs of the period that have been discovered in excellent condition.

The Mitanni, who worshiped Vedic gods, belonged to an Indic kingdom that was connected by marriage across several generations to the Egyptian 18th dynasty to which Akhenaten belonged. The first Mitanni king was Sutarna I (&#8220;good sun&#8221. He was followed by Paratarna I (&#8220;great sun&#8221, Parashukshatra (&#8220;ruler with axe&#8221, Saukshatra (&#8220;son of Sukshatra, the good ruler&#8221, Paratarna II, Artatama or Ritadhama (&#8220;abiding in cosmic law&#8221, Sutarna II, Dasharatha, and finally Mativaja (Matiwazza, &#8220;whose wealth is prayer&#8221 during whose lifetime the Mitanni state appears to have become a vassal to Assyria. 

But how could an Indic kingdom be so far from India, near Egypt? After catastrophic earthquakes dried up the Sarasvati river around 1900 BC, many groups of Indic people started moving West. We see Kassites, a somewhat shadowy aristocracy with Indic names and worshiping Surya and the Maruts, in Western Iran about 1800 BC. They captured power in Babylon in 1600 BC, which they were to rule for over 500 years.

The Mitanni ruled northern Mesopotamia (including Syria) for about 300 years, starting 1600 BC, out of their capital of Vasukhani. (For Mitanni names, I give standard Sanskrit spellings rather than the form that we find in inscriptions in the inadequate cuneiform script, such as Wassukkani for Vasukhani, &#8220;a mine of wealth.&#8221 Their warriors were called marya, which is the proper Sanskrit term for it.

In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, Indic deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. A text by a Mitannian named Kikkuli uses words such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, round). Another text has babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita, grey), and pinkara (pingala, red). Their chief festival was the celebration of vishuva (solstice) very much like in India. It is not only the kings who had Sanskrit names; a large number of other Sanskrit names have been unearthed in the records from the area. 

The Vedic presence via the Mitanni in Egypt and the Near East occurs several centuries before the exodus of the Jews. This presence is sure to have left its mark in various customs, traditions, and beliefs. It may be that this encounter explains uncanny similarities in mythology and ritual, such as circumambulation around a rock or the use of a rosary of 108 beads.

(source: The Sun King and Dasharatha - By Subhash Kak sulekha.com). 

The Sphinxes of India

In Indian art and culture the existence and presence of the sphinx as a mythological being has so far gone unnoticed and unrecognized. But through many years of research I have found that the sphinx plays a significant role in the arts and traditions of many temples in India. And not only in the art, but also in ritual and legend.

(source: The Sphinxes of India - By Raja Deekshitar - Swaveda.com).

***

India's Contact with the West

H. R. Hall writes in his book, The Ancient History of the Near East (London, 1913, p. 74): &#8220;There is no doubt that the Indus must have been one of the oldest centers of human civilization, and it seems natural to consider that the strange non-Semitic and non-Aryan people who came from the east to civilize the west was of Indian origin, particularly when we see to what point the Sumerians looked like Indians in appearance.&#8221; 

The Egyptians attributed an eastern origin to their culture, starting that they had come from the East by sea, from the land of &#8220;Punt&#8221;. Maritime communications and trading from the mouths of the Indus to the south of Arabia and as far as the Egyptians coast &#8211; very important during the early period of Egypt &#8211; had always existed. The fact that the Egyptians had built a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea implies a considerable volume of trade toward the south and east. The center of sea trade between India and the Mediterranean appears to have been south of Arabia and Socotra (probably the Egyptian Pas-enka), the Greek Dioscorida, called Sukhadara dvipa (the Happy Isle) by the Indians. 



By the pictorial hieroglyphic inscription found on the walls of the temple of the Queen Haslitop at Der-el-babri, we see that this Punt can be no other than India. "It is testified by Herdotus, Plato, Salon, Pythagoras, and Philostratus that the religion of Egypt proceeded from India. "

The land of Punt in the Egyptian ethnological traditions has been identified by the scholars with the Malabar coast of Deccan. From this land ebony, and other rich woods, incense, balsam, precious metals, etc. used to be imported into Egypt."

(image source: Bold Voyages and Great Explorers: The Quest for India - By Bjorn Landstrom).

***

The geographical sections of the Puranas (Ancient Chronicles of India) mentions Mecca among the holy places, under the name of Makheshvara, together with its black stone as an emblem of the god Shiva.

The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, written in the first century tells of the founding of the city of Endaemon, or modern Aden: &#8220;In the early days of the city when the voyage was not yet made from India to Egypt, and when they did not dare to sail from Egypt to the ports across the ocean (those of India), but all came together at this place, it received the cargoes from both countries.&#8221; The Periplus indicates that Endaemon had been founded by Indian merchants, the Minas, whom Strabo calls Minaeans. Pliny speaks of the Minaeans as the most ancient of trading peoples and mentions relations between the Minaeans and King Minos of Crete. The prophet Ezekiel relates that their trading expeditions reached as far as the Phoenician city of Tyre.

According to Sergi, &#8220;the Egyptians and all other Hamitic peoples came out of Asia,&#8221; while according to Haddon, &#8220;at the beginning of history, some Asians came to Egypt, first from the south, eventually bringing with them bronze and probably also the plough and wheat.&#8221; 

In the seventh century, St. Isidore made a summary in his Encyclopedia of knowledge derived from ancient Greek and Latin authors, many of whose works have now disappeared. He also speaks of &#8220;Ethiopians&#8221; in his Etymologiarium (IX.2.128): &#8220;They came in ancient times from the River Indus, established themselves in Egypt between the Nile and the sea, towards the south, in the equatorial regions. They became three nations: the Hesperians to the west, the Garamantes in Tripolitania, and the Indians in the east. (The Hesperians&#8221; are the ancient inhabitants of Spain; &#8220;Garamantes&#8221; can be connected to Karama &#8220;city in Dravidian); and &#8220;the Indians&#8221; refers to the inhabitants of Ethiopia, who were also mistaken in ancient literature for the inhabitants of India.&#8221;

Between the 6th and the first millennium B.C.E., relations between India and the Near East are evident. Precious stones &#8211; amazonite &#8211; coming from Nilgiri in southern India have been found at Ur prior to the Jemder Nasr period (3000 B.C.E). Indian seals have been found in Bahrain and in Mesopotamia in pre-Sargonic levels (2500 B.C.E). Traces of Indian cotton have been found, and there are archaeological indications of sea trade with India in the Larsa period (2170 to 1950 B.C.E). The beams of the Temple of the Moon, at Ur of the Chaldees, and those of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar (6th century B.C.E.) were of teak and cedarwood coming from Malabar in southern India. 

(source: A Brief History of India - By Alain Danielou p. 12 - 20).

Top of Page

The Persian Connection

F. Max Muller speaks of the colonization of Persia by the Hindus. Discussing the word 'Arya', he says: "But it was more faithfully preserved by the Zoroastrians, who migrated from India to the North-west and whose religion has been preserved to us in the Zind Avesta, though in fragments only. He again says: "The Zoroastrians were a colony from Northern India."

(source: Science of Language - By Max Muller p. 242-253).

Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeran says: "In point of fact that Zind is derived from the Sanskrit, and a passage to have descended from the Hindus of the second or warrior caste."

(source: Historical researches into the politics, intercourse, and trade of the Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians - By A. H. Heeren Volume II p. 220).

Sir William Jones writes: "I was not a little surprised to find that out of words in Du Perron's Zind Dictionary, six or seven were pure Sanskrit."

(source: Sir William Jones' Works Volume I p. 82-82).





(India) A terracotta solar plaque illustrating solar boat (Egypt) - solar boat

(image source: India and Egypt - edited by Saryu Doshi p. 80-81).

***

Mr Haug, in an interesting essay on the origin of Zoroastrian religion, compares it with Brahminism, and points out the originally-close connection between Brahminical and the Zoroastrian religions, customs and observances. After comparing names of divine beings, names and legends of heroes, sacrificial rites, religious observances, domestic rites, and cosmographical opinions that occur both in the Vedic and Avasta writings, he says: "In the Vedas as well as in the older portions of the Zind-Avesta (see the Gathas), there are sufficient traces to be discovered that the Zoroastrian religion arose out of a vital struggle against a certain form of Brahminical religion had assumed at a certain early period.

After contrasting the names of the Hindu gods and the Zoroastrian deities, he continues: "These facts throw some light upon the age which that great religious struggle took place, the consequence of which was the entire separation of the Ancient Iranians from the Brahmins and the foundation of the Zoroastrian religion. It must have occurred when Indra was the chief god of Hinduism."

(source: Essays on the Parsees - By Haug p. 288).



*Ancient Indian Towns found under the sea:*
Introduction: Ancient structures, under water and on land, discovered

Ancient structural remains of some significance have been discovered at Dwaraka, under water and on land, by the Underwater Archaeology Wing (UAW) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Alok Tripathi, Superintending Archaeologist, UAW, said the ancient underwater structures found in the Arabian Sea were yet to be identified. "We have to find out what they are. They are fragments. I would not like to call them a wall or a temple. They are part of some structure," said Dr. Tripathi, himself a trained diver.

Thirty copper coins were also found in the excavation area. The structures found on land belonged to the medieval period. "We have also found 30 copper coins. We are cleaning them. After we finish cleaning them, we can give their date," he said.

Dwaraka is a coastal town in Jamnagar district of Gujarat. Traditionally, modern Dwaraka is identified with Dvaraka or Dvaravati, mentioned in the Mahabharata as Krishna 's city. Dwaraka was a port, and some scholars have identified it with the island of Barka mentioned in the Periplus of Erythrean Sea. Ancient Dwaraka sank in sea and hence is an important archaeological site.

The first archaeological excavations at Dwaraka were done by the Deccan College , Pune and the Department of Archaeology, Government of Gujarat, in 1963 under the direction of H.D. Sankalia. It revealed artefacts many centuries old.

The ASI conducted a second round of excavations in 1979 under S.R. Rao's direction. He found a distinct pottery known as lustrous red ware, which could be more than 3,000 years old. Based on the results of these excavations, the search for the sunken city in the Arabian Sea began in 1981. Scientists and archaeologists have continually worked on the site for 20 years.

The UAW began excavations at Dwaraka again from January 2007. Dr. Tripathi said: "To study the antiquity of the site in a holistic manner, excavations are being conducted simultaneously both on land [close to the Dwarakadhish temple] and undersea so that finds from both the places can be co-related and analysed scientifically."

The objective of the excavation is to know the antiquity of the site, based on material evidence. In the offshore excavation, the ASI's trained underwater archaeologists and the divers of the Navy searched the sunken structural remains. The finds were studied and documented.

On land, the excavation is being done in the forecourt of the Dwarakadhish temple. Students from Gwalior , Lucknow , Pune, Vadodara, Varanasi and Bikaner are helping ASI archaeologists. In the forecourt, old structures including a circular one have been found. A small cache of 30 copper coins was discovered.

(source: Significant finds at Dwaraka - By T.S. Subramanian - The Hindu February 23, 2007)
Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> No, this translation is not incorrect. Nor was the earlier translation incorrect. It was not about translation at all, but about context.
> 
> The mistake that is apparent is to assume that all parts of the epic are of the same age.



It makes no difference whether all parts of the epic were written in 1 day or over 400 years. They are all part of the same book whether it was written 400 years before or not. Until a section is discarded, it is part of that book. 



> Unlike the holy book that you are presumably used to, which permits of one and only one meaning, this source, the Mahabharata, is firstly NOT a holy book but an epic. If examples of epics from other cultures are needed, Shah-nameh by Firdausi is an example, or Homer's Iliad or Odyssey. Homer's works are now suspected to have been written by several hands; the Mahabharata is _known_ to have been written by many hands. The difference in the Sanskrit used is vast; there are clear traces of centuries having elapsed in the usages between one section and another.



I disagree with Homer's Iliad since it is nothing to do with religion, but can be ascribed to Ancient Greek culture. The Firdausi one looks to be an equal example. The Mahabharata is to Hinduism what the Shahnameh is to Zoroastrianism. Both these books are central in defining Hindu and Zoroastrian culture. 

You claim the Mahabharat is not a Holy Book, but an epic. Why do you say this? It is both a Holy Book and an epic, or a Holy Epic. Can you tell me what you think of these statements? 

_"Hinduism does not possess a single holy book like Bible in Christianity and Quran in Islamic Dharma. Hinduism consists of several holy books... prime of which are the sacred Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana. All depends upon the journey of life... if one has a spiritual inclination... the foremost of all holy books of Hinduism is Bhagavad Gita.

*The sacred Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata... a holy epic of Hinduism!* The doctrine of Bhagavad Gita is a sure shot method for reaching God Almighty. Assimilating the wisdom contained in the holy book Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism human beings finally gained enlightenment (kaivalya jnana) and salvation (moksha)._" 
Hinduism holy book | Important Books and Writings of hinduism



> This reflects scholarly opinion; the reason for warning you (and others) against Wikipedia, as opposed to historically accurate analysis written by professional historians, is that these issues are frequently not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing in Wikipedia, and are difficult for the layman to detect. Which is what has happened in the present case.



I don't understand why you're bringing up professional historians. They're not under discussion at the moment. It's the content of the Mahabharata. You've said the content is accurate. You've also said it has been written by several authors over 400 years, and so what? It is still the Mahabharata. 



> The difficulty with using this passage is simply that later sections have been interpolated, and they have been interpolated, if one detects them as interpolations, for a purpose. In this case, as has been explained again and again, it is clearly the interpolation of a late period in history, possibly during the Gupta period, when the priesthood was located in middle India, in the present day Oudh and Bihar, and had a major propaganda objective of discrediting Brahmins from other points of the settlements of the incoming tribesmen, in order to secure for themselves a greater share of the fruits of priesthood - land, cows, money.



It doesn't matter if it's been added in later or not. That is the official translation of the major Holy Epic of Hinduism. Whether it was written during the Gupta period or not is irrelevant. The fact is it is part of the Mahabharata. 



> This passage disparages the Punjab and points further to the north and west for a purpose, for this purpose. It also disparages the original food habits and the original social norms and practices of the steppe tribesmen, in order to uphold the new social order that post-Vedic Hinduism sought to bring in, precisely with the support of those who were writing these passages.



Cultural war. But it's a fundamental book of Hinduism and so is a fundamental passage. 



> The passage means everything in the context of these struggles, and means nothing as far as the objective of proving the people of the north-west alien is concerned.



It shows that fundamentally Hinduism was historically opposed to a Pakistani area. Whether this would have changed if they had followed later Hinduism, or whether it's part of Hindu belief regardless of whether Pakistan would be Hindu or not doesn't change that Hinduism was historically opposed to the people in the Pakistani area. 

Some Hindu fanatics hold this passage (like the rest of the Mahabharata) very closely. 



> This, and similar reasons, is precisely why in my original post, I had cautioned against using epics as sources of anthropological or soiological evidence. The study of these texts is a long and elaborate one, and some have spent entire lives on understanding them and their ramifications. It is not something to be acquired with a quick read of Wikipedia, or a first reading of the text itself.



This is an old argument. "you cannot understand it". I can read, i can think, and until you logically show me why I'm incorrect, I would say I'm correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RVS_108

The modern India is a continuation of Ancient India 
cuz Ancient India was alive even in invader's rule in India like Islamic Rule in India or British Raj in India 
so now i wanna show u Vedic(ancient Indian) influence not only in Islamic Arts(&Architecture) but also in Greco-Romanaic and Ancient Egyptians 
Check this out ....by Stephen Knapp
Photographic Evidence of Vedic Influence 

So this proves tht Ancient India still exists in a fullform which is why everybody says India is a continuation of Ancient India


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> The language of the IVC isn't known.



You are to be congratulated. At least there is one fact on which we are agreed. If we both persist, another might turn up, and then a third, and a fourth, and so on. However, I am not holding my breath, given what you have written below. 



roadrunner said:


> Ancient Indian history from between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago all occurred in what is now Pakistan. The Greeks did not realize modern day India existed until much later. So how can Ancient Indian history refer to the history of modern day India?



To be quite accurate, leave alone the ancient Greeks, even the British didn't realise that modern day India existed until they had partitioned the country. Before that, what existed was a combination of British India, which emphatically did not map on to the present Republic of India, and the princely states under the suzerainty of the Crown.

We must be accurate in our usage of these terms to make any sense.

Secondly, it is astonishing to read that Ancient Indian history between 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, occurred solely in what is now Pakistan. Let us look at a short list of possible headings: the rise of the Mahajanapadas; the rise of Magadha to supremacy among these Mahajanapadas; the birth of the Buddha; the birth of Mahavira Jain; the spread of Buddhism; the spread of Jainism; the Maurya Empire - and further south, a complete civilisation flourishing, in extensive links with Europe and the Mediterranean, about which there seems to be no knowledge reflected in your statement.

If, on the other hand, you mean that the ancient Greeks did not know about the existence of any land mass other than what is contained in modern-day Pakistan, that is a statement of breath-taking ignorance.

Since you are apparently unable to access records of any value other than Wikipedia, I have tried to draw my examples from Wikipedia from this point onwards, in spite of the inaccuracy and the grave defects in analysis, and have added my own comments, marked as such, so that both the corrections are apparent, and that they are my corrections and not Wikipedia's original text is also apparent.

The first extract is from Plutarch's life of Alexander:_

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at&#8209;arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites[1] and Praesii[2] were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus[3], who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India._

[1] Gangaridae: the Greek term for the Ganges Basin;
[2] Prachii: the Greek term for the end of the Ganges Basin, the land of the East, Prachya;
[3] Chandragupta Maurya: corrupted originally to Sandracottus, later in Plutarch to Andracottus.

B. Then there are the reports of Megasthenes, ambassador of Seleucus to the Maurya court at Pataliputra, in Bihar approximately on the site of modern Patna, which were rich and detailed in their accounts of India outside the portion that is today Pakistan. He was succeeded by Deimachus and Dionysius, and there was extensive Greek trade with northern India, demonstrated by the widespread availability of Greek pottery remnants of the period throughout northern India. 

C. There is the evidence of the Roman trade with India which centred on Muziris, or Cranganore in South India. Those who have followed the history of Indo-European trade and other relations will be aware of the strong trade relations maintained, and of the extensive stocks of Roman coins found at Arikkamedu. It was about this ruinous trade with India, including Bengal, and South East Asia, specifically what the Europeans called the Golden Chersonese, or Thailand, that Roman commentators complained, saying that their welath was being sucked away into India.

D. The most exhaustive account of sea routes and trade routes into India, and indirectly a source through which we know of the extensive knowledge of India with the ancient Europeans, is the seminal Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. This work has to be read to be believed, as the wealth of information it has about India - other than what we are being asked to believe was the limit of their knowledge, the Indus Valley - is astonishing.

There are too many points on the west coast and the east coast of India - but not the Ceylonese coast - to make the in-depth knowledge of India as we know it quite clear.

A clarification: although the actual date of the manuscript, and the political situation that it describes is of the 1st century AD, the knowledge of the coastline and the trading relations, rules and regulations are obviously the product of centuries of trade. We have evidence of these trade links in coin hoards and in literary references already, but each piece of evidence works to strengthen the entire structure of dating and of assigning a time-frame.



roadrunner said:


> Some people might have known about the existence of Ancient Bharat. It's possible, but they didn't record it too well.



Astonishing statement, considering the evidence to the contrary. We can only ascribe this to a lamentable lack of exposure to history.

To put it plainly, it is only that your ignorance of the existence of Ancient Bharat, about which you seem to know nothing, that gets in the way of your analysis.



roadrunner said:


> Bharat existed but much of the history of Ancient India was saved by the Greeks. They didn't even know of any land east of the Indus River.



Just for the sake of argument, they knew of the Gangaridae, the Prasii and of the Icthyophagae - Gangetic Plains, Bihar and Bengal, respectively.



roadrunner said:


> So Bharati cities under the sea?



Yes, more than one. You may - or may not - have heard or read about the excavations of Poompuhara and parts around, including, a little further north, around the sunken temple of Mahabalipuram. There are also more sites which simply cannot be taken up due to the shortage of staff and funds.



roadrunner said:


> All this is quite stupid.



I agree. Perhaps you might like to read a couple of text books on Indian history before re-joining this discussion. Your contribution so far has been less than illuminating.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## LaBong

> Bharat existed but much of the history of Ancient India was saved by the Greeks. They didn't even know of any land east of the Indus River.



Quite contrary, the main reason of Greeks not venturing into India anymore after annexing Punjab was they probably knew an exaggerated account of Gangaridae and Magadha empires. Alex didn't have a strong force left after facing Purus and they were afraid of the might of Eastern empires(rightfully so, as proved by Seleucus's defeat to Chandragupta Mourya just a few years after).


----------



## ajtr

Abir said:


> Quite contrary, the main reason of Greeks not venturing into India anymore after annexing Punjab was they probably knew an exaggerated account of Gangaridae and Magadha empires. Alex didn't have a strong force left after facing Purus and they were afraid of the might of Eastern empires(rightfully so, as proved by Seleucus's defeat to Chandragupta Mourya just a few years after).


Infact Greeks knew about the land east of indus remember chandragupta murya married Selecus daughter helen.



> The advent of the Mauryans brought them into conflict next with the Greek General Seleucus I Nicator, who had inherited both Alexander's Asian holdings and his Empire-building dreams. These, Chandragupta shattered in 303 B.C. The resulting treaty gave the loser 500 war-elephants and granted to the victorious Changragupta the Seleucid Provinces of Trans-Indus (Afghanistan), Seleucus's daughter Helen in marriage, and the future Court presence of the Seleucid Ambassador Megasthenes. The latter's fascinating account of his tenure, 'Indika', has survived in fragments down the centuries.


Mauryan Empire - Indian History


----------



## LaBong

> The advent of the Mauryans brought them into conflict next with the Greek General Seleucus I Nicator, who had inherited both Alexander's Asian holdings and his Empire-building dreams. These, Chandragupta shattered in 303 B.C. The resulting treaty gave the loser 500 war-elephants and granted to the victorious Changragupta the Seleucid Provinces of Trans-Indus (Afghanistan), Seleucus's daughter Helen in marriage, and the future Court presence of the Seleucid Ambassador Megasthenes. The latter's fascinating account of his tenure, '*Indika*', has survived in fragments down the centuries.



True. And please notice the bold part. Despite the main purpose of Megasthenes being visiting Pataliputra(roughly present day Patna, Bihar), he quite strangely named his book as Indika, not Mouryia/Magadhi/Bharat or something like that.


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> It makes no difference whether all parts of the epic were written in 1 day or over 400 years. They are all part of the same book whether it was written 400 years before or not. Until a section is discarded, it is part of that book.



Certainly, they are part of the same book. Unfortunately, there is no one version of the book. The closest version to the authentic, by common agreement, is the Bhandarkar institute's recension. The institute would be the first to agree that it cannot claim that its version is infallible. 

As of today, it is indisputably a part of the epic. That is not at stake or under dispute. 

As you have quoted a section of the book, it has been sought to explain what the section means, and why it may have been introduced, much after the earlier portions, with a specific motive - the denigration of residents of the older inhabited areas of the Indo-Aryan incoming settlers. 



roadrunner said:


> I disagree with Homer's Iliad since it is nothing to do with religion, but can be ascribed to Ancient Greek culture. The Firdausi one looks to be an equal example. The Mahabharata is to Hinduism what the Shahnameh is to Zoroastrianism. Both these books are central in defining Hindu and Zoroastrian culture.



Culture, but not religion. 

Just as a Zoroastrian priest would be shocked by your assertion that the Shahnameh defines anything other than the outlines of the Iranian culture at the time of the Zoroastrian religion prevailing, a Hindu priest would refuse to override other religious books on the basis of the Mahabharata. 

The Mahabharata was a story, the story of the royal family of the Kurus, who ruled in the Punjab and to its east. Its popularity led to a forest of parasites hanging on to it and seeking to use it as a vehicle. Some tried to insert passages damaging to their professional rivals, priests of other locations and sub-sects; some tried to use it to promote a particular cult, the cult of Krishna, who was raised from his position as a statesman and advisor to kings to an appearance of divinity on earth. All these have been proved, through thorough and detailed linguistic analysis, to be later interpolations.

Regarding your repeated assertion that this is the 'official' translation and that this is an 'official' holy book, neither is true; there is no official translation, since nobody has the authority to hold one existing version (there are several) more authentic than others, nor has anybody any authority to proclaim any book to be superior to the Vedas. Not in canonical Hinduism, at least; there are millions of sects and sub-sects with stranger beliefs, and using each of their belief-systems and their respective holy books is quite useless for the purposes of historical analysis. 

Only an insertion in the Mahabharata, widely acknowledged by linguists and historians as an insertion of a much later date, has a religious message. It was introduced into a popular epic so that it would have a wide circulation, but has not the sanctity or the authority of the Vedas.



roadrunner said:


> You claim the Mahabharat is not a Holy Book, but an epic. Why do you say this? It is both a Holy Book and an epic, or a Holy Epic. Can you tell me what you think of these statements?



No. The Holy Books are considered to be the Vedas, the appendages to the Vedas, the Aranyakas, Upanishads and Vedangas, and the Puranas. The one that has crept into popular belief due to the strength and power of its message, but was not originally a part of the Holy Books, is a single composition called the Bhagavad Gita, which was introduced into a popular, _secular_, epic, and is today considered a holy book.

To an historian, none of these count, except to the extent that, for instance, the Shahnameh counts - as sources of lateral evidence, to be backed up by historically accurate sources before acceptance.

Incidentally, this is the first time that I have encountered a Holy Epic. What is this animal? Where did you encounter the concept? Or is it of your own coinage, as seems likely?



roadrunner said:


> _"Hinduism does not possess a single holy book like Bible in Christianity and Quran in Islamic Dharma. Hinduism consists of several holy books... prime of which are the sacred Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana. All depends upon the journey of life... if one has a spiritual inclination... the foremost of all holy books of Hinduism is Bhagavad Gita.
> 
> *The sacred Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata... a holy epic of Hinduism!* The doctrine of Bhagavad Gita is a sure shot method for reaching God Almighty. Assimilating the wisdom contained in the holy book Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism human beings finally gained enlightenment (kaivalya jnana) and salvation (moksha)._"
> Hinduism holy book | Important Books and Writings of hinduism



This is just a point of view. Even a popular point of view. As you will know from the example of the worship of tombs and of pirs, a popular point of view is not the theologically correct point of view. Neither the Ramayana nor the Mahabharata is a holy book; they are important cultural artefacts, epics, and have tremendous cultural weight. They may even have current religious weight. They obviously have no historical weight, unless supported by independent historical sources, acceptable to professional historians, and in any case, they have no relevance before their dates of composition.

In this case, the Mahabharata, it had no relevance before 400 BC, and relations between tribes and settlements prior to that are not reflected in its passages any way.



roadrunner said:


> I don't understand why you're bringing up professional historians. They're not under discussion at the moment. It's the content of the Mahabharata. You've said the content is accurate. You've also said it has been written by several authors over 400 years, and so what? It is still the Mahabharata.



Certainly it is the Mahabharata. So what? It is not a homogeneous document, it is a *story* written by many hands, and one should come to historical or sociological conclusions based on it as definitively as one should come to historical or sociological conclusions based on the Tilism Hoshruba.

I have said that the translation is accurate, not the contents. The contents of a story cannot be accurate, since it depends on the imagination of an individual human being, in this case, a number of human beings. Please check my exact statement and do not distort statements.



roadrunner said:


> It doesn't matter if it's been added in later or not. That is the official translation of the major Holy Epic of Hinduism. Whether it was written during the Gupta period or not is irrelevant. The fact is it is part of the Mahabharata.



It is, on the contrary, hugely relevant if the passages have been written earlier or later, as social conditions and the appreciation of different parts of the country were radically different in different points of time.

Second, I repeat, there is no official translation. There cannot be. There can only be one which is accepted by a large number of scholars, and it is always open to other, equally learned scholars to insist that they have a better version.



roadrunner said:


> Cultural war. But it's a fundamental book of Hinduism and so is a fundamental passage.



No. It is neither a fundamental book of Hinduism, nor is the mischief making of a priest out to corner a greater share of the priest-offering sufficient historical evidence what you are setting out to prove.



roadrunner said:


> It shows that fundamentally Hinduism was historically opposed to a Pakistani area. Whether this would have changed if they had followed later Hinduism, or whether it's part of Hindu belief regardless of whether Pakistan would be Hindu or not doesn't change that Hinduism was historically opposed to the people in the Pakistani area.



Hinduism has not, cannot have been opposed, historically or otherwise - we will come to that later - to a Pakistani area, particularly one which did not exist till centuries later. Not because it did not exist until later, but because Hinduism is not a bloc, it has sects and sub-sects, and even among Brahmins, there was tremendous competition, and a product of this competition, backbiting. 

You are mistaken in talking about later Hinduism and earlier Hinduism in this context, as the hatred was of one group of priests against another. Later priests, seeking greater market-share, spread these slanders against earlier priests, and also in that doing bad-mouthed the region as being unholy and inauspicious. That included culture as well as language; the holiest of the Hindu books, the Rg Veda, talks of slaughtering animals, including animals that later Hinduism considered sacred.

Finally, I find it difficult to believe that you acknowledge that these passages, this book is drawn from epics, whether or not you call it holy books, and are being used to draw historical conclusions.

Historical conclusions can be drawn from historical proofs and authenticated sources only. Period. Using a myth to come to fanciful historical conclusions is totally without value. Except in spats between amateur groups such as this forum. It may satisfy a few desperate to score easy points over others, it satisfies no historical criteria, it is temporally inaccurate, and it is a complete misreading of the text, a misreading due to taking views of 400 AD and applying it to the whole period before.



roadrunner said:


> Some Hindu fanatics hold this passage (like the rest of the Mahabharata) very closely.



And so?



roadrunner said:


> This is an old argument. "you cannot understand it". I can read, i can think, and until you logically show me why I'm incorrect, I would say I'm correct.



It is evident that you can read, it is evident that you can think, and why it is not possible for the rest of the logical conviction to follow is difficult to say. Possibly because you have a point to make and do not wished to be moved from that by any logic or reason. 

That cannot be helped. 

You have displayed not the least attempt to distinguish between historically acceptable source and other, between what was said and written in 1700 BC and what was written in 400 AD, and have no knowledge of historical facts which a first-year undergraduate of history could appraise us in seconds.

Let us not pretend that you are in here to be convinced. Anything that does not bear out your fiction about Hindus hating Pakistanis historically will not pass your filters.

While you are at it, you might like to ponder over how the large masses of outsiders, such as the Sakas, the Scythians reported as Parama Kambojas in the Mahabharata, the Pallavas, north-east Iranians, and the Yueh-chi, the Kushana, were converted to Hinduism, if Hinduism had such abiding hatred for the residents of the lands that are today Pakistan. You might like to look into the origin of the Rajput clans which are divided into the Sun clan, the Moon clan and the Fire clan. A little study of these facts might bring home to you that far from being hostile to people from so-called Pakistan-in-the-past, Hindus, or rather, Hindu priests have been more than accommodating in bringing these strange people into the fold. All were converted, peculiar behaviour if they had been hated people of a hated land.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## coolk06

Thanks. The first and foremost thing is....pakisthan is the name given to a part of India.The people of that part aren't pure natives of that land but..they have come from other parts of the world and they claim that 
they are from that land.Only Hindu culture is there around sindhu ....and 
it's not a relegion , it's a life style.There are several things which can be debated over this issue..where this forum isn't enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

RVS_108 said:


> The modern India is a continuation of Ancient India
> cuz Ancient India was alive even in invader's rule in India like Islamic Rule in India or British Raj in India
> so now i wanna show u Vedic(ancient Indian) influence not only in Islamic Arts(&Architecture) but also in Greco-Romanaic and Ancient Egyptians
> Check this out ....by Stephen Knapp
> Photographic Evidence of Vedic Influence
> 
> So this proves tht Ancient India still exists in a fullform which is why everybody says India is a continuation of Ancient India



You've not understood the argument at all. Until you do, there's no point in quoting lots of irrelevant stuff


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> Secondly, it is astonishing to read that Ancient Indian history between 2,000 to 5,000 years ago, occurred solely in what is now Pakistan. Let us look at a short list of possible headings: the rise of the Mahajanapadas; the rise of Magadha to supremacy among these Mahajanapadas; the birth of the Buddha; the birth of Mahavira Jain; the spread of Buddhism; the spread of Jainism; the Maurya Empire - and further south, a complete civilisation flourishing, in extensive links with Europe and the Mediterranean, about which there seems to be no knowledge reflected in your statement.



When we refer to Ancient Indian History, we think of things like the Indus Valley Civilization, or certain Mathematics and Astronomy, or certain other civilizations. All these important parts of Ancient Indian History are not part of modern day India, they are part of modern day Pakistan's history. 

Indeed the Mauryan Empire did exist, but the powerhouse of the Mauryan Empire was in the northwest of the subcontinent. It certainly is something shared between India and Pakistan, but it really is an irrelevant Empire in global history. The Magada certainly did exist, and this was wholly a part of the history of modern day India, and not Pakistan. You can see the pattern here I hope. 

And Buddhism was developed to a greater extent in what is now Pakistan. Buddhists generally were persecuted in India, but all the important Buddhist Laws and customs came about in the land mass of what is now Pakistan. Swat is one of the most important historical Buddhist centers in the world, and various places in Afghanistan.


----------



## coolk06

Ha ha,....
There's no need to go through the history books. Ancient India/sindhu/indus/hindusthan/......(whatever it may be)
spans from so called pakistha and a part of afghanisthan to 
kanyakumari.We'll get indications about it from our mythological 
books and holy eipcs etc.The name Pakisthan has just 60 yrs of significance and noting to do with that. It's a name of land where
settlers from other parts of world ( who were treated like indians ..by then indians) demanded for partition.It shouldn't be done but ...happened.There's nothing to do with debating over india and pakisthan as it was a single nation.Coming to purushothama....the name itself gives you the indication that he's a hindu..(it's not a religion please)
and india and hindu are interchangeable.But the thing is pakisthanis are not in a position to accept any names in the history which indicates hinduism/culture.
At last what I conclude is....ancient India is the combination of a part of afghanisthan, pakisthan and inida now, myanmar,bangladesh and also tibet and srilanka.....and They follow a lifestyle called Hindu and the outsiders are welcomed anytime with utmost friendliness and they've become part of india in the long run.If you go deep into the history you will find only hindu names .....and after some centuries the other names!!
for this....no need to prove or study historical thing which were written by non.natives of this part.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> The first extract is from Plutarch's life of Alexander:_
> 
> 
> As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at&#8209;arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites[1] and Praesii[2] were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus[3], who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India._
> 
> [1] Gangaridae: the Greek term for the Ganges Basin;
> [2] Prachii: the Greek term for the end of the Ganges Basin, the land of the East, Prachya;
> [3] Chandragupta Maurya: corrupted originally to Sandracottus, later in Plutarch to Andracottus.



There's wiki and there's reality. Alexander turned back because his men were exhausted and didn't believe anything existed beyond the Indus. If the treasure was believed to be great enough, they would have carried on. It is true they were battle weary, but that wasn't so important. 

_The story of Alexander the Great is very familiar to most Indians (at least we think we do). We are taught in history classes that Alexander invaded India in 326 BCE. He fought a fierce battle with King Porus (battle of the Hydaspes River) in modern day Pakistan. Porus was defeated but Alexander spared his life and allowed him to rule the area under his name. *Alexander then reached the Beas River in Himachal Pradesh and decided to turn back after his army started revolting (many people in the ancient world including the Greeks also believed that India was the end of the world and it would not make sense to keep advancing*)._

Story of Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya | India First-Hand


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> B. Then there are the reports of Megasthenes, ambassador of Seleucus to the Maurya court at Pataliputra, in Bihar approximately on the site of modern Patna, which were rich and detailed in their accounts of India outside the portion that is today Pakistan. He was succeeded by Deimachus and Dionysius, and there was extensive Greek trade with northern India, demonstrated by the widespread availability of Greek pottery remnants of the period throughout northern India.



Pataliputra might even have been in Iran. Are you willing to consider this possibility? 

_Till date no relic of any Mauryan King including the great Ashoka or the Greeks has been found in Patna. This is true for the Nanda kings who the Mauryans supposedly captured. So where were the Mauryans actually ruling and who is Chandragupta Maurya?

*Dr. Ranjit Pal argues that Palibothra of Megasthenes is not Patna of Bihar but Patali (near the city of Kerman in Iran). * The names of many Indian cities can also be found in other countries and names like Patali, Konarak, and Salem are good examples (it would be a mistake to assume that these Indian cities are older. It is more likely that Patali (Iran) is much older than Patna (India). The name Patel which is popular among people in Gujarat is likely related to Patali. Gujarat is part of Western India and close to Iran where Patali is)._
Story of Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya | India First-Hand 

Suddenly things are not so clear, and the evidence seems less contradictory

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> Astonishing statement, considering the evidence to the contrary. We can only ascribe this to a lamentable lack of exposure to history.
> 
> To put it plainly, it is only that your ignorance of the existence of Ancient Bharat, about which you seem to know nothing, that gets in the way of your analysis.



The history of Bharat 2000+ years ago is not very well known, and it wasn't known to the outside world. You suggest that trade routes existed from the sea 3000+ years ago and everyone knew about Bharat. I disagree, I don't believe that was the case at all. It is very clear the Ancient Greeks did not know of Bharat's existence. This is well documented and I can find it for you if you want. If Egypt knew of Bharat's existence even 3,000 years ago, I'd be amazed given the Ancient Greeks did not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> This is just a point of view. Even a popular point of view. As you will know from the example of the worship of tombs and of pirs, a popular point of view is not the theologically correct point of view.



I disagree. All points of view might be correct. A popular point of view is just one most people accept. So the Mahabhaata is a Holy Book, or a Holy Epic. 



> Neither the Ramayana nor the Mahabharata is a holy book; they are important cultural artefacts, epics, and have tremendous cultural weight. They may even have current religious weight. They obviously have no historical weight, unless supported by independent historical sources, acceptable to professional historians, and in any case, they have no relevance before their dates of composition.



So it's not a Holy Book but it has some religious weight. This looks like a contradiction does it not?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

It is a fact that the Indus Civilization which was Ancient Pakistan and which now is modern Pakistan - had trade and contact with other world civilizations, and bharat which Roadrunner so eloquently explained was a largely unknown mysterious and relatively backwater of the region, there are no large cities like Mohenjadaro or Harrapa. 

This picture by the Pakistan Navy on a Maritime Patrol Aircraft, shows the sentiment of the Pakistani people regarding their glorious heritage

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

A Tamil or Bengali or a person from UP - has no link to the Indus Valley or its people - this claim of it being part of modern india, is simply an attempt at cultural theft.


----------



## Tameem

roadrunner said:


> They were Indian, but not modern day Indian. I would say they were famous and great civilizations.



Sir, Since they (Bhartis) choose to recognize themselves from the Indus river, it doesn't means automatically that they actually the people of Indus, are they?

Quote
The name India is derived from Indus, which is derived from the Old Persian word Hindu, from Sanskrit &#2360;&#2367;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2369; Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the Indus River.[25] The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (&#921;&#957;&#948;&#959;&#943, the people of the Indus.
UnQuote.
Wikipedia


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> How does this refer to India? India today if anything is three-sided in plan. More triangular. Pakistan on the other hand is four-sided with all these features. Also, your quotes are from Wikipedia, which could easily be wrong. What is the link for your "Arrian" quote?



A plain examination of the envoy's quotes is the first part that you need to take up, in case you need clarification.

The second part is to look up maps of India which belong to those times, to the times of Scylax the navigator, of Strabo the geographer, of the unknown author of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, and of all ancient maps of India. Those were not maps which look as the South Asian peninsula looks today, but maps which distorted the position and the shape of the sub-continent, and which reflected the partial and imperfect knowledge of the Europeans of those times about India.

Unfortunately, as is only to be expected with amateurs unfamiliar with their subject, every piece of evidence available in ancient times is interpreted in the light of modern knowledge, which leads to the misunderstandings and errors in the statements made. 

Try again.



roadrunner said:


> You seem to think you've hit upon something amazing here. All your quotes that include geographical modern India as "India" are from around the 1st century AD onwards. *Do you know that "Ind" and the Indus were given to the name of ancient Pakistan since 2000 BC?* So for 4,000 years people have been referring to Pakistan as India, whilst only 2000 years has India been included with the Ganges. And this being only what foreigners have been saying. Pakistan, or the ancient Pakistani people never agreed to accept you guys as part of the original India or Sindhu.



There was no question of Pakistan or the ancient Pakistani people never agreeing to accept anybody as part of the original India or Sindhu, as there was in fact no Pakistan or ancient Pakistani people to do all this agreeing and accepting. There was not even a name that such an ur-Pakistan called itself. It was certainly not Sindhu; neither the Arachosians or the hillmen or the residents of the Punjab as we know it today called themselves Sindhis, for instance, which presumably they would have done if they had that sense of proto-Pakistani identity that you think they did. Nor did they call themselves Indians; as you yourselves have pointed out in numerous comments, this was a name applied to the entire sub-continent by the Europeans.

There are precedents galore; just at random, the province of Roman Africa donated its name to the entire continent; the province of Asia donated its name to the entire continent, and subsequently, after this extension of the name to the entire land mass lying behind it, came to be known as Asia Minor. In identical fashion, the Iranians referred to the great river as the Hindu, as there is a linguistic rule that names east of the river, derived from the Indo-Aryan branch of the language group Indo-Iranian, used S, and the same names, pronounced by the Iranian side of the language division, changed the S to an H. Thus, Sapta Sindhu, land of the seven rivers, the five of the Punjab plus the dried up Saraswati, plus the Indus, became Hapta Hindu. The Greeks, unable to manage their aspirates, named the Hapta Hindu the Indus, the people Indioi.

The reason for repeating this when it has been said so many times before is to point out that the origin of the name Indus and Indioi was from Greek times. As we already know from history, and not from your personal opinion rooted in a desperate desire to prove what is not provable, the Greeks knew the Persians with the invasion of Greece in 499 BC. It was only when they encountered Indian soldiers with the other provincial soldiers that they realised that that there was more to Persia than Persia and Medea. And it was only when the initial wave of Greeks travelled to the frontier under the auspices of the Persian empire that they realised that there was a vast land behind the great river, and came in due course to name it India, and the inhabitants Indioi, well before Alexander's much advertised march.

It is difficult to understand, among a myriad of other things difficult to understand with your statements, how you get 2,000 years BC as a date for the coinage of Indus and Indioi.



roadrunner said:


> Why on earth name your country after someone elses river? It's like naming your country "Rhineland" even though the Rhine flows through Germany.
> Why on earth name your country on what foreigners (who werent very good at geography) called your country?



Unfortunately, the tribes and people bordering the Indus were counted among the Indians by the rest of the world, unaware when they did so how greatly they had offended you in the year 2010.



roadrunner said:


> When we refer to Ancient Indian History, we think of things like the Indus Valley Civilization, or certain Mathematics and Astronomy, or certain other civilizations. All these important parts of Ancient Indian History are not part of modern day India, they are part of modern day Pakistan's history.



The day that universities, learned societies and associations for the advancement of science and learning offer you the privilege of defining what you mean when you refer to ancient India, and of making this definition the one proper definition of the concept, it will be possible to accept your assertions.

Until then, please consult scholars in a department of history in any country which is not busy re-writing its own history, like Pakistan seems to be.

Until then, regrettably, in the eyes of the world at large, Ancient Indian history will continue to be the history of the Indus Valley Civilisation, the Vedic civilisation, the growth of the Mahajanapadas, the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, the growth of Magadha, the Alexandrine invasion of the north-west, the first Indian empire the Maurya Empire, the Sungas, the Saka Pahlavas, the Kushanas, the Satavahanas, the Rastrakutas, the Gupta Empire, the kingdoms of Kanauj, Thanesar and Gauda, the growth of the Rajputs, the tripartite rivalry between Rastrakuta, Pala and Pratihara, the Senas; and in the South, starting from the Satavahanas, the Rastrakutas, the Chozhas, the Chalukyas, the Cheras, the Pandyas, the Vakatakas. 

That is as far as politics goes. As far as science and knowledge, or philosophy, mathematics and astronomy, literature, or dance or sculpture is concerned, it is the development of these that people refer to. 

The Chinese, ever a clear-headed people, and historical to a fault, called India Shendu - I hope that there is no reason to rub anyone's face in it by explaining what that word was derived fro. When Hiuen Tsang visited India in search of manuscripts, and visited the emperor Sri Harsha, he was never under any illusion that it was anything but Shendu that he was visiting. So too for Fa Hien, and other recorded travellers. Nobody, in fact, had any problem with the name India, or its equivalent extending to the entire country, other than modern-day revisionist historians, revising the vicissitudes of recent military misadventures through the columns of this forum.

You could use this energy to better purpose examining the thesis of Aitzaz Ahsan about the Indus Man, rather than mistakenly chasing the wild goose of the application of the name India mistakenly to 'Bharat' rather than to Pakistan. That horse won't run, except on PakDef; it is recommended that you follow up on the Indus Man.



roadrunner said:


> Indeed the Mauryan Empire did exist, but the powerhouse of the Mauryan Empire was in the northwest of the subcontinent.



Where do you get these concepts from? It is clear that these are from no standard textbook; even one steeped in the most potent intoxicants could not possibly have yielded such de Quincey-like results.

The Mauryan Empire was of Magadhan origin, its soldiery were derived from the Gangetic plains, and it conquered the north-west as a consequence of its confrontations of the failing power of Seleukos. As for its north-west being a power-house, nothing could be further from history; we only have to refer to the records of two distinct, different revolts in Taxila which had to be put down with force to understand that the power-house was hardly in the north-west.



roadrunner said:


> It certainly is something shared between India and Pakistan, but it really is an irrelevant Empire in global history. The Magada certainly did exist, and this was wholly a part of the history of modern day India, and not Pakistan. You can see the pattern here I hope.



It was not in fact shared; Pakistan completely owns the whole of Indian history, being an equal heir of the Indian heritage, just as Bangladesh is. It was not, for example, the Roman empire, or the Empire of Charlemagne, or the Holy Roman Empire, or the Ottoman Empire, to have a sovereignty divisible among several of its constituent units; it was unmistakably an empire based on Magadha, and it lived and died by the power of Magadha.



roadrunner said:


> And Buddhism was developed to a greater extent in what is now Pakistan. Buddhists generally were persecuted in India, but all the important Buddhist Laws and customs came about in the land mass of what is now Pakistan. Swat is one of the most important historical Buddhist centers in the world, and various places in Afghanistan.



This passage is a complete fabrication. 

Buddhists were persecuted in India in the earliest times, during the life of the Buddha and intermittently and with decreasing strength thereafter, until the Ashokan adoption of the religion completely overwhelmed the opposition.

Thereafter Buddhism grew and flourished, with brief falls from patronage, which were far from persecution, for instance under the Sungas, and continued strongly until as late as 600 AD. Most of the developments in Buddhism took place in what you apparently refuse to call India any more; the greatest scholar after the Buddha himself was Nagarjuna, from the land of the Andhras. All major development of Buddhist doctrine took place in the great councils and in the monasteries and learning centres, such as that at Nalanda. 

Other than the introduction of iconography to India, which was not present before, I am at a loss to understand what you are referring to by stating that all important Buddhist laws and customs were developed in what is present day Pakistan.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## KS

roadrunner said:


> I disagree. All points of view might be correct. A popular point of view is just one most people accept. So the Mahabhaata is a Holy Book, or a Holy Epic.
> 
> 
> 
> So it's not a Holy Book but it has some religious weight. This looks like a contradiction does it not?



FYI, I am a Hindu and a devout one at that.

And Joe is on the dot. We dont consider the Mahabharatha as a Holy Book. It is an epic which symbolises the victory of Good over evil and the same can be said about Ramayana.

Infact there are more version of Ramayana than the number of digits in your hand. And all of them agree on only the central idea and differ in details in many places.

Holy scriptures for us include the 4 Vedas( Rig,Yajur,Sama,Atharvana), 108 Upanishads and a host of Puranas like Skanda Purana,Garuda Purana etc.

So leave this point of 'Holy Epic' (whatever that means) and concentrate on other points,if any, to prove Bharat is stealing 'Ancient Pakistan's' 5000 year old history.

Reactions: Like Like:

4


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> There's wiki and there's reality. Alexander turned back because his men were exhausted and didn't believe anything existed beyond the Indus. If the treasure was believed to be great enough, they would have carried on. It is true they were battle weary, but that wasn't so important.



For starters, it wasn't wiki but Plutarch that was quoted. You may have noticed that I have been using my college text books, standard history texts, to answer, rather than wikipedia, the quality of whose sections is frightening.

If you wish, I can cite every single classical authority writing about Alexander to clarify the situation. It is noteworthy that there was not a single contemporary source; all were accounts written after Alexander's death in Babylon. 

With regard to the reasons for the Greeks and Macedonians refusing to go further, there is nothing better than to consult the originals. Please consider publishing a single proof (not web-sites written by dubious scholars and hedge professors, please, as has occasionally been done) supporting your personal opinion, and we will go on. Until that point, the view has sadly to be taken that the classical sources cited must stand.

Statements such as *If the treasure was believed to be great enough, they would have carried on*, and *It is true that they were weary but that wasn't important *are speculative in the extreme, and represent only your personal opinion. 

While I understand, appreciate and sympathise the stand that you have taken, the discovery and promotion of the separate identity of Pakistan, the methods and logic, above all, the facts, regrettably leave much to be desired.

Again, you are urged to consider the better-argued position taken by others: the sub-cultures focussed around the Indus have distinctive qualities and culturally unique features, and it is necessary to study that culture as a whole. If you were to state further that this culture maps largely on to the present territorial extent of Pakistan, there would be a good justification to examine the culture of these several peoples and several locations together, to discover and highlight the common characteristics. 

I am afraid that it will be difficult to get much academic support for the thesis under discussion, that Ancient India is actually what is today Pakistan, therefore Ancient Indian history is to be coopted as an integral part of Pakistan's history.

However, until then, I shall try to address every point with all the knowledge and resources available.



roadrunner said:


> _The story of Alexander the Great is very familiar to most Indians (at least we think we do). We are taught in history classes that Alexander invaded India in 326 BCE. He fought a fierce battle with King Porus (battle of the Hydaspes River) in modern day Pakistan. Porus was defeated but Alexander spared his life and allowed him to rule the area under his name. *Alexander then reached the Beas River in Himachal Pradesh and decided to turn back after his army started revolting (many people in the ancient world including the Greeks also believed that India was the end of the world and it would not make sense to keep advancing*)._
> 
> Story of Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya | India First-Hand



This has already been discussed. Ocean, not India, was considered the end of the world. You cited Herodotus; Herodotus was the father of history; there is no record that the man was the father of geography. His geographical accounts are so garbled as to cause bemusement. 



roadrunner said:


> Pataliputra might even have been in Iran. Are you willing to consider this possibility?
> 
> _Till date no relic of any Mauryan King including the great Ashoka or the Greeks has been found in Patna. This is true for the Nanda kings who the Mauryans supposedly captured. So where were the Mauryans actually ruling and who is Chandragupta Maurya?
> 
> *Dr. Ranjit Pal argues that Palibothra of Megasthenes is not Patna of Bihar but Patali (near the city of Kerman in Iran). * The names of many Indian cities can also be found in other countries and names like Patali, Konarak, and Salem are good examples (it would be a mistake to assume that these Indian cities are older. It is more likely that Patali (Iran) is much older than Patna (India). The name Patel which is popular among people in Gujarat is likely related to Patali. Gujarat is part of Western India and close to Iran where Patali is)._
> Story of Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya | India First-Hand
> 
> Suddenly things are not so clear, and the evidence seems less contradictory



Do try and resist the temptation to cite web-sites, none of which are authoritative, and do try to read up history books related to what you are seeking to establish. There are literally thousands of web-sites purveying this kind of nonsense, and it is a snare and a delusion to fall for their tall claims. I have no idea who Ranjit Pal, and I sincerely do not wish to know; his theories about the different locations of places merely on the basis of coincidence are laughable, and reminiscent of Sangh Parivar publicists who have claimed the whole world at one time or the other, using the apparent similarity or even coincidence of names to buttress their tooth-pick supported claims.

I note with some mirth that the methods of the Sangh Parivar have been adopted by analysts on this forum. 

I suppose a brief genuflection in the direction of the 'facts' produced by you is a necessity, at least for the sake of academic courtesies and to maintain appearances.

As you have pointed out, the names of several cities, Konark and Salem among them, but not Pataliputra, occur elsewhere in the world. These are in fact coincidence, as already suggested; the meaning of the Indian names and the meaning of the names found in India and abroad are widely different. Patali and Pataliputra are wholly different, and there can only be a connection founded on main force, not on logic or linguistic connection.



roadrunner said:


> The history of Bharat 2000+ years ago is not very well known, and it wasn't known to the outside world. You suggest that trade routes existed from the sea 3000+ years ago and everyone knew about Bharat. I disagree, I don't believe that was the case at all. It is very clear the Ancient Greeks did not know of Bharat's existence. This is well documented and I can find it for you if you want. If Egypt knew of Bharat's existence even 3,000 years ago, I'd be amazed given the Ancient Greeks did not.



First, let us stop using terms such as 2000+ years ago, and 3000+ years ago, unless it is linked to imprecise broad sweeps of time which cannot be divided into years, decades or centuries.

Second, while trade routes are deemed by prominent authorities to have existed, and there are thought to have been links between the west coast of the south asian peninsula and points on the Arabian peninsula, for instance, with Dilmun, I had never cited them. To say that I have discussed trade routes 3,000+ years ago and claimed knowledge of India and Indian geography 3,000+ is simply inaccurate. 

Third, I repeat for the sake of your ready reference: there could have been no reference to 'India', 'Indiou' or 'Indike' before 499 BC. That was when the Greeks and Persians met each other in battle formally, distinct from earlier smaller wars during the Achaemenid conquest of Asia Minor and the Greek cities on its coast line and the immediate hinterland. For a Greek corruption of Hapta Hindu to occur, there must have been a contact between Greek and Persian. Therefore, your argument, that India was known for centuries before Alexander, and that it was an India consisting of only the Indus and its watershed is obviously a fallacy.

Fourth, you should know that current thinking in some historical circles is that the Greek penetration of the Persian Empire may have predated 499, for the reason that as the Persian Empire impinged on the Greek cities of Asia Minor, including the old colonies on the shores of the Euxine, there should have been considerable commerce and trade, and in fact, Alexander had considerable information about the territory that he was penetrating and the tribes that he had to face in the third century BC. 

I disagree. There is nothing here which is definite, everything is speculative, and thoughts that trade relations ought to have existed do not stand for proven historical facts.

There is no evidence that the Greeks knew about India before 499 BC.

Fifth, to assert that their use of the name India was for the region of the Indus alone is inaccurate. The details of the writings of Pliny, Diodorus Siculus, Quintius Curtus Rufus and Plutarch have already been cited by an earlier commenter, and it is appropriate merely to refer you back to those comments without repeating them. Clearly, Gangaridae (or Gangaridai), Prasii and the people the Ichthyophagii were known; clearly, India meant the regions east of the Indus and not the watershed of the Indus alone.

Sixth, it is astonishing that in this day and this age, we should confine ourselves only to European references. The question is about the use of the word India, and it is being stated that this was restricted, and only this was restricted to the watershed of the Indus. This is strange logic; if this were so, there should have been identical use of the parallel words Hindu and Sindhu. These, too, should have been used exclusively for the river and its environs. 

Such is not the case. I have already mentioned that as early as the second century BC, an exploratory party sent out by the Han court found that there was a southern land called Shendu, below the Da Xia and which obtained goods from the southern Chinese province of Shu (this would be in the southernmost part of China as at present constituted, and bordering the jungles of Burma). The emissary in question was Zhang Qian, a native of Hanzhong, who served as palace attendant during the jianyuan era (140 - 135 BC). 

Subsequently, all expeditions, for instance, Xuan Zang (pinyin: the more familiar Wade-Giles version is Hsuan Tsang) and Fa Hien are comfortable describing their travels in Shendu, in Kanauj and Nalanda, among dozens of other locations.

It is not clear if it is being seriously projected that a possible but improbable initial period of confusion is taken as a perpetual license on the name by the present residents of Pakistan. This is such an unlikely prospect for acceptance by the world at large, or by even Pakistanis themselves in the mass, that the point of the entire effort is not quite easy to understand.

One can only assume very large surpluses of available free time, and an absence of more worthwhile objectives in life.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> A plain examination of the envoy's quotes is the first part that you need to take up, in case you need clarification.
> 
> The second part is to look up maps of India which belong to those times, to the times of Scylax the navigator, of Strabo the geographer, of the unknown author of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, and of all ancient maps of India. Those were not maps which look as the South Asian peninsula looks today, but maps which distorted the position and the shape of the sub-continent, and which reflected the partial and imperfect knowledge of the Europeans of those times about India.
> 
> Unfortunately, as is only to be expected with amateurs unfamiliar with their subject, every piece of evidence available in ancient times is interpreted in the light of modern knowledge, which leads to the misunderstandings and errors in the statements made.
> 
> Try again.



Bits of modern day India may have been discovered by the Ancient Greeks during the time of Megasthenes. I would not say that that quote clearly demonstrates this. But even if it was referring to the whole of modern day India, I've taken this into account when I say that Ancient India from 2,000 to 5,000 years ago referred exclusively to Pakistan. By about 2,000 years ago the land region of modern day India was being discovered slightly more. The land region of modern day Pakistan was well known to the outside world, and reported extensively by the Greeks. 

Do you agree that during the time of Herodotus, the Ancient Greeks did not know about the land of modern day India?


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> There was no question of Pakistan or the ancient Pakistani people never agreeing to accept anybody as part of the original India or Sindhu, as there was in fact no Pakistan or ancient Pakistani people to do all this agreeing and accepting. There was not even a name that such an ur-Pakistan called itself. It was certainly not Sindhu; neither the Arachosians or the hillmen or the residents of the Punjab as we know it today called themselves Sindhis, for instance, which presumably they would have done if they had that sense of proto-Pakistani identity that you think they did. Nor did they call themselves Indians; as you yourselves have pointed out in numerous comments, this was a name applied to the entire sub-continent by the Europeans.



Well this is so basic it's not worth comment really. Pakistan was known by various names, Saptha Sindhu, for example. The borders of Saptha Sindhu were not necessarily corresponding to any modern borders. From this comes the name of the Indus, and India.


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> The reason for repeating this when it has been said so many times before is to point out that the origin of the name Indus and Indioi was from Greek times.



The name of the Indus comes from Rig Vedic times. It was known as the Sindhu even then. 



> As we already know from history, and not from your personal opinion rooted in a desperate desire to prove what is not provable, the Greeks knew the Persians with the invasion of Greece in 499 BC. It was only when they encountered Indian soldiers with the other provincial soldiers that they realised that that there was more to Persia than Persia and Medea. And it was only when the initial wave of Greeks travelled to the frontier under the auspices of the Persian empire that they realised that there was a vast land behind the great river, and came in due course to name it India, and the inhabitants Indioi, well before Alexander's much advertised march.



Yes, finally you've got it! The Ancient Greeks only realized that the Indus was not the end of terra firma when they crossed to the other side of it. Previously the world knew of the Indus as being the end of the earth. No modern day India, no trade, no civilization until 2,000 years ago. All the civilizations, mathematics, history before 2,000 years ago corresponded to regions outside of modern day India. 

Well done for finally realizing this.


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> Unfortunately, the tribes and people bordering the Indus were counted among the Indians by the rest of the world, unaware when they did so how greatly they had offended you in the year 2010.



They were counted as Indians by the rest of the world, but the people of modern day India were not. About 2,000 years ago, the Ganges and South India are explored. In their laziness, the "rest of the world" call this India as well. But the predominance of reported Indian history, lay in what is now Pakistan. 



> The day that universities, learned societies and associations for the advancement of science and learning offer you the privilege of defining what you mean when you refer to ancient India, and of making this definition the one proper definition of the concept, it will be possible to accept your assertions.
> 
> Until then, please consult scholars in a department of history in any country which is not busy re-writing its own history, like Pakistan seems to be.
> 
> Until then, regrettably, in the eyes of the world at large, Ancient Indian history will continue to be the history of the Indus Valley Civilisation, the Vedic civilisation, the growth of the Mahajanapadas, the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, the growth of Magadha, the Alexandrine invasion of the north-west, the first Indian empire the Maurya Empire, the Sungas, the Saka Pahlavas, the Kushanas, the Satavahanas, the Rastrakutas, the Gupta Empire, the kingdoms of Kanauj, Thanesar and Gauda, the growth of the Rajputs, the tripartite rivalry between Rastrakuta, Pala and Pratihara, the Senas; and in the South, starting from the Satavahanas, the Rastrakutas, the Chozhas, the Chalukyas, the Cheras, the Pandyas, the Vakatakas.



Yes, I agree that the rest of the world has simply lumped everything together. Given the use of the world India today, it would be wiser not to refer to these as Indian civilizations, but to seperate them out into Indian and Pakistani civilizations. Up until the 1800s there was no such confusion of course. But as a result of the confusion it would be wiser to refer to them as Pakistani and Indian history. For example, the Magadhas is Indian history, the Indus Valley Civilization is Pakistani history, the Chozahs are Indian history, Gandhara is part Pakistani history and so on. Very simple and clear.


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> This passage is a complete fabrication.
> 
> Buddhists were persecuted in India in the earliest times, during the life of the Buddha and intermittently and with decreasing strength thereafter, until the Ashokan adoption of the religion completely overwhelmed the opposition.
> 
> Thereafter Buddhism grew and flourished, with brief falls from patronage, which were far from persecution, for instance under the Sungas, and continued strongly until as late as 600 AD. Most of the developments in Buddhism took place in what you apparently refuse to call India any more; the greatest scholar after the Buddha himself was Nagarjuna, from the land of the Andhras. All major development of Buddhist doctrine took place in the great councils and in the monasteries and learning centres, such as that at Nalanda.



So you don't think Sunga's reign virtually eliminated Buddhism from modern day India through religious persecution? 

You also don't believe that the most significant advances in Buddhism occurred outside of modern day India? Mahayana Buddhism, tantric buddhism etc, the Buddhist Scrolls in Afghanistan, the Bamiyan Buddahs, the Swat inscriptions?


----------



## roadrunner

Rafi said:


> It is a fact that the Indus Civilization which was Ancient Pakistan and which now is modern Pakistan - had trade and contact with other world civilizations, and bharat which Roadrunner so eloquently explained was a largely unknown mysterious and relatively backwater of the region, there are no large cities like Mohenjadaro or Harrapa.
> 
> This picture by the Pakistan Navy on a Maritime Patrol Aircraft, shows the sentiment of the Pakistani people regarding their glorious heritage



A good find. It is good to see the Pakistani military acknowledging its history in such a novel way.


----------



## Tameem

Even Today's Hindustan is renowned in the world thanks to Muslim Architecture spread across its landmass, the reason;

Every foreign dignitary ever visits Hindustan have a must visits of the these Marvelous Buildings i.e., Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri etc as well. Just today Mr & Mrs. Sarkozy are completing their pilgrimage by fulfilling this tradition.

The 15th August National address by the PM of India is honoured not other than the historic Red Fort.

If we take out "Ancient Indus" and Medieval Muslims Rule from today's Hindustan the rest will be look like this


----------



## airuah

Tameem said:


> Even Today's Hindustan is renowned in the world thanks to Muslim Architecture spread across its landmass, the reason;
> 
> Every foreign dignitary ever visits Hindustan have a must visits of the these Marvelous Buildings i.e., Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri etc as well. Just today Mr & Mrs. Sarkozy are completing their pilgrimage by fulfilling this tradition.
> 
> The 15th August National address by the PM of India is honoured not other than the historic Red Fort.
> 
> If we take out "Ancient Indus" and Medieval Muslims Rule from today's Hindustan the rest will be look like this



India is a secular country ...that means we embrace every religeon including Islam...we have a huge muslim population too so just because Pakistan is an Islamic country country does not mean it can claim everything related to Islam......

you in no way can take out any piece of history from US.....TO Indians----Pakistan is a country that seperated from India ( India and Pakistan did not form from British India---its just that Pakistan broke away from India)---and this is the reason we maintain the same name of uor country

yes t he architecture of muslim rulers was great ....and they are considered as "Indian architecture in Mughal era" ....not as Islamic architecture belonging to Pakistan

besides thare

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tameem

Pagla Dashu said:


> If you do that, then Pakistan would cease to exist as it is. Did you think about that while typing?



We need not do anything here...My dear, because Geography and History already does it for us.





First, the Indus belongs to us so does its civilizations




Secondly, we are the truly inheritor of Mughal Empire, No i'm not joking just check who admires with the name of "Babur" and who jealous with it.





Hahahaaaae, If you're going through hell...just Keep going.


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> Bits of modern day India may have been discovered by the Ancient Greeks during the time of Megasthenes.



Instead of speculating on what may or may not have been said by Megasthenes, let's look at the original text, as we did at college, of which I have found an on-line fragment at 
http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasi...reign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm

It will save me the bother of summarising the conclusions that he has come to, and it will save you asking if I really think so!

I have deleted the rest of a long post as it made little sense without my earlier comments printed therein. Please expect by tomorrow (partially) and day after (final bits and pieces) the following:

1. The balance of responses to your recent comments on page 25 in particular;
2. Some response to earlier comments of yours at the beginning of the thread - these are hoped to be addressed as a cogent mass, rather than comment by comment;
3. My suggestion for the situation that has been outlined.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Tameem said:


> We need not do anything here...My dear, because Geography and History already does it for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the Indus belongs to us so does its civilizations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, we are the truly inheritor of Mughal Empire, No i'm not joking just check who admires with the name of "Babur" and who jealous with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaaaae, If you're going through hell...just Keep going.



YouTube - Babur Cruise Missile Pakistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydmizCzn9CI:pakistan:


----------



## Yeti

Maybe BJP will change the name to Bharat if they win the next elections


----------



## Ras

Truly amazing thread with some great posts...took me about 2 hours to read through it but it was worth it.

Joe Shearer,

What is the documented history of South India and how far back does that go? My parents come from South India and I would be happy to learn more about my ancestors.


----------



## Ras

roadrunner said:


> *So you don't think Sunga's reign virtually eliminated Buddhism from modern day India through religious persecution? *
> 
> You also don't believe that the most significant advances in Buddhism occurred outside of modern day India? Mahayana Buddhism, tantric buddhism etc, the Buddhist Scrolls in Afghanistan, the Bamiyan Buddahs, the Swat inscriptions?



I think Adi Sankracharya did that not the Sungas...


----------



## Rig Vedic

Tameem said:


> Every foreign dignitary ever visits Hindustan have a must visits of the these Marvelous Buildings i.e., Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri etc as well. Just today Mr & Mrs. Sarkozy are completing their pilgrimage by fulfilling this tradition.



As regards the Taj, it was a palace purchased by Shah Jahan from the Rajput Raja Jai Singh. It was probably built by his grandfather Raja Mansingh.

The details are in the Badshah-nama of Shah Jahan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

Ras said:


> I think Adi Sankracharya did that not the Sungas...



As far as I know, Brahminical Hinduism curbed the influence of Buddhism by assimilating the same into Hinduism. For example, Budhha was made an Avatar of Bishnu, and Buddhism as a whole was considered a sect of Hinduism. Gradually Buddhism lost it's distinct hue. 

Buddhism thrived in Bengal and Magadha in time of Pala and Nalanda attained it's highest stature as an University(that's after Sankracharya's revivalist reform of Hinduism).


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ras said:


> Truly amazing thread with some great posts...took me about 2 hours to read through it but it was worth it.
> 
> Joe Shearer,
> 
> What is the documented history of South India and how far back does that go? My parents come from South India and I would be happy to learn more about my ancestors.



I am glad you asked. This is a hugely neglected aspect of Indian history, and we really should get away from the excessive concentration on the happenings in the Gangetic Plains. 

This present thread has taken on disturbing, polemic aspects, otherwise the history of the trans-Indus regions, extending to present-day Ferghana, the outskirts of the Takla Makan, and Uzbekistan, and their surrounding steppe-lands on the one hand, and the ancient and mediaeval cultural focal centres of Balkh/Badakshan and Khurasan is utterly fascinating, and ranges in scope of time from before 3000 BC, perhaps more, to contemporary times. Unfortunately, it has become a propaganda battlefield, and I am deeply saddened at the hyper-patriotic approach taken by some commentators (not Roadrunner, who, to his credit, has come out with considerable ability and command of the big picture, betrayed by defects in specific knowledge and technical information; there are other, presumably younger people who are quite maddening in their approach). 

The approach that the originators have taken is flawed at its foundation; it is based on a minor thing, the name of the sub-continent in European accounts, which gives no distinction worth its while to the land on both sides of the Indus, in spite of strenuous attempts to prove that there is in fact some identity. On the other hand, there is rich and ample evidence of the historical unity, though not a cultural unity, of the cultures on the banks of the Indus, excluding some sections. It is a surprise that they do not concentrate on that, which is in historical terms so self-evident that all will align themselves behind the proposition.

On the other hand, the history of South India illustrates a point that I have yet to make, not having found an opportunity. The fact is that ancient Indian history should be based on people, not on regions; if considering regions at one remove from people, it should concentrate on river basins, not on empires; if considering empires, it should concentrate on their linkages with other developments before, during and after their moments in history. 

Without claiming that the book has all these aspects within it, I urge you to lose no time in getting your hands on a copy of Nilakantha Sastri's magisterial work "A History of South India". I first encountered it as an undergraduate, and remember the delight and shock with which I devoured it, at one sitting, a treat after the sludgy writing and academic drone of typical history texts on India, not excluding the Cambridge and New Cambridge Histories. Excluding only Romila Thapar and the remarkable D. D. Kosambi.

When you read Nilakantha Sastri - it is very readable, but yet not an easy read, because of the sheer breadth and scope of his vast subject - remember that this was a scholar of Titanic proportions. It was the same man's edited Comprehensive History of India which kindled my interest in the north-west and the fascinating period of the Indo-Greeks, the Indo-Scythians, the Pallavas, and the Kushana.

There are several others you can read thereafter. A completely different approach and treatment is R. C. Majumdar's books; the old man, by the time he stopped writing, had reeled off a matchless set of books, some examples of which (apparently still in print) are:


Champa: History and Culture of an Indian Colonial Kingdom in the Far East, 2nd to 16th Century AD;
SuvarnaDvipa: Ancient Indian colonies in the Far East;
History of Kambuja-Desa;

His other books are heavy going (not that these listed aren't) as he is always addressing a professional audience. They concentrate on the history of eastern India, and on very specialised subjects, including the Vakataka-Gupta period and rule, aspects of Mughal rule, and so on. I have suggested these as he is the only good source that I have read on the Indian interaction with south-east Asia in historical times.

There has been so much incredible work done over the last 40 years that I find myself always swamped with a huge backlog of reading, and can never keep up. It is quite possible that some excellent recent texts have been omitted due to this, and this possibility may kindly be forgiven.

You asked about its dates. Tamil (= Dramila = Dravida) civilisation predates the Indo-Aryan language introduction in India, and the civilisation arguably covered the entire peninsula. Brahui is a remnant of a Dravidian language in the north-west; recently, by undertaking mathematical pattern-matching exercises on a very powerful computer, some purely scientific and mathematical researchers located in Chennai (not Tamilian themselves) found that Tamil patterns matched the Mohenjodaro patterns most closely. A direct linkage between IVC and Tamil is still unproven although tempting, but must await the discovery of a Rosetta stone before it can be confirmed. 

Before turning to historical notices and confirmed evidence, it may be noted that the Dravidian languages are apparently cognate to Kol/Mundari; the conclusion is that the original population of India spoke Dravidian languages in one form or the other throughout the sub-continent. This dates back many thousands of years before Christ; the first movement of people out of east Africa is dated to around 40,000 years earlier than today, and the backwash may have taken place - with migrants to south-east Asia and to the archipelagos of Indonesia and the Philipines flowing back to the sub-continent - perhaps 10,000 years later. These dates are pre-historical and speculative; they must be avoided in any academic discussion except as an unproven possibility. In genetic terms, all of the sub-continent except the Pushto are identical in blood-grouping; the Indo-Aryans contributed their language, which swept northern India from end to end, but not much variation occurred in genetic terms. The Pushto are found to be Iranian by blood and genetic analysis. It is amusing to note that pretentious claims of exclusivity by this, that and the other caste group are totally belied by this recent research; there is no genetic difference between Brahmin and Chandal, none between men and women, none between north and south. Facial and skin-colour differences are finally, genetically, in almost undetectable percentages. The north-east is differently constituted, I understand.

In historical terms, the first mentions of the Tamils are from the Sangam era. For the rest, I suggest Nilakantha Sastri. Happy reading and happy learning.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ras said:


> I think Adi Sankracharya did that not the Sungas...





Abir said:


> As far as I know, Brahminical Hinduism curbed the influence of Buddhism by assimilating the same into Hinduism. For example, Budhha was made an Avatar of Bishnu, and Buddhism as a whole was considered a sect of Hinduism. Gradually Buddhism lost it's distinct hue.
> 
> Buddhism thrived in Bengal and Magadha in time of Pala and Nalanda attained it's highest stature as an University(that's after Sankracharya's revivalist reform of Hinduism).



This is as sound an account as it could get. Sankaracharya did supply the theological ammunition, but there was a period of mutual interaction, of borrowings and of merging between later, late-mediaeval Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism of the later period, leading to a Tantric version of both Hinduism and Buddhism emerging around the period 1000 AD to 1300 AD. Thereafter, Buddhism was crushed in the south Asian peninsula by Muslim proselytisation; the university at Nalanda which attracted Chinese scholars through the ages was destroyed by Bakhtiar Khalji in 1299, for instance. 

Before its final dissolution, the Indian branch of Buddhism managed to revive Buddhism in a Tantric form in Tibet and south-east Asia; one saga worth reading is of the old man Atish Dipankar (whose native village was the next one to my own, whereby my nickname in PakTeaHouse), who at the age of 70, left his academic position in a sister institution of Nalanda, acceded to pleas and urgent invitations and travelled to Tibet.


----------



## KS

Tameem said:


> First, the Indus belongs to us so does its civilisation.



Ok if you say so ! But wait who cares what you think 



Tameem said:


> Secondly, we are the truly inheritor of Mughal Empire, No i'm not joking just check who admires with the name of "Babur" and *who jealous with it.*



May be the Uzbeks and Mongols for Babur had an Uzbek-Mongol blood line not an Indian one. 


*ps.:*I love your signature man --- Its rocking, as thinking with 'head' is a God given luxury that only a lucky few can afford. 

And people please continue the discussion and sorry for the interruption.Just couldnt resist.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Joe Shearer said:


> A plain examination of the envoy's quotes is the first part that you need to take up, in case you need clarification.
> 
> The second part is to look up maps of India which belong to those times, to the times of Scylax the navigator, of Strabo the geographer, of the unknown author of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, and of all ancient maps of India. Those were not maps which look as the South Asian peninsula looks today, but maps which distorted the position and the shape of the sub-continent, and which reflected the partial and imperfect knowledge of the Europeans of those times about India.
> 
> Unfortunately, as is only to be expected with amateurs unfamiliar with their subject, every piece of evidence available in ancient times is interpreted in the light of modern knowledge, which leads to the misunderstandings and errors in the statements made.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bits of modern day India may have been discovered by the Ancient Greeks during the time of Megasthenes. I would not say that that quote clearly demonstrates this. But even if it was referring to the whole of modern day India, I've taken this into account when I say that Ancient India from 2,000 to 5,000 years ago referred exclusively to Pakistan.
Click to expand...


There is a logical error here, as well as a factual error.

First, the factual part, or parts.

The knowledge of the Indus Valley revealed by, say, Herodotus, is surely not even comparable with that of Megasthenes. As for the others, they based their accounts on the accounts in turn of those who actually accompanied Alexander; they are effectively reporting based on others' reports. Please note that neither Pliny nor Strabo was a contemporary; Megasthenes, on the other hand, was in the Maurya court prior to 288 BC, and was quite possibly - being the trusted ambassador of the Alexandrian successor Seleukos, and the house-guest of the governor of Arachosia (I think; I am not sure of the province) - from the ranks of the middle-ranking generals or civilian officers or savants accompanying the expedition unless he had come out from Greece or Macedonia very late, after 323 BC.

So we have the near-contemporary account of Megasthenes, with considerable information about the court and about life and the environs of the court. Please recall his story of the 'dogs', which is clearly an account of Rhesus monkeys, distorted by the narration to him by narrators unfamiliar with Greek. We are all familiar with the habits of these monkey hordes, which come to the ground, accept with disdain all that interests them, reject with every appearance of contempt that which does not, and troop in and troop out of villages and towns. Megasthenes in a few words describes them perfectly, down to their physiognomy. What do we have in contrast from the other school, with their supposed intimate information about the Indus Valley?

We have Pliny, Strabo, and the lost accounts of Scyllax and Nearchus. I ask only that we read these several accounts side by side - obviously those still extant!!! - and draw our own conclusions.

The logical error is based on the foundation of this thread, that the name India has been hijacked by a people and a civilisation, a culture, that had no right to it. 

To this, a thinking response must necessarily be that this is a chronological fallacy. We are already aware that the Greeks can have known of India, whether the Indus Valley or the hinterland, only from the Persians, and that these contacts started with the interaction between the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Achaemenid Empire. This interaction is as late as the 6th century BC, and came to a point from 499 BC onwards, the onset of the Persian War, for recording which we call Herodotus the father of history.

This then leads us to some surprise when the statement is made that *Ancient India from 2,000 to 5,000 years ago referred exclusively to Pakistan*. But India as a term did not come into existence until the Greeks dropped their aitches. So how can India before 499 BC, at the most 550 BC, during the period 3000 BC to 550 BC, have referred to Pakistan, when the name India didn't exist?

Arguments that the precedessor name for India was known earlier do not convince, as this whole thread is based on the supposed misuse of the name India, rather than a misuse of the alternative names the Sapta Sindhu (please, not the SaptHa Sindhu) or even the Iranian version, the Hapta Hindu. If, therefore, India itself as a term was not in use before 550 BC, charitably speaking, how could it have referred to proto-Pakistan from 3000 BC onwards?



roadrunner said:


> By about 2,000 years ago the land region of modern day India was being discovered slightly more. The land region of modern day Pakistan was well known to the outside world, and reported extensively by the Greeks.



Some citations would be helpful. I have presented, in the previous passage, the far greater detail and depth of account submitted by Megasthenes, through one illustrative passage; is there any corresponding to this on the Indus Valley, other than the accounts of the battles of Alexander, accounts of the Rock of Aornos, and the stray account of the life of the hapless who resisted the aggression of the Macedonians?



roadrunner said:


> Do you agree that during the time of Herodotus, the Ancient Greeks did not know about the land of modern day India?



Indeed I do. I was planning to qualify this, but the qualificatory remarks are not important. 

Yes, I agree. 

You do realise that in terms of your argument, this means that the term 'Ancient India' can be applied to Pakistan from 499 BC to 288 BC? I make that the sum figure of 211 years in total.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Joe Shearer said:


> There was no question of Pakistan or the ancient Pakistani people never agreeing to accept anybody as part of the original India or Sindhu, as there was in fact no Pakistan or ancient Pakistani people to do all this agreeing and accepting. There was not even a name that such an ur-Pakistan called itself. It was certainly not Sindhu; neither the Arachosians or the hillmen or the residents of the Punjab as we know it today called themselves Sindhis, for instance, which presumably they would have done if they had that sense of proto-Pakistani identity that you think they did. Nor did they call themselves Indians; as you yourselves have pointed out in numerous comments, this was a name applied to the entire sub-continent by the Europeans.
> 
> 
> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is so basic it's not worth comment really. Pakistan was known by various names, Saptha Sindhu, for example. The borders of Saptha Sindhu were not necessarily corresponding to any modern borders. From this comes the name of the Indus, and India.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. If it were not for the evident integrity of your position and your stand, which I respect, it would be tempting to quote a bard,

_"Oh what a web we weave....."
_
and so on. I do not believe that this position is an attempt to deceive, rather it is an attempt to load more than its fair burden on a simple geographical term and a simple geographical fact.

First, I note with great pleasure the statement 

_Pakistan was known by various names, Saptha Sindhu, for example. The borders of Saptha Sindhu were not necessarily corresponding to any modern borders._

What, the Saptha (sic) Sindhu did not necessarily correspond to any modern borders? Not to the borders of modern Pakistan, for instance, only to a broad concept of Pakistan (a borderless Pakistan? nothing could be better!)? Then what is the argument about? But wait, there is more to come.

_From this comes the name of the Indus, and India. _

Oh, bliss.

So first, the Sapta Sindhu does not correspond to any modern-day political division, merely to a broad concept, and it is the origin of the name India? In other words, the name India does not correspond to any modern-day political division, merely to a broad concept? In that case, what is all this about?



Joe Shearer said:


> The reason for repeating this when it has been said so many times before is to point out that the origin of the name Indus and Indioi was from Greek times.
> 
> 
> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> The name of the Indus comes from Rig Vedic times. It was known as the Sindhu even then.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

But not as the Indus. As we just found out, the name Indus came about only when the Greeks figured out what the Persians were referring to when they referred to the Hapta Hindu. So pushing the name Indus into the Rg Veda is both a linguistic and a chronological error.



Joe Shearer said:


> As we already know ... the Greeks knew the Persians with the invasion of Greece in 499 BC. It was only when they encountered Indian soldiers with the other provincial soldiers that they realised that that there was more to Persia than Persia and Medea. And it was only when the initial wave of Greeks travelled to the frontier under the auspices of the Persian empire that they realised that there was a vast land behind the great river, and came in due course to name it India, and the inhabitants Indioi, well before Alexander's much advertised march.
> 
> 
> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, finally you've got it! The Ancient Greeks only realized that the Indus was not the end of terra firma when they crossed to the other side of it.
Click to expand...


Er...in case it escaped your attention, the words I used were very precise. 

"..._it was only when the initial wave of Greeks travelled to the frontier *under the auspices of the Persian empire* that they realised that there was a vast land behind the great river, *and came in due course to name it India, and the inhabitants Indioi, well before Alexander's much advertised march*_..."

Considering the dates, this is between 499 BC and 323 BC, or at best, 550 BC and 323 BC.



roadrunner said:


> Previously the world knew of the Indus as being the end of the earth. No modern day India, no trade, no civilization until 2,000 years ago. All the civilizations, mathematics, history before 2,000 years ago corresponded to regions outside of modern day India.
> 
> Well done for finally realizing this.



It is apparent that I am gaining much merit. Soon it may be possible for me to pass an exam in history, Pakistan-style.

But to return to the real world of history and historians from that Nephelokokkygia, to borrow from that great Ancient Pakistani playwright Aristophanes, we have the periplus written in 60 AD, and with a clear mention that Hippalus' discovery of the monsoon was well before that date. Therefore the entire coastal line of the west coast of India (as we earth-bound clodhoppers know it) and much of the east was known to the Greeks. We are also aware that the Persians were well aware of conditions beyond their borders on the Indus; there is in fact evidence that their borders extended beyond the Indus. We are aware that Zhang Qian, the Chinese delegate of the imperial court had identified Shendu, and found to his utter astonishment artefacts and trade goods from southern China emerging after transit through the entire Gangetic basin into the trade bazaars of Central Asia.

We are also aware of Megasthenes' accounts dating to 288 BC or earlier - 288 BC being the last possible date when he could have met a live Chandragupta - and the wealth of detail he adduced. We know of the Indo-Greeks penetrating India up to Mathura in the 2nd century BC, well before your defined time line of 2000 years ago. 

What, then, is it that is being reserved for original and unique discovery later? Other than increasing accretion of detailed information?

Further, I am curious to know - what aspects of Ancient Indian civilisation, the civilisation, mathematics (surely you are not referring to the discovery of the 0? Be still, my heart!) and history that your note refers to, pre-dated your cut-off date of 2000 years ago (approximately 10 AD)? If it is in an earlier comment, I apologise; please point me in that direction, and I shall look it up myself.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ras

Joe Shearer said:


> I am glad you asked. This is a hugely neglected aspect of Indian history, and we really should get away from the excessive concentration on the happenings in the Gangetic Plains.
> 
> This present thread has taken on disturbing, polemic aspects, otherwise the history of the trans-Indus regions, extending to present-day Ferghana, the outskirts of the Takla Makan, and Uzbekistan, and their surrounding steppe-lands on the one hand, and the ancient and mediaeval cultural focal centres of Balkh/Badakshan and Khurasan is utterly fascinating, and ranges in scope of time from before 3000 BC, perhaps more, to contemporary times. Unfortunately, it has become a propaganda battlefield, and I am deeply saddened at the hyper-patriotic approach taken by some commentators (not Roadrunner, who, to his credit, has come out with considerable ability and command of the big picture, betrayed by defects in specific knowledge and technical information; there are other, presumably younger people who are quite maddening in their approach).
> 
> The approach that the originators have taken is flawed at its foundation; it is based on a minor thing, the name of the sub-continent in European accounts, which gives no distinction worth its while to the land on both sides of the Indus, in spite of strenuous attempts to prove that there is in fact some identity. On the other hand, there is rich and ample evidence of the historical unity, though not a cultural unity, of the cultures on the banks of the Indus, excluding some sections. It is a surprise that they do not concentrate on that, which is in historical terms so self-evident that all will align themselves behind the proposition.
> 
> On the other hand, the history of South India illustrates a point that I have yet to make, not having found an opportunity. The fact is that ancient Indian history should be based on people, not on regions; if considering regions at one remove from people, it should concentrate on river basins, not on empires; if considering empires, it should concentrate on their linkages with other developments before, during and after their moments in history.
> 
> Without claiming that the book has all these aspects within it, I urge you to lose no time in getting your hands on a copy of Nilakantha Sastri's magisterial work "A History of South India". I first encountered it as an undergraduate, and remember the delight and shock with which I devoured it, at one sitting, a treat after the sludgy writing and academic drone of typical history texts on India, not excluding the Cambridge and New Cambridge Histories. Excluding only Romila Thapar and the remarkable D. D. Kosambi.
> 
> When you read Nilakantha Sastri - it is very readable, but yet not an easy read, because of the sheer breadth and scope of his vast subject - remember that this was a scholar of Titanic proportions. It was the same man's edited Comprehensive History of India which kindled my interest in the north-west and the fascinating period of the Indo-Greeks, the Indo-Scythians, the Pallavas, and the Kushana.
> 
> There are several others you can read thereafter. A completely different approach and treatment is R. C. Majumdar's books; the old man, by the time he stopped writing, had reeled off a matchless set of books, some examples of which (apparently still in print) are:
> 
> 
> Champa: History and Culture of an Indian Colonial Kingdom in the Far East, 2nd to 16th Century AD;
> SuvarnaDvipa: Ancient Indian colonies in the Far East;
> History of Kambuja-Desa;
> 
> His other books are heavy going (not that these listed aren't) as he is always addressing a professional audience. They concentrate on the history of eastern India, and on very specialised subjects, including the Vakataka-Gupta period and rule, aspects of Mughal rule, and so on. I have suggested these as he is the only good source that I have read on the Indian interaction with south-east Asia in historical times.
> 
> There has been so much incredible work done over the last 40 years that I find myself always swamped with a huge backlog of reading, and can never keep up. It is quite possible that some excellent recent texts have been omitted due to this, and this possibility may kindly be forgiven.
> 
> You asked about its dates. Tamil (= Dramila = Dravida) civilisation predates the Indo-Aryan language introduction in India, and the civilisation arguably covered the entire peninsula. Brahui is a remnant of a Dravidian language in the north-west; recently, by undertaking mathematical pattern-matching exercises on a very powerful computer, some purely scientific and mathematical researchers located in Chennai (not Tamilian themselves) found that Tamil patterns matched the Mohenjodaro patterns most closely. A direct linkage between IVC and Tamil is still unproven although tempting, but must await the discovery of a Rosetta stone before it can be confirmed.
> 
> Before turning to historical notices and confirmed evidence, it may be noted that the Dravidian languages are apparently cognate to Kol/Mundari; the conclusion is that the original population of India spoke Dravidian languages in one form or the other throughout the sub-continent. This dates back many thousands of years before Christ; the first movement of people out of east Africa is dated to around 40,000 years earlier than today, and the backwash may have taken place - with migrants to south-east Asia and to the archipelagos of Indonesia and the Philipines flowing back to the sub-continent - perhaps 10,000 years later. These dates are pre-historical and speculative; they must be avoided in any academic discussion except as an unproven possibility. In genetic terms, all of the sub-continent except the Pushto are identical in blood-grouping; the Indo-Aryans contributed their language, which swept northern India from end to end, but not much variation occurred in genetic terms. The Pushto are found to be Iranian by blood and genetic analysis. It is amusing to note that pretentious claims of exclusivity by this, that and the other caste group are totally belied by this recent research; there is no genetic difference between Brahmin and Chandal, none between men and women, none between north and south. Facial and skin-colour differences are finally, genetically, in almost undetectable percentages. The north-east is differently constituted, I understand.
> 
> In historical terms, the first mentions of the Tamils are from the Sangam era. For the rest, I suggest Nilakantha Sastri. Happy reading and happy learning.



Thanks for the reference...I will try to read Nilakantha Sastri as soon as possible.

It is weird as you say how the history of the South has been almost forgotten in the tug of war about the Gangetic civilizations.


----------



## anoop

i thought i was neutral forum i just said that whats point of debating on country selecting whats is name . our leaders selected in past and we are happy with it. your leader is selected the name "pakistan" i think u are happy with it .

is it a view point so why my post was deleted as a troll ?

and some posted an animated version of pakistan baburs missile whats logic of posting in this thread? is that trolling


----------



## Tameem

One must Ask why the articulators of the constitution of India needs to elaborate further the Term "India" with addition of "Bharata" in it.
Quote
"India, that is Bharata, shall be a union of states."
UnQuote

The subsequent question after reading this above phrase will arises where is that "India, that is not Bharata," because its seems the articulators of constitution knows that place in their deep conscious. didn't they?






I mean to say the term Bharata relates to whole of subcontinent or earth whereas India only related to original word "Sindhu" or IVC.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Tameem said:


> One must Ask why the articulators of the constitution of India needs to elaborate further the Term "India" with addition of "Bharata" in it.
> Quote
> "India, that is Bharata, shall be a union of states."
> UnQuote
> 
> The subsequent question after reading this above phrase will arises where is that "India, that is not Bharata," because its seems the articulators of constitution knows that place in their deep conscious. didn't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I mean to say the term Bharata relates to whole of subcontinent or earth* whereas India only related to original word "Sindhu" or IVC.



Do you even know what Bharat means,how the name came into existence?


----------



## Tameem

Bombensturm said:


> Do you even know what Bharat means,how the name came into existence?



With Due apologies, i'm not an expert here on this subject but what i know is as follows;
Quote
the Vayu Purana says he who conquers the whole of Bharata-varsa is celebrated as a samr&#257;t (Vayu Purana 45, 86).[3]. However in some puranas, the term 'Bharate' refers to the whole Earth as Emperor Bharata had ruled the whole Earth. Until the death of Maharaja Parikshit, the last formidable emperor of the Kuru dynasty (there were other emperors too after him but they were not as powerful as him), the known world was known as Bharata varsha.
UnQuote.


----------



## 500

India is located on Indostanic peninsula, most of people have Hindu religion, and are from Indo-Aryan origin. So I guess India is pretty natural choice.


----------



## Joe Shearer

500 said:


> India is located on Indostanic peninsula, most of people have Hindu religion, and are from Indo-Aryan origin. So I guess India is pretty natural choice.



I am sorry to be a continuing and unrelenting pedant, but the thing is that 
 the peninsula is properly South Asia or India, as the term Hindustan, Hindostan or Indostan, the latter two being exotic and archaic in the extreme, referring largely to north India until the Narmada river; 
 many 'Hindus' belonging to a political faction have started refusing to be called Hindus, and insist that they belong to Sanatan Dharma, largely for the reasons raised by _roadrunner_; 
 nobody is from Indo-Aryan origin, as the term refers to a group of languages, not to any scientifically valid racial or ethnic group.
These are obviously from an academic point of view, and few people in daily life would have major issues with your summary, if made during a casual conversation. Please do not take my comment as critical.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ras

Joe Shearer,

You stated some time back on the thread that the Bhagwat Gita was introduced into the Mahabharata...is there any knowledge on who actually wrote the verses down as it was surely written a long time after the vedas were composed.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tameem said:


> One must Ask why the articulators of the constitution of India needs to elaborate further the Term "India" with addition of "Bharata" in it.
> Quote
> "India, that is Bharata, shall be a union of states."
> UnQuote
> 
> The subsequent question after reading this above phrase will arises where is that "India, that is not Bharata," because its seems the articulators of constitution knows that place in their deep conscious. didn't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean to say the term Bharata relates to whole of subcontinent or earth whereas India only related to original word "Sindhu" or IVC.



The reason for Dr. Ambedkar agreeing to this phrasing was because of a widespread feeling among a section in the house that in the aftermath of victory over the colonial power, the departed master's terms and phrases should be avoided as far as possible. 

Even within the Constituent Assembly, there was a distinct division of opinion between compulsive and radical revisionists, and an innately conservative body who wanted the least disturbance possible. 

The naming of the republican democracy was therefore a compromise between the two: the radicals got their non-European version of the name, the conservatives, presiding over a constitution formation which was so largely dependent on English as a language for discussion and definition, got their traditional name.

The rest of that reported debate had not taken place in the way reported, as far as I know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ras said:


> Joe Shearer,
> 
> You stated some time back on the thread that the Bhagwat Gita was introduced into the Mahabharata...is there any knowledge on who actually wrote the verses down as it was surely written a long time after the vedas were composed.



No, there is no evidence on the real author. 

While tradition states that it was composed by Vyasa himself, that is simply not consistent with the history of the Mahabharata itself. 

Just to refresh our memory, the original 24,000-verse Jaya was introduced by Vyasa, himself a character in the epic, supposedly dictated to Ganesha;
it was introduced to the great-grandson of the Pandavas, Janamejaya, by Vaisampayan, the disciple of Vyasa, still probably 24,000 verses long; 
finally, Ugrasrava Sauti, a professional story-teller, told the long story, by now approximately 100,000 verses, to a group of sleepy and tired priests presiding over a 12-year long yagna.

My own best guess, from whatever I have read (not much) was that it was composed after the Upanishads, before the formation of the six schools of philosophy, perhaps between 100 BC to 0 BC. The composer had great poetic skills. Whoever he was. I have no comment about the contents, some of which is indeed sublime, as I do not wish to die a messy death.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

I beg leave to absent myself for a day, as I found that my memory of the history of Buddhism needs serious refreshing. It would be discourteous to roadrunner to respond to his queries without getting a renewed grip on this long-forgotten subject.

If there are any queries addressed to me, or any that might benefit from an additional comment from me, I will take all these up together tomorrow, Wednesday the 8th of December. With some luck, somebody will remember that today is a military anniversary of great significance, and I will get some more time in the resulting uproar.


----------



## Pagla Dashu

Joe, here is article by Mr Pradip Bhattacharya. The article is actually a review of a research work by Dr. James Mitchiner, former British Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata. I read this article quite sometime ago and then completely forgot about it until I read your comments. Mr Bhattacharya makes some interesting points, although he seems to be taking the Puranas and associated texts as historical texts. Anyway, he states towards the end of his article;

_The Yavanas (Greeks) are stated to have demolished the mud walls of Kusumadhvaja (Pataliputra) after approaching Saketa (Ayodhya) with Panchalas and Mathuras, following which there is anarchy. It goes on to say that the Yavanas will not remain here but are drawn away by war in their own realm. After their departure there will be seven great kings of Saketa. Thereafter, a mighty Shaka king raids Pushpanama (Pataliputra) and kills a quarter of the population including all the youngest men but is slain by the Kalinga king Shata and a group of Sabalas (Savaras). 

<snip> 

Patanjali mentions Saketa and Madhyamika being besieged by the Yavana. A series of Indo-Greek coins have been found at Dewas near Ujjain, supporting the Yavana presence in Malwa. The Besnagar Garuda pillar inscription of Yavana Heliodorus as an envoy from Taxila of king Antialkidas is dated to around 140 B.C. Kharavelas inscription in Hathigumpha mentions his attacking Rajagriha and sending the Yavana king Dimita (Demetrios) packing to Mathura, showing a Greek presence in Magadha around the same time. Panchala Mitra coins have been found at Pataliputra and names ending with mitra in inscriptions at Bodh Gaya. All these substantiate the Yuga Puranas account of a joint expedition of Yavanas, Panchalas and Mathuras. Mitichiner suggests that this occurred around 190 B.C. between the reigns of Shalishuka Maurya (c. 200 B.C.) and Pushyamitra Sunga (c. 187 B.C.) when the Indo-Greek king was either Euthydemos (230-190 B.C.) or Demetrios (205-190 B.C. as co-regent and 190-171 as king). The Yavanas were called away by some attack on the border such as the Antiochus IIIs two year long siege of Euthydemos in Balkh , or the seccession of Sogdiana from Bactria around 190 B.C. This is also when the Maurya dynasty was extinguished by Pushyamitra.

All that remains is to explain the absence of any reference to Alexanders invasion, about which all Puranas are silent. K.D. Sethna (Amal Kiran) made a valiant effort to plug this gap in his Ancient India in a New Light. But that is a different story.​_


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> So you don't think Sunga's reign virtually eliminated Buddhism from modern day India through religious persecution?
> 
> You also don't believe that the most significant advances in Buddhism occurred outside of modern day India? Mahayana Buddhism, tantric buddhism etc, the Buddhist Scrolls in Afghanistan, the Bamiyan Buddahs, the Swat inscriptions?



It is a matter of satisfaction to have gone back to the boundless fascination that Buddhism and the history of Buddhism holds for students of Ancient Indian history.

To revert to the suggestions you made, seriatim:

*Mahayana Buddhism*

This is a little puzzling. 

Mahayana Buddhism is mistakenly taken to be a distinct branch or school of Buddhism. The fact is that it is the tendency within Buddhism to look for an intermediary, a Buddha, a Bodhisattva, (in Theravada Buddhism, an Arahant), to introduce ordinary mortals to the benefits and advantages of leading a good life, and proceeding to go through various stages, including Arahant, Bodhisattva and Buddha, to parinirvana - the ultimate nirvana. Don't even ask what other kind of nirvana there might be, or it will become necessary to immerse ourselves in nirvana-with-limits and nirvana-without-limits. Trust me, unless you are a senior lama, you don't need to know.

It is theoretically possible for Mahayana and, say, Theravada Buddhists to coexist peacefully in the same monastery, or for instance, Mahayana and Vajrayana monks to stay in proximity without disturbing or distressing each other. 

Was Mahayana Buddhism developed outside India? Ah, now I get it. Actually, no. It started within India, well within the living memory of the early converts, but it took massive proportions, huge followings in Central Asia, and is today the dominant form in China, Japan and so on. 

The greatest influence on this conversion was the legend of the Amitabha Buddha, and the Pure Land school, which attracted hundreds of thousands of converts. I am not at all sure that the Buddha would have approved, sceptical as he was about human intermediaries interfering between individuals and their quest for salvation.

The best that can be said in support of a connection between the Indus Valley cultures and Mahayana Buddhism is that Mahayana Buddhism was hugely popular outside India, in Central Asia, in China, Japan, Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet (along with Vajrayana), Nepal and Bhutan. 

Also, Amitabha Buddha is associated with this phase of development, representing as he did in Buddhist mythology the Pure Land school, and thereby hugely popular in these countries.


*Tantric/Vajrayana Buddhism *

There is of course the legend that Padmasambhava was born not in Orissa but in Swat. As a leading light in the development of Vajrayana theory, his presence in that area and his work having developed in that area (both conjectural) would naturally place Swat among the early centres of development of the theory and practice of Vajrayana Buddhism. 

Unfortunately, it is a highly speculative theory, and the standard agreement seems to be on a kingdom placed within Orissa. 

Considering the significant role played by eastern India in the growth of Tantric Buddhism as well as Tantric Hinduism, it is difficult to know what to believe. 

On the other hand, there were no connections between Swat and Tibet, whereas there were connections between Ladakh and Tibet.

It is another matter when it comes to the development of Vajrayana Buddhism. 

On this I can say with force and certainty that this was largely a development within India, and in fact, had parallels within Hinduism itself; there are Vajrayana Buddhists and Tantric Hindus (it is technically incorrect to talk of Tantric Buddhism). 

Nalanda in its late stages, in the 13th century, was a particularly strong centre of Vajrayana. Far more than Mahayana Buddhism, which depended on elevated beings to lead humans beings to salvation, Vajrayana Buddhism depended on training the mind and senses through a series of attention-focussing 'instruments' = tantra instruments.

There are also esoteric and mysterious practises which are hair-raising in the recounting, and we shall keep away from them.

There was almost nothing with an Indus orientation in Tantric Buddhism; in fact, if it is to be localised, eastern India and in particular, Bengal, have a vital role to play. Tibet was re-seeded with Buddhist doctrine by a Bengali master, Atish Dipankar, from my part of the country - but I think I have spoken of that already, elsewhere.


*Buddhist scrolls in Afghanistan*

There were Buddhist scrolls all over the world, not just in Afghanistan. The Indo-Greek kingdoms of Balkh were early converts to Buddhism. For that reason, this region had its share of manuscripts. The real treasure troves lie in China and in Tibet.

It is estimated that perhaps between 1,500 and 2,000 manuscripts are left in Indian languages. Of these, a large number have been translated into Chinese and Japanese languages, and into Tibetan. Almost all are available in India, but scattered in different repositories, and of course, their translated counterparts exist in Japan, China and Tibet.

I am not sure what particular significance exists for Buddhist manuscripts in Afghanistan. 


*The Buddha of Bamiyan*

A wonderful monument, but in what way was it essential or central to the growth of the Buddhist religion? Or different from the Buddha of Kamakura? or the Stupa of Sanchi? 

The point of course is that the only thing that the Indus Valley cultures, Gandhara under the Greeks to be precise, was instrumental in introducing to India was iconography. Until the Greeks started building statues of the Buddha, building icons of the Gods, idols, was not a common practice in Vedic Hinduism. In fact, it didn't exist. It was with the imitation of Greek icons that India came to idolatry.

Ironic.


*The Swat inscriptions*

I am not aware what these refer to, other than Ashokan pillars. Only two are to be found in these regions, to the best of my knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pagla Dashu said:


> Joe, here is article by Mr Pradip Bhattacharya. The article is actually a review of a research work by Dr. James Mitchiner, former British Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata. I read this article quite sometime ago and then completely forgot about it until I read your comments. Mr Bhattacharya makes some interesting points, although he seems to be taking the Puranas and associated texts as historical texts. Anyway, he states towards the end of his article;
> 
> _The Yavanas (Greeks) are stated to have demolished the mud walls of Kusumadhvaja (Pataliputra) after approaching Saketa (Ayodhya) with Panchalas and Mathuras, following which there is anarchy. It goes on to say that the Yavanas will not remain here but are drawn away by war in their own realm. After their departure there will be seven great kings of Saketa. Thereafter, a mighty Shaka king raids Pushpanama (Pataliputra) and kills a quarter of the population including all the youngest men but is slain by the Kalinga king Shata and a group of Sabalas (Savaras).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Patanjali mentions Saketa and Madhyamika being besieged by the Yavana. A series of Indo-Greek coins have been found at Dewas near Ujjain, supporting the Yavana presence in Malwa. The Besnagar Garuda pillar inscription of Yavana Heliodorus as an envoy from Taxila of king Antialkidas is dated to around 140 B.C. Kharavelas inscription in Hathigumpha mentions his attacking Rajagriha and sending the Yavana king Dimita (Demetrios) packing to Mathura, showing a Greek presence in Magadha around the same time. Panchala Mitra coins have been found at Pataliputra and names ending with mitra in inscriptions at Bodh Gaya. All these substantiate the Yuga Puranas account of a joint expedition of Yavanas, Panchalas and Mathuras. Mitichiner suggests that this occurred around 190 B.C. between the reigns of Shalishuka Maurya (c. 200 B.C.) and Pushyamitra Sunga (c. 187 B.C.) when the Indo-Greek king was either Euthydemos (230-190 B.C.) or Demetrios (205-190 B.C. as co-regent and 190-171 as king). The Yavanas were called away by some attack on the border such as the Antiochus IIIs two year long siege of Euthydemos in Balkh , or the seccession of Sogdiana from Bactria around 190 B.C. This is also when the Maurya dynasty was extinguished by Pushyamitra.
> 
> All that remains is to explain the absence of any reference to Alexanders invasion, about which all Puranas are silent. K.D. Sethna (Amal Kiran) made a valiant effort to plug this gap in his Ancient India in a New Light. But that is a different story.​_



Interesting account, but.

It is off-topic, as it doesn't refer to roadrunner's specific proposition that the name India referred solely to the land mass currently described politically as Pakistan, therefore that the Republic of India has no right to the name India.

It is also not very original; the same material, based on examples in Patanjali and examples from the Puranas, are in every ancient Indian history college textbook. We already know that the 'viciously valiant Mlecchas' penetrated up to Kusumapura and occupied Mathura.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amigo

i think the name india was selected bcoz other alternate names such as bharat which was more or like is hinduized term & hindustan was given to it by foreign invaders(which means land of hindus). so selecting india was good for a secular country & society.


----------



## roadrunner

Tameem said:


> Even Today's Hindustan is renowned in the world thanks to Muslim Architecture spread across its landmass, the reason;
> 
> Every foreign dignitary ever visits Hindustan have a must visits of the these Marvelous Buildings i.e., Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri etc as well. Just today Mr & Mrs. Sarkozy are completing their pilgrimage by fulfilling this tradition.
> 
> The 15th August National address by the PM of India is honoured not other than the historic Red Fort.
> 
> If we take out "Ancient Indus" and Medieval Muslims Rule from today's Hindustan the rest will be look like this



Very true, but the Taj Mahal etc is part of Bharat's history.


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> Instead of speculating on what may or may not have been said by Megasthenes, let's look at the original text, as we did at college, of which I have found an on-line fragment at
> http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasi...reign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm
> 
> It will save me the bother of summarising the conclusions that he has come to, and it will save you asking if I really think so!
> 
> I have deleted the rest of a long post as it made little sense without my earlier comments printed therein. Please expect by tomorrow (partially) and day after (final bits and pieces) the following:
> 
> 1. The balance of responses to your recent comments on page 25 in particular;
> 2. Some response to earlier comments of yours at the beginning of the thread - these are hoped to be addressed as a cogent mass, rather than comment by comment;
> 3. My suggestion for the situation that has been outlined.



I've read it. It's from where I'm deriving my conclusions partly.


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> There is a logical error here, as well as a factual error.
> 
> First, the factual part, or parts.
> 
> The knowledge of the Indus Valley revealed by, say, Herodotus, is surely not even comparable with that of Megasthenes.



You obviously do not know the importance of Herodotus versus Megasthenes in the Ancient Greek hierarchy. Herodotus was more important. 



> As for the others, they based their accounts on the accounts in turn of those who actually accompanied Alexander; they are effectively reporting based on others' reports. Please note that neither Pliny nor Strabo was a contemporary; Megasthenes, on the other hand, was in the Maurya court prior to 288 BC, and was quite possibly - being the trusted ambassador of the Alexandrian successor Seleukos, and the house-guest of the governor of Arachosia (I think; I am not sure of the province) - from the ranks of the middle-ranking generals or civilian officers or savants accompanying the expedition unless he had come out from Greece or Macedonia very late, after 323 BC.
> 
> So we have the near-contemporary account of Megasthenes, with considerable information about the court and about life and the environs of the court. Please recall his story of the 'dogs', which is clearly an account of Rhesus monkeys, distorted by the narration to him by narrators unfamiliar with Greek. We are all familiar with the habits of these monkey hordes, which come to the ground, accept with disdain all that interests them, reject with every appearance of contempt that which does not, and troop in and troop out of villages and towns. Megasthenes in a few words describes them perfectly, down to their physiognomy. What do we have in contrast from the other school, with their supposed intimate information about the Indus Valley?



So what? Megasthenes was in "India". Yes, he was the Ambassador at Taxilla (which is in Pakistan). It doesn't make any difference, as I'm already acknowledging that some (a small part), of modern day India was discovered at the time of Megasthenes (about 2,000 years ago). And my point again, most of "Indian history" occurred between 2,000 to 5,000 years before, when India was Pakistan only.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ah, two for the price of one! And I thought that these bargains had stopped in Aladdin's time. Silly me.



Joe Shearer said:


> There is a logical error here, as well as a factual error.
> 
> First, the factual part, or parts.
> 
> The knowledge of the Indus Valley revealed by, say, Herodotus, is surely not even comparable with that of Megasthenes.
> 
> 
> 
> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously do not know the importance of Herodotus versus Megasthenes in the Ancient Greek hierarchy. Herodotus was more important.
Click to expand...


Well, if studying a paper on the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War, and getting the highest marks in my year in that paper counts, I do know a wee bit, just a little bit, mind you, about Greek history.

Before we go further, may I remind you that I am able to guide you and others interested through each and every battle and skirmish of the Persian War, and of the Peloponnesian War, to an extent and depth of detail which you will not find in contemporary Internet sources. My personal favourite is the Battle of Plataia, which is less referred to than other, more famous but less interesting from the military point of view, others such as Marathon, Thermopilai and Salamis (all from the Persian War). It would be correct to come to me for help on obscure parts of the Anabasis, or on the same author's treatise on Horsemanship. I am therefore fascinated to learn from you how Herodotus and Megasthenes must be comparatively viewed, and how to interpret their records!

Your remark could only have been made by someone completely confused by trying to follow the train of his own logic through its tortured paths. Permit me to refresh your memory.

Herodotus (since I am writing for an amateur column, it is more convenient to use the conventional Roman spelling, which will be recognised more readily; the correct transcription of his name is, however, Herodotos) wrote about the Persian War. He probably died in the last quarter of the 5th century BC, sometime between 425 BC and 400 BC, probably closer to the beginning than to the end of this quarter-century. He was described by the Roman orator Cicero as the "Father of History". He was described by his successor, Thucydides (Thoukydides) as a story-teller. 

I hope you in turn are aware that of the two, Thucydides is by far the better historian; I hope, in fact, that you have read either or both of them, in which case such suggestions on my part would not be necessary.

The question here is not of whom among Herodotus and Megasthenes was considered the more important figure in the Ancient Greek hierarchy. Leaving aside the fact that there was actually no hierarchy, you are of course writing what you did with the full knowledge that one of them wrote, sitting in Greece, in the first half of the fifth century BC, sometime between 450 and 425 BC, and the other wrote after his ambassadorship to the places in question which was before 288 BC but not too far before.

I put it to you that the question is not of a mythical, manufactured hierarchy invented for the purposes of this argument by you, but of whether a remote look at a geography by an historian is of more weight than the accounts, the diplomatic report, to nod in the direction of Wikileaks, as it were, of an ambassador physically present in his reported location.



Joe Shearer said:


> As for the others, they based their accounts on the accounts in turn of those who actually accompanied Alexander; they are effectively reporting based on others' reports. Please note that neither Pliny nor Strabo was a contemporary; _Megasthenes, on the other hand, was *in the Maurya court* prior to 288 BC, and was quite possibly - being the trusted ambassador of the Alexandrian successor Seleukos, and *the house-guest of the governor of Arachosia *(I think; I am not sure of the province) - from the ranks of the middle-ranking generals or civilian officers or savants accompanying the expedition unless he had come out from Greece or Macedonia very late, after 323 BC._
> 
> So we have the near-contemporary account of Megasthenes, with considerable information about the court and about life and the environs of the court. Please recall his story of the 'dogs', which is clearly an account of Rhesus monkeys, distorted by the narration to him by narrators unfamiliar with Greek. We are all familiar with the habits of these monkey hordes, which come to the ground, accept with disdain all that interests them, reject with every appearance of contempt that which does not, and troop in and troop out of villages and towns. Megasthenes in a few words describes them perfectly, down to their physiognomy. What do we have in contrast from the other school, with their supposed intimate information about the Indus Valley?
> 
> 
> 
> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Megasthenes was in "India". Yes, he was the Ambassador at Taxilla (which is in Pakistan).
Click to expand...


I am afraid that I have to correct you on this: he was actually at the capital, Pataliputra, which he spells quite recognisably as Patlibothra, not at the provincial seat, Taxila, which was in revolt more than once.



roadrunner said:


> It doesn't make any difference, as I'm already acknowledging that some (a small part), of modern day India was discovered at the time of Megasthenes (about 2,000 years ago).



An excellent point. It has the weight, and the context, and the importance of a point.

You do realise that his account was of the capital on the Ganges in the ancient seat of the Mauryas, and the Nandas before them, Magadha? This is the equivalent of Ecbatana, the capital of Media, rather than the capitals of Persia. 

You do also realise from my emphasised passage above that to get there, he had to travel from Arachosia, the Makran coast, probably from Kandahar, Alexandria in Arachosia, across the coastal peninsula, across the Indus, across Sindh, and then a very difficult passage probably marked by Ujjain (a Maurya stronghold) and up to the Ganges, probably meeting it around Allahabad, and then down river to Pataliputra, or up the river and to the Yamuna and then down to the Ganges, which was then easily navigable, down to Pataliputra?

Which brings us to the question of how much he saw of 'modern-day India' rather than 'Ancient India', both your rather charming essays at historical re-discovery.

You state that 'a small part' of modern-day India was known to Megasthenes. Is it your case that this middle aged Greek gentleman was a purdah-nashin?



roadrunner said:


> And my point again, most of "Indian history" occurred between 2,000 to 5,000 years before, when India was Pakistan only.



Your points are truly shining brilliant spots of brightness. Unfortunately for us, you omitted joining them.

What in your opinion happened in India - modern-day India, to go along with your usage - between 2,000 years ago and today? I have listed a few, a very few items for your consideration earlier. Is it your case that none of them occurred, or is it your case that even if they occurred, they don't count, as they didn't happen in the Indus Valley?

On a purely off-topic matter: are you familiar with Mr. Washington Irving's story about the Catskill Mountains, in his book the Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent.? The thought occurs that this story may have inspired your ventures into history.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tameem

Joe Shearer said:


> The reason for Dr. Ambedkar agreeing to this phrasing was because of a widespread feeling among a section in the house that in the aftermath of victory over the colonial power, the departed master's terms and phrases should be avoided as far as possible.
> 
> Even within the Constituent Assembly, there was a distinct division of opinion between compulsive and radical revisionists, and an innately conservative body who wanted the least disturbance possible.
> 
> The naming of the republican democracy was therefore a compromise between the two: the radicals got their non-European version of the name, the conservatives, presiding over a constitution formation which was so largely dependent on English as a language for discussion and definition, got their traditional name.
> 
> The rest of that reported debate had not taken place in the way reported, as far as I know.



Exactly, That's the point the name "India" used by Europeans for thousands of years including The Sumarians as well Egyptions is all part of today's Pakistan for which the radicals of Indian constituent assembly knows very well and thats why are not agreed of to be used solely for their independent state for obvious reasons



Thanks for your affirmations in details.


----------



## Joe Shearer

<groan>

What have I done to suffer this @*&#163;&#163;&!?



Tameem said:


> Exactly, That's the point



No "exactly", and "That" is most certainly not "the point". My explanations and what you have stated below are totally unconnected in any manner, and adding a few excited words will convince nobody except yourself, your shadow in the mirror (if you have reached an age where you shave) and perhaps doting elder relatives, stunned by such expressions of forensic brilliance.



Tameem said:


> the name "India" used by Europeans for thousands of years including The Sumarians as well Egyptions



The name India, as you would have learnt if you had learnt to read, that is, if you had learnt to read the arguments of others, was used by neither Sumerians (or Sumarians, if you have decided in your wisdom to fiddle with their names as well - fortunately, none of them are left alive to object to your historical re-discoveries) nor Egyptians. There is no record that the Sumerians or the Egyptians knew of India, or any of the geography of South Asia.



Tameem said:


> ...is all part of today's Pakistan



That is wholly a figment of the collective imagination of a very special section of 'today's Pakistan', towards which I am acquiring a decided partiality and affection due to the unrelenting good clean fun which it has provided over the past few days. This section, the forefathers of which insisted on the name Pakistan, not on the name India, when it had a choice and exercised that choice, not knowing that the future would be bleak for 'Pakistanis', due to the indiscipline and inability to conduct themselves with propriety and public order by their descendants, and rather more welcoming and warm for 'Indians' in climates abroad, now wish to appropriate the name officially. While I feel for those exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the name is not ours to give. It was accorded to us, and we continue to use it as a matter of historical continuity and conservatism.



Tameem said:


> ...for which the radicals of Indian constituent assembly knows very well



What you need to refer to is not an history text book but Wren and Martin. 



Tameem said:


> and thats why are not agreed of to be used solely for their independent state for obvious reasons...



Definitely the influence of Wren and Martin missing in rather noticeable manner.

I regret to draw your attention to the facts, which are stated clearly and beyond the incomprehension of all but those determined to re-state a matter repeatedly in the manner in which they hope to see it turn out, regardless of petty distractions like facts or logic.

It was not the radicals, it was the conservatives, who did not want to disturb the widespread knowledge and conviction of the entire world that India referred to what they were referring to. Please read my note again, rather than using it as a coat-hanger. They had had all the time in the world to consider this matter, as *Pakistan had made its own choice, NOT to call itself India, three years earlier*.

I suggest, based on your excited and wholly misdirected interjection, that you stay away from difficult topics until you have learnt a little more grammar, a little more logic. Leave difficult and unpronounceable subjects like history alone until a more appropriate point of your scholastic development. 

Of course, you are free to disregard my suggestions. 

It occurs to me that the common entertainment in Ancient Rome, which well knew what India was in the 1st century BC, from the copious written evidence, was _panem et circenses_. Perhaps you are confident that someone else will supply the _panem_, and it would be unfair to quench the aroused hopes and expectations of the forum's readers.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Tameem

Joe Shearer said:


> <groan>
> 
> What have I done to suffer this @*££&!?
> 
> 
> 
> No "exactly", and "That" is most certainly not "the point". My explanations and what you have stated below are totally unconnected in any manner, and adding a few excited words will convince nobody except yourself, your shadow in the mirror (if you have reached an age where you shave) and perhaps doting elder relatives, stunned by such expressions of forensic brilliance.



I ignore your tirade against my personality since I already accepted by myself in my earlier post that I am not an expert on the subject (If U read it fully).




Joe Shearer said:


> The name India, as you would have learnt if you had learnt to read, that is, if you had learnt to read the arguments of others, was used by neither Sumerians (or Sumarians, if you have decided in your wisdom to fiddle with their names as well - fortunately, none of them are left alive to object to your historical re-discoveries) nor Egyptians. There is no record that the Sumerians or the Egyptians knew of India, or any of the geography of South Asia.



Sir, with thousands apologies we didnt know what exactly the Sumerians called about for their trading counterparts in IVC but we does know an active relationships between the two at their prime time.
Quote
During 43003200 BCE of the chalcolithic period (copper age), the Indus Valley Civilization area shows ceramic similarities with southern Turkmenistan and northern Iran which suggest considerable mobility and trade. During the Early Harappan period (about 32002600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments, etc., document intensive caravan trade with Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.
Parpola 2005, pp. 23
Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilisation artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia.
There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf).
Neyland, R. S. (1992). "The seagoing vessels on Dilmun seals". In Keith, D.H.; Carrell, T.L. Society for Historical Archaeology. pp. 6874. 
Unquote

Therefore, there should be a name in the dictionaries of Summaries about their trading partners live around the Great River towards their east. Since we have an ancient name of this river as Sindhu, We can assume hypothetically that this name would be derived from some earlier name of that river similarly know around it at the age of both civilizations.



Joe Shearer said:


> That is wholly a figment of the collective imagination of a very special section of 'today's Pakistan', towards which I am acquiring a decided partiality and affection due to the unrelenting good clean fun which it has provided over the past few days. This section, the forefathers of which insisted on the name Pakistan, not on the name India, when it had a choice and exercised that choice, not knowing that the future would be bleak for 'Pakistanis', due to the indiscipline and inability to conduct themselves with propriety and public order by their descendants, and rather more welcoming and warm for 'Indians' in climates abroad, now wish to appropriate the name officially. While I feel for those exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the name is not ours to give. It was accorded to us, and we continue to use it as a matter of historical continuity and conservatism.



You are more than welcome to have an independent view about Pakistan & Pakistanis whatever it suits according to your upbringing, academic level or prejudice since we are living in the age of democracy where people are agree to disagree on anything.




Joe Shearer said:


> What you need to refer to is not an history text book but Wren and Martin.





Joe Shearer said:


> Definitely the influence of Wren and Martin missing in rather noticeable manner.



By emphasizing Wren and Martin you cannot ignore the forceful substance in my argument for which you have no answer, so accept it wholeheartedly instead of twisting it towards your academic brilliance. 



Joe Shearer said:


> I regret to draw your attention to the facts, which are stated clearly and beyond the incomprehension of all but those determined to re-state a matter repeatedly in the manner in which they hope to see it turn out, regardless of petty distractions like facts or logic.
> 
> It was not the radicals, it was the conservatives, who did not want to disturb the widespread knowledge and conviction of the entire world that India referred to what they were referring to.



So, you mean conservatives dont want to disturb the widespread conviction about India by proposing a name totally different of it and its not the radicals alone who have deep prejudice towards the name India derived from IVC. I, accept your argument in totality.



Joe Shearer said:


> Please read my note again, rather than using it as a coat-hanger.



Your demeaning words don't hurts me that much than your ignorance and twisting of facts to your meaning alone. 



Joe Shearer said:


> They had had all the time in the world to consider this matter, as *Pakistan had made its own choice, NOT to call itself India, three years earlier*.



Why should we?? the IVC is not the only Civilizations our land produced throughout the known history. Our name is perfect.



Joe Shearer said:


> I suggest, based on your excited and wholly misdirected interjection, that you stay away from difficult topics until you have learnt a little more grammar, a little more logic. Leave difficult and unpronounceable subjects like history alone until a more appropriate point of your scholastic development.
> 
> Of course, you are free to disregard my suggestions.



Or I can disregard your suggestion partially because I believe in trying, struggle to be identified by the others amongst the bests, not assuming arrogantly by own as the best. 



Joe Shearer said:


> It occurs to me that the common entertainment in Ancient Rome, which well knew what India was in the 1st century BC, from the copious written evidence, was _panem et circenses_. Perhaps you are confident that someone else will supply the _panem_, and it would be unfair to quench the aroused hopes and expectations of the forum's readers.



Just, checks the Thank buttons you received on youre twisting of facts from your countrymen alone like swamps and know fully who is playing for the galleries alone.


----------



## Tameem

roadrunner said:


> Very true, but the Taj Mahal etc is part of Bharat's history.



Of Course Sir, But my emphasis is only on Bold Muslim Signature on it and on the facts that we are trying to preserve the Brand name "Babur" and they are destroying it through their SC of whatever is left of it, Isn't it an irony of history as well.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tameem said:


> I ignore your tirade against my personality since I already accepted by myself in my earlier post that I am not an expert on the subject (If U read it fully).



Let us address the subject, rather than get diverted into personalities, if that is what you wish.




Tameem said:


> Sir, with thousands apologies we didnt know what exactly the Sumerians called about for their trading counterparts in IVC but we does know an active relationships between the two at their prime time.
> Quote
> During 43003200 BCE of the chalcolithic period (copper age), the Indus Valley Civilization area shows ceramic similarities with southern Turkmenistan and northern Iran which suggest considerable mobility and trade. During the Early Harappan period (about 32002600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments, etc., document intensive caravan trade with Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.
> Parpola 2005, pp. 23
> Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilisation artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia.
> There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf).
> Neyland, R. S. (1992). "The seagoing vessels on Dilmun seals". In Keith, D.H.; Carrell, T.L. Society for Historical Archaeology. pp. 6874.
> Unquote
> 
> Therefore, there should be a name in the dictionaries of Summaries about their trading partners live around the Great River towards their east. Since we have an ancient name of this river as Sindhu, We can assume hypothetically that this name would be derived from some earlier name of that river similarly know around it at the age of both civilizations.



With a million apologies, this does not hold up to close inspection.

1. There were contacts between the Sumerians, the other civilisations of Mesopotamia, or of Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan) on the one hand, and the Indus Valley, but they did not call the river the Indus, the Hindu, the Sindhu or anything like that; that name came only with the Greeks.
2. They may have had their own name for the great river;
3. It is impossible that this name was Sindhu, for the following reasons:
3a. Sindhu was a name used by the Indo-Aryans from well before they themselves saw the great river;
3b. Sindhu therefore could not have been derived from any earlier name of the great river, because it was in use with the Indo-Aryans well before they knew of the existence of the great river.

QED



Tameem said:


> You are more than welcome to have an independent view about Pakistan & Pakistanis whatever it suits according to *your upbringing, academic level or prejudice* since we are living in the age of democracy where people are agree to disagree on anything.



Is it then your case that you were willing to name your country something else other than Pakistan?

I am pleased to see that you are following your own advice and staying impersonal.



Tameem said:


> By emphasizing Wren and Martin you cannot ignore the forceful substance in my argument for which you have no answer, so accept it wholeheartedly instead of *twisting it towards your academic brilliance.*



Unfortunately, in this section, only a fragment of ungrammatical language was under discussion, so where did you find a forceful substance in your argument? And where was the question of finding an answer to an argument not yet made? And what was the twisting it to my academic brilliance involved in pointing out grammatical errors?

Again, congratulations on avoiding the personal.



Tameem said:


> So, you mean conservatives dont want to disturb the widespread conviction about India by proposing a name totally different of it and its not the radicals alone who have deep prejudice towards the name India derived from IVC. I, accept your argument in totality.



I am quite happy with the wording that I used originally. You have only to agree or to disagree with it. It is not open to you to re-interpret my statement according to your convenience, and seek empty solace in a seeming alignment. There is no alignment, except in your view.



Tameem said:


> *Your demeaning words* don't hurts me that much than *your ignorance* and *twisting of facts to your meaning alone.*



My ignorance has already been tested by better people than you. Roadrunner, for instance, began this argument not recently but with his first post on this forum. It was you who confessed that you were not an expert. As it happens, I am an expert.

And, of course, more displays of your admirable refraining from personality based attacks.



Tameem said:


> Why should we?? the IVC is not the only Civilizations our land produced throughout the known history. Our name is perfect.



Ah, so it is no longer a question of your right name, merely a desire to deprive others of theirs, by any means possible.

Do you find anything uplifting and worthwhile in such a project?



Tameem said:


> Or I can disregard your suggestion partially because I believe in trying, struggle to be identified by the others amongst the bests, not assuming arrogantly by own as the best.



I wish you luck, whichever language you finally choose with which to struggle on. Do make the right choice. The sentence above shows that there is still scope for changing your mind.



Tameem said:


> Just, checks the Thank buttons you received on youre twisting of facts from your countrymen alone like swamps and know fully who is playing for the galleries alone.



Since you have a vast amount of curiousity about my thanks buttons, do your own counting. Also look through my posts and see who have been most forthcoming. You will be surprised.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## eastwatch

Tameem said:


> Of Course Sir, But my emphasis is only on Bold Muslim Signature on it and on the facts that we are trying to preserve the Brand name "Babur" and they are destroying it through their SC of whatever is left of it, Isn't it an irony of history as well.



India is destroying the muslim signature on its history by writing only a 10-page chapter to cover the entire muslim era in its school text books. But, Indians are fond of telling us that they are secular.


----------



## aviator

eastwatch said:


> India is destroying the muslim signature on its history by writing only a 10-page chapter to cover the entire muslim era in its school text books. But, Indians are fond of telling us that they are secular.



Thats because you over estimate yourself. Indian history textbooks dont teach about Hinduism or Buddhism or Sikhism, so its not just about your ideology. 

As far as your opinion is concerned, if India fully tells history of Islam in India then it is going to only bring hate for Indian muslims, something pseudo secular Indian politicians try to avoid. I am sure not even a single Indian (especially non-muslim) are gonna take actions from islamic invasion to Direct Action Day lightly.

Before you point finger at India check four fingers that point towards you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

aviator said:


> Thats because you over estimate yourself. Indian history textbooks dont teach about Hinduism or Buddhism or Sikhism, so its not just about your ideology.
> 
> As far as your opinion is concerned, if India fully tells history of Islam in India then it is going to only bring hate for Indian muslims, something pseudo secular Indian politicians try to avoid. I am sure not even a single Indian (especially non-muslim) are gonna take actions from islamic invasion to Direct Action Day lightly.
> 
> Before you point finger at India check four fingers that point towards you.



I wish you had ruined an otherwise useful post by using the phrase _pseudo secular_. This is a piece of political jargon used by the Sangh Parivar as an offensive way of addressing the Congress and leftists.

It seems to me that it would be best not to bring in politics if possible. It also seems to me that the reason for assigning a certain number of pages to a subject or to a period should be linked to the years a subject or period spanned, as well as the amount of information we have about it. Please consider that even excluding the Indus Valley Civilisation, we have from 1700 BC to 1260 AD, nearly 3,000 years, for ancient and early mediaeval periods, described by the British as Ancient India or Hindu India (both wrong); from 1260 AD to 1857 AD, nearly 600 years, for Mediaeval India, or Muslim India (both wrong); and 90 years for Modern India, or British India (again, both wrong). That gives us 3:20:100, not to be ignored in considering these matters. That also forces us to confront the reality of the huge mass of data available for Modern India, and the extra space needed for that.

Do think about these issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aviator

Joe Shearer said:


> I wish you had ruined an otherwise useful post by using the phrase _pseudo secular_. This is a piece of political jargon used by the Sangh Parivar as an offensive way of addressing the Congress and leftists.



Love it or hate it but Congress is pseudo secular, it doesn't eliminates religion from politics it just creates special priviliges for every religious group to appease them, thats not secularism. Congress thrives on religious differences because thats what mainly distinguishes them from BJP, you take that out and you can see BJP states have been doing equally good or better in terms of most of terms.

PS: Being an Atheist, I am not follower of Sangh pariwar or RSS, you are hurting my anti-religious sentiments by grouping me with them

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> I wish you had ruined an otherwise useful post by using the phrase _pseudo secular_. This is a piece of political jargon used by the Sangh Parivar as an offensive way of addressing the Congress and leftists.



Unfortunately, the guys at the *Sangh Parivar* are spot on about this one. Could not find something more apt than this. If you look at the seminal events of the last 30 years objectively, it is impossible not to call the policies of the Congess & the left anything but pseudo secular. The use of Brindanwale, the Shah Bano case, opening of the locks at Ayodhya cannot but be described as lunacy inspired by pseudo secular fantasies. The BJP's role in the Ayodhya issue was purely reactive, going far right of the Congess. knowing that it was a place where the Congress's communal pendulum did not reach. The Mandal issue was V.P. Singh's method of attemting to fragment the BJP's power base & the BJP's response was to attempt consolidation by upping the ante on the Ayodhya issue. The communists attempt to change demographics of the NE for vote bank politics is no less communal than what the BJP is accused of except that it also contained a streak of anti-nationalism within it. The Mulayam's, the Lalloo's & the Mayawathis are hardly paragons of secularism even if they are bestowed such accolades by either the left or the Congess. Who else? DMK?MQM? IUML? So who's secular?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

double post


----------



## Joe Shearer

aviator said:


> Love it or hate it but Congress is pseudo secular, it doesn't eliminates religion from politics it just creates special priviliges for every religious group to appease them, thats not secularism. Congress thrives on religious differences because thats what mainly distinguishes them from BJP, you take that out and you can see BJP states have been doing equally good or better in terms of most of terms.
> 
> PS: Being an Atheist, I am not follower of Sangh pariwar or RSS, you are hurting my anti-religious sentiments by grouping me with them



Please go back and read my mail carefully. *I do not deny* that the Congress role in introducing religion into politics was negative; Jinnah commented on this nearly 80 years ago, around the time that Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement. Subsequently, their articulation of their view about India - Gandhi's view, elaborated by Nehru, and in a completely different, refreshing way by Maulana Azad - was dangerously wrong, and has created a lot of turbulence in independent India.

This does not justify another faction seizing on this cynical opportunism to be opportunistic in their turn. My only caution was not to use politically loaded language that labels you a BJP/Sangh Parivar supporter. 

For a person neutral to religion as you have stated yourself to be, this is all the more important. This is precisely why, in spite of my cordial dislike of the Congress and its behaviour, I am personally scrupulously careful to stay neutral between these two abominable sets of people. Not to mention the third, the failed set, the Indian leftist.

One last word. Your anti-religious sentiments were hurt, you inform me. *I am aware that you made this remark with tongue firmly in cheek*. Your sense of humour gives us an opportunity to talk about this phrase and what it implies, so excuse my forceful remarks that follow.

You mentioned (with a grin) that your sentiments were hurt. 

Tough luck, hombre. This is the totally phony excuse used, that somebody or the other felt hurt, that his sentiments were injured, to kill Sikhs by the hundreds in 84; it was used to kill Muslims and Christians in numerous incidents around the country, more times than one can count; it was used by armed gangs, not mobs, but cold-eyed assassination squads, bent on murder, groups of the upper castes to kill the scheduled castes, groups of the scheduled castes to kill the upper castes. Of all things that are rotten with our society and our politics, it is this business of sentiments being hurt. Sentiments being hurt does not justify violence; these should not have been hurt in the first place, we should not be wearing our deepest beliefs on our shirt-sleeves in the first place, these should be more robust and not so prone to wilt in direct sunshine or be water-logged in heavy dew. 

Nothing is as abominable as this unmanly, soft in the head excuse that our sentiments are hurt. Avoid it, I suggest, even in jest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> Unfortunately, the guys at the *Sangh Parivar* are spot on about this one. Could not find something more apt than this. If you look at the seminal events of the last 30 years objectively, it is impossible not to call the policies of the Congess & the left anything but pseudo secular. *The use of Brindanwale, the Shah Bano case, opening of the locks at Ayodhya *cannot but be described as lunacy inspired by pseudo secular fantasies. The BJP's role in the Ayodhya issue was purely reactive, going far right of the Congess. knowing that it was a place where the Congress's communal pendulum did not reach. The Mandal issue was V.P. Singh's method of attemting to fragment the BJP's power base & the BJP's response was to attempt consolidation by upping the ante on the Ayodhya issue. The communists attempt to change demographics of the NE for vote bank politics is no less communal than what the BJP is accused of except that it also contained a streak of anti-nationalism within it. The Mulayam's, the Lalloo's & the Mayawathis are hardly paragons of secularism even if they are bestowed such accolades by either the left or the Congess. Who else? DMK?MQM? IUML? So who's secular?



@Bang Galore

The Sangh Parivar may (or may not) be spot on on this one; in another case, it could turn out that the Congress is, in yet another, it might be the left. Of the lot that you have mentioned in your post, while all are difficult to swallow for anybody with sensitivity and a thin skin, we have to be careful not be branded as one of any of these or to be associated with their egregious breaches of the law, and their flouting of the rule of the law.

You mentioned certain awful episodes and called them _lunacy inspired by pseudo secular fantasies._ On the contrary, these were not lunatic acts, these were acts of the worst cynicism and the most manipulative.

That still does not justify taking sides between them, and especially taking the side of those who have consistently, through the years, opposed this cynical opportunism with street violence, equally cynical subversion of the rule of law, and manipulation of the levers of power whenever they got hold of these.

You mention that none of the parties are really above the muck. We seem to be on the same page then. 

Who else? you ask. So who's secular? you ask. 

How about starting with *you* and *I*? We have control over what we feel and think, don't we?

Having honest politicians and a clean polity would have been priceless, and would have enabled us to move forward faster, better. However , if even with venal politicians and lack of accountability, we could go so far, we should try our best to protect our system and to improve it. Since our representatives betrayed us and took to crime, we now have to set things right - one millimetre at a time. And the millimetre I'm asking you and all right-minded liberal democrats for is this - let us not use what these animals have invented for their apparent opposition but concealed collusion and fall into the trap that they have so carefully prepared. Once we start taking sides, the game is up.

this one thing called democracy has kept us going and has forced politicians to listen to us, especially after T. N. Seshan freed the Election Commission and gave it some teeth. From that time onwards, there has been a clear belief in the India electorate that their vote, their single vote, makes a difference. *Even if the parties are despicable today, they represent an alternative that we have given ourselves, which people are willing to die for in neighbouring countries.* 

Read PTH for a week or so, and you will get the picture. Pakistan would have soared effortlessly if they had not had a zombie around their shoulders for nearly half of the sixty years that they, with us, have been independent. Ask Yasser Hamdani; no, ask Raza Rumi, or AZW, or Bloody Civilian, or Tilsim. We have something priceless with us, and we keep dropping it and treating it with familiarity bordering on contempt.

Let us not be so cynical and condescending about democracy. Let us not please take it for granted. We are a beacon of hope in the middle of a desert; look west, look east, and you will see despair and doubt on all sides. Except possibly the brave Bangladeshis. Let us learn to count our blessings.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> Ah, two for the price of one! And I thought that these bargains had stopped in Aladdin's time. Silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if studying a paper on the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War, and getting the highest marks in my year in that paper counts, I do know a wee bit, just a little bit, mind you, about Greek history.
> 
> Before we go further, may I remind you that I am able to guide you and others interested through each and every battle and skirmish of the Persian War, and of the Peloponnesian War, to an extent and depth of detail which you will not find in contemporary Internet sources. My personal favourite is the Battle of Plataia, which is less referred to than other, more famous but less interesting from the military point of view, others such as Marathon, Thermopilai and Salamis (all from the Persian War). It would be correct to come to me for help on obscure parts of the Anabasis, or on the same author's treatise on Horsemanship. I am therefore fascinated to learn from you how Herodotus and Megasthenes must be comparatively viewed, and how to interpret their records!



Up till this point, a lot of conceited self-praise. It doesn't mean anything 



> Your remark could only have been made by someone completely confused by trying to follow the train of his own logic through its tortured paths. Permit me to refresh your memory.
> 
> Herodotus (since I am writing for an amateur column, it is more convenient to use the conventional Roman spelling, which will be recognised more readily; the correct transcription of his name is, however, Herodotos) wrote about the Persian War. He probably died in the last quarter of the 5th century BC, sometime between 425 BC and 400 BC, probably closer to the beginning than to the end of this quarter-century. He was described by the Roman orator Cicero as the "Father of History". He was described by his successor, Thucydides (Thoukydides) as a story-teller.
> 
> I hope you in turn are aware that of the two, Thucydides is by far the better historian; I hope, in fact, that you have read either or both of them, in which case such suggestions on my part would not be necessary.



The better historian is a subjective opinion. Anyway, back to the point, Herodotus vs Megasthenes. 

Herodotus did not visit "India", but he wrote about a place that he believed was India. It was actually Pakistan, and he called this place India. He may have got accounts from other travellers. 

The point I'm trying to make here is that Herodotus was a very important Ancient Greek intellectual, much more so than Megasthenes. So the elite of Ancient Greece would have used his knowledge because of his pioneering ideas. 

When the Ancient Greeks refer to India, they don't mean modern day India. 



> The question here is not of whom among Herodotus and Megasthenes was considered the more important figure in the Ancient Greek hierarchy. Leaving aside the fact that there was actually no hierarchy, you are of course writing what you did with the full knowledge that one of them wrote, sitting in Greece, in the first half of the fifth century BC, sometime between 450 and 425 BC, and the other wrote after his ambassadorship to the places in question which was before 288 BC but not too far before.
> 
> I put it to you that the question is not of a mythical, manufactured hierarchy invented for the purposes of this argument by you, but of whether a remote look at a geography by an historian is of more weight than the accounts, the diplomatic report, to nod in the direction of Wikileaks, as it were, of an ambassador physically present in his reported location.
> 
> 
> I am afraid that I have to correct you on this: he was actually at the capital, Pataliputra, which he spells quite recognisably as Patlibothra, not at the provincial seat, Taxila, which was in revolt more than once.



Quite a few people think Megasthenes was Ambassador at Taxila. There's quite a bit of evidence for it. But even if it was Patna, I've accounted for this, and given you a best or worst case scenario.


----------



## LaBong

> Quite a few people think Megasthenes was Ambassador at Taxila. There's quite a bit of evidence for it. But even if it was Patna, I've accounted for this, and given you a best or worst case scenario.



Not sure if terms like _Quite a few_ and _quite a bit_ have any place in the discussion that is going on here. Let us not use generic terms when discussing history.


----------



## Pagla Dashu

Bang Galore said:


> Unfortunately, the guys at the *Sangh Parivar* are spot on about this one. Could not find something more apt than this. If you look at the seminal events of the last 30 years objectively, it is impossible not to call the policies of the Congess & the left anything but pseudo secular. The use of Brindanwale, the Shah Bano case, opening of the locks at Ayodhya cannot but be described as lunacy inspired by pseudo secular fantasies. The BJP's role in the Ayodhya issue was purely reactive, going far right of the Congess. knowing that it was a place where the Congress's communal pendulum did not reach. The Mandal issue was V.P. Singh's method of attemting to fragment the BJP's power base & the BJP's response was to attempt consolidation by upping the ante on the Ayodhya issue. The communists attempt to change demographics of the NE for vote bank politics is no less communal than what the BJP is accused of except that it also contained a streak of anti-nationalism within it. The Mulayam's, the Lalloo's & the Mayawathis are hardly paragons of secularism even if they are bestowed such accolades by either the left or the Congess. Who else? DMK?MQM? IUML? So who's secular?


Bangalorejee, your case is watertight. You don't have to go too far to highlight these _hypocrisies_. Just look at what Digvijay Singh is doing. Shamelessly playing sectarian politics using an Indian hero of 26/11.

But I personally would like to use the term 'hypocrites' to describe these political entities/personalities. 'Pseudo-secular' is an out and out political term, coined by the Sanghis to exclusively reflect a particular brand of politics and by using this term we would be unwittingly playing right into their hands. 

I think I would go with Joe this time around. 

PS: Lets not deviate too much from the fascinating topic about the term 'India'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> Up till this point, a lot of conceited self-praise. It doesn't mean anything



No, nothing at all, if you wish it not to mean anything.

You perhaps are aware that debates and logical argument, in public, with moderators, sometimes without, was a way of life in intellectual circles in those benighted locations that you have a fixed idea about. In all of these, it was customary to commence by establishing one's credentials and one's fitness to enter into conversation of this nature. 

Just to complete it, my guru parampara is Kuruvilla Zachariah, Susobhan Sarkar, and Ashin DasGupta. What, pray, is yours?

I have put my record on line, for whatever it is worth. Is it that you have nothing to put up in your turn, and so feel that this is all conceited self-praise?

Those who are older members of PDF will be aware that this is a periodic exercise for you, and that you have been through this cycle three years ago when you first joined. If my memory serves right, you mentioned that your post (on a parallel subject) was your first. What are you trying to do, check to see if facts change every three to five years? Much of what we are saying has been said three years ago. Remember?



roadrunner said:


> The better historian is a subjective opinion. Anyway, back to the point, Herodotus vs Megasthenes.



It depends on whose opinion we have to consider. Between your opinion and Thucydides, I prefer Thucydides. No doubt because I am prejudiced by an excessive exposure to history, and cannot bring to it the fresh, uncluttered approach that you do.



roadrunner said:


> Herodotus did not visit "India", but he wrote about a place that he believed was India. It was actually Pakistan, and he called this place India. He may have got accounts from other travellers.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make here is that Herodotus was a very important Ancient Greek intellectual, much more so than Megasthenes. So the elite of Ancient Greece would have used his knowledge because of his pioneering ideas.



Perhaps our idea of the elite is slightly different. My idea is of an intellectual elite, an elite capable of realising the difference between a desktop account, based on "accounts from other travellers", and a personal, first-hand account of an important dignitary who was familiar with the territory, living, as he did, as the house-guest of a border province governor.

The elite of Ancient Greece, I can assure you, knew the difference. They would have used pioneering ideas in philosophy, not in fact-based disciplines such as history and geography. Not for nothing was the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea so popular, considered - and rightly so - a far more accurate account of the lands and places listed than Herodotus. This in spite of the fact that it was an anonymous account, rather than one penned from second, third and worse hand accounts by the illustrious Herodotus.

The Ancient Greeks were not the imbeciles you make them out to be.



roadrunner said:


> When the Ancient Greeks refer to India, they don't mean modern day India.



Don't look now, but you have mentioned it, in passing, about a couple of hundred times before. It is unlikely that anyone will burst into tears on the, say, 300th repetition, and totter away, leaving you beating your manly breast in the arena, victor over all comers. It isn't _that_ kind of competition. Ask the Ancient Greeks if you aren't sure.

Also, I did say what I could about Megasthenes, apparently to little or no avail. Pity. Man wrote well, and in detail, about things that he knew first-hand.



roadrunner said:


> Quite a few people think Megasthenes was Ambassador at Taxila. There's quite a bit of evidence for it. But even if it was Patna, I've accounted for this, and given you a best or worst case scenario.



Quite a few people think that all known Indo-European languages originated in India, and travelled out to all parts of the world. There are kooks everywhere. There is, on the other hand, an historical consensus, a general sense by most historians on what is the most likely, and it is better to stick to that.

If you take to quoting lunatic fringe writers of your choice, you do realise that it will open you to the unwelcome attentions of the zombies who abound who specialise in lunatic fringe writers of their own. I won't be around to protect you, having hurled myself off the Acropolis to take my place in the shades with the Ancient Greek elite.

Before this gets under your skin, could I sincerely suggest knitting as a pastime? It is so soothing and - how do I put it? - tangle-free.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## shuntmaster

roadrunner said:


> Herodotus did not visit "India", but he wrote about a place that he believed was India. *It was actually Pakistan*, and he called this place India. He may have got accounts from other travellers.
> 
> 
> When the Ancient Greeks refer to India, they don't mean modern day India.


Maybe Herodotus made that big mistake, because he had never heard of the word 'Pakistan'. 




roadrunner said:


> Quite a few people think Megasthenes was Ambassador at Taxila. There's quite a bit of evidence for it. But even if it was Patna, I've accounted for this, and given you a best or worst case scenario.


Takshashila was only a university during Megasthenes time and Pataliputra (Patna) was the capital of the Nanda/Maurayan empire, which included 'ancient Pakistan', when Megastenes was their ambassador. Why would he be based in a university town instead of the capital city?


----------



## Rafi

It is indeed awe inspiring to note the effect Ancient Pakistan had on the development of civilization.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Rafi said:


> It is indeed awe inspiring to note the effect Ancient Pakistan had on the development of civilization.



It is, indeed. 

From your comment, you are sensitive to culture and to aspects of civilisation. I am sure that you will enjoy seeing the excavation site of Troy, a contribution, as you well know, of *Ancient Turkey* to civilisation, or to the ruins of the great cities of Asia Minor, the cave cities of Cappadocia, for example, more contributions of *Ancient Turkey.* It is irrelevant that there were no Turks there in those; they still happen to be *Ancient Turkey*, because the sites are today in Turkey, and they were constructed in Ancient times, so its simple arithmetic really, no big deal, Ancient + Turkey = Ancient Turkey.

If your preference is for greater antiquity, you might want to examine the ruins of Sumer, of Assyria, of Babylon, all remnants of *Ancient Iraq*, not to mention the discoveries at the sites of Dilmun, clearly and visibly *Ancient Bahrain*. Further out, you will find the ancient statue of the Pharaoh Taharqa deep in southern Sudan, a relic of the Pharaonic culture and civilisation of *Ancient Sudan*. Or you might like to swing further west, across the desert, and visit the ruins of Leptis Magna, part of the great civilisation spanning the Mediterranean and running along present-day Germany, Austria, Hungary and the Danube, the great empire of *Ancient Tunis*.

Something transatlantic can be worked out, and you can go and visit the signs of *Ancient Greenland*, and wonder how they spanned the entire Atlantic, dominated the entire seaboard of an entire continent in their dragon boats, and finally put down permanent settlements in Normandy, in England, even in Sicily.

Or you might want to come down places nearer us, and check out the intriguing and mysterious mummies around the Tien Shan mountains, all Tocharian remnants of *Ancient Xinjiang.* Some delicacy and caution is advised, because not all all-weather friendships might survive these cultural cross-currents; after all, as the Kushanas, these same mummies belong to the race already claimed by *Ancient Pakistan*. I am sure something can be worked out. 

I am happy to inform you that a veritable feast awaits your eagerly waiting mind and heart. Good luck and bon voyage. Do let us know when you return, so that we may gather around a campfire to hear your traveller's tales, and how there are men with one leg, and others who sleep under the shade of their own ears. And don't forget the foxes who harvest gold for their masters, or our mentor in this thread might get very, very annoyed at our ignoring the no 1 in the international ratings, the holder of the highest TRPs, the highest history ELO rating holder - wait for it - the one and only, the unmatched, the peerless, the one who knew more than others after him or those on the spot - Ancient H. We couldn't have that, could we?

PS: Silly me! I forgot to tell you about *Ancient Hashemite Jordan *with its cities in the desert, which proves that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which has been such a good friend of Pakistan through the decades past, was an even greater friend of Pakistan when both of them were ancient. As you remember, I am sure, the Nabataeans, who built and ran the cities, Petra, for instance, were the original masters of the trade with Pakistan, right down to Muziris.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ironman

^^^ Well, Joe that was like..

youtube.com/watch?v=fTyIKnRQdx0

Show some mercy.


----------



## Joe Shearer

ironman said:


> ^^^ Well, Joe that was like..
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=fTyIKnRQdx0
> 
> Show some mercy.



Why?

Do you think my post was inappropriately violent? Should I have toned it down a bit, perhaps? 

Maybe if I changed everything from *Ancient* to *Mediaeval*, it might sound more cheerful?

It's all a hideous misunderstanding.


----------



## Rafi

Joe Shearer said:


> It is, indeed.
> 
> From your comment, you are sensitive to culture and to aspects of civilisation. I am sure that you will enjoy seeing the excavation site of Troy, a contribution, as you well know, of *Ancient Turkey* to civilisation, or to the ruins of the great cities of Asia Minor, the cave cities of Cappadocia, for example, more contributions of *Ancient Turkey.* It is irrelevant that there were no Turks there in those; they still happen to be *Ancient Turkey*, because the sites are today in Turkey, and they were constructed in Ancient times, so its simple arithmetic really, no big deal, Ancient + Turkey = Ancient Turkey.
> 
> If your preference is for greater antiquity, you might want to examine the ruins of Sumer, of Assyria, of Babylon, all remnants of *Ancient Iraq*, not to mention the discoveries at the sites of Dilmun, clearly and visibly *Ancient Bahrain*. Further out, you will find the ancient statue of the Pharaoh Taharqa deep in southern Sudan, a relic of the Pharaonic culture and civilisation of *Ancient Sudan*. Or you might like to swing further west, across the desert, and visit the ruins of Leptis Magna, part of the great civilisation spanning the Mediterranean and running along present-day Germany, Austria, Hungary and the Danube, the great empire of *Ancient Tunis*.
> 
> Something transatlantic can be worked out, and you can go and visit the signs of *Ancient Greenland*, and wonder how they spanned the entire Atlantic, dominated the entire seaboard of an entire continent in their dragon boats, and finally put down permanent settlements in Normandy, in England, even in Sicily.
> 
> Or you might want to come down places nearer us, and check out the intriguing and mysterious mummies around the Tien Shan mountains, all Tocharian remnants of *Ancient Xinjiang.* Some delicacy and caution is advised, because not all all-weather friendships might survive these cultural cross-currents; after all, as the Kushanas, these same mummies belong to the race already claimed by *Ancient Pakistan*. I am sure something can be worked out.
> 
> I am happy to inform you that a veritable feast awaits your eagerly waiting mind and heart. Good luck and bon voyage. Do let us know when you return, so that we may gather around a campfire to hear your traveller's tales, and how there are men with one leg, and others who sleep under the shade of their own ears. And don't forget the foxes who harvest gold for their masters, or our mentor in this thread might get very, very annoyed at our ignoring the no 1 in the international ratings, the holder of the highest TRPs, the highest history ELO rating holder - wait for it - the one and only, the unmatched, the peerless, the one who knew more than others after him or those on the spot - Ancient H. We couldn't have that, could we?
> 
> PS: Silly me! I forgot to tell you about *Ancient Hashemite Jordan *with its cities in the desert, which proves that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which has been such a good friend of Pakistan through the decades past, was an even greater friend of Pakistan when both of them were ancient. As you remember, I am sure, the Nabataeans, who built and ran the cities, Petra, for instance, were the original masters of the trade with Pakistan, right down to Muziris.



Why, thank you Joe, it is indeed marvellous to see what the Ancient Pakistanis - ie the people of the Indus - achieved, and the more than 5,000 years of continual civilization. 

And we Pakistanis are sons of *our* soil, what we find very fascinating is our eastern neighbours attempt to co-opt our historical heritage. It being obvious that the modern state of india - has the exclusive heritage of bharat, which is the heritage of todays india.


----------



## Rafi

Our forefathers have shown their greatness - and the uniqueness of the people and culture of the Indus Valley, from the rest of the so-called Sub-Continent - clearly show that in one form or another, Pakistan has been a de facto reality back to time immemorial.


----------



## Rafi

Clearly the fact that indian contentions regarding our heritage, and our rejection of them, has hit a raw nerve, the fact that our indian friends are constantly trying to prove their non existent link to our civilization, has caused a few of our esteemed colleagues on to become highly agitated. 

Not to worry, in the coming years and decades - there is sure to be discoveries made, regarding ancient india/bharat that will cause the many proud indians to swell out their chests, and beam from ear to ear with pride. 

but until that time, they will continue to try to appropriate our history, which makes one sad - ancient bharat does seem somewhat barren of achievement. But with passionate and nationalistic people like Mr Shearer - they will be sure to rustle up some tit bits. 

Good Luck and God Speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

> It being obvious that the modern state of india - has the heritage of bharat, which is the heritage of todays india.



You DO understand that the term 'bharat' in it's _ancient _context also encompasses _ancient Pakistan_ into it's fold, don't you? 

Akhand Bharat FTW!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Rafi said:


> Why, thank you Joe, it is indeed marvellous to see what the Ancient Pakistanis - ie the people of the Indus - achieved, and the more than 5,000 years of continual civilization.



Of course it is.

And next year you may have more shiny new planes, and can be part of Ancient Egypt and Ancient China as well. 

It is indeed marvellous to see what pictures on a plane's tail can prove to the simple of heart - and mind.



Rafi said:


> And we Pakistanis are sons of *our* soil, what we find very fascinating is our eastern neighbours attempt to co-opt our historical heritage. It being obvious that the modern state of india - has the heritage of bharat, which is the heritage of todays india.



I am sure that you will find more fascinating things as you set out on the tour that I have suggested to you. You will do well to concentrate on leaving an historical heritage of your own - any heritage at all - instead of being fascinated so fast at so many things, but then - there's always the consolation that you did so well the first 4, 940 years of your 5,000 year history. It's enough to make up for the rest.



Rafi said:


> Our forefathers have shown their greatness - and the uniqueness of the people and culture of the Indus Valley, from the rest of the so-called Sub-Continent - clearly show that in one form or another, Pakistan has been a de facto reality back to time immemorial.



My mean little professors completely forgot to teach me that you had invented printing - and currency notes at that - in the Indus Civilisation.

Good for you! Lovely notes, by the way. Would you like a contract printing all the Indian 1,000 rupee and 500 rupee notes? I know a bloke in Karachi who can help us with this one......

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Joe Shearer said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> And next year you may have more shiny new planes, and can be part of Ancient Egypt and Ancient China as well.
> 
> It is indeed marvellous to see what pictures on a plane's tail can prove to the simple of heart - and mind.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that you will find more fascinating things as you set out on the tour that I have suggested to you. You will do well to concentrate on leaving an historical heritage of your own - any heritage at all - instead of being fascinated so fast at so many things, but then - there's always the consolation that you did so well the first 4, 940 years of your 5,000 year history. It's enough to make up for the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> My mean little professors completely forgot to teach me that you had invented printing - and currency notes at that - in the Indus Civilisation.
> 
> Good for you! Lovely notes, by the way. Would you like a contract printing all the Indian 1,000 rupee and 500 rupee notes? I know a bloke in Karachi who can help us with this one......



Yes, they are lovely notes, regarding the contract for indian rupees, I think I might put in a bid - business is business after all. 

It is indeed fascinating what justification cultural theft can inspire in our eastern neighbours.

And FYI we have done much better for the most part of the last 60 years - and once the WOT is over - we will go back to a high growth tragectory Inshallah.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Rafi said:


> Yes, they are lovely notes, regarding the contract for indian rupees, I think I might put in a bid - business is business after all.



Wouldn't do to have a monopoly, would it?



Rafi said:


> It is indeed fascinating what justification cultural theft can inspire in our eastern neighbours.



Have you parsed your sentence? What does it mean? Or are we to believe that your English skills match your historical knowledge?



Rafi said:


> And FYI we have done much better for the most part of the last 60 years - and once the WOT is over - we will go back to a high growth tragectory Inshallah.



Of course you will. Your printing industry and aircraft tail painting industries by themselves will take your economy soaring into the past. 

A question in parting: did you understand even a little bit of what passed by under your nose in the last week or ten days? I know the answer from your last three posts, but just want to know how you will word it in your own words.

===========================================
Unfortunately, this is my last post on this subject. I have tried to explain the gross errors - and they have been gross, not fine - of history knowledge and of analysis that have been put forward, and believe that I have covered every point. Except for being told, after very careful and detailed explanations regarding the facts, the very same thing in the very next statement, there has not been much interaction. This leads me to believe that there is a lot of frantic mugging up and imperfect understanding of history that lies behind these sadly immature efforts. 

When obvious amateurs and dunderheads start showing me painted planes' tails and printed currency notes in order to prove that they are responsible for some historical event or the other, it is time to leave. *Even a retard would look at the Dravidian features of the pert little dancer on the plane tails, and come to his own conclusions himself.* But this is beyond that point of infantilism. It does not seem to be an historical problem, it is a rhetorical, theological one. It is not history driving this debate on one side, my opposite side. It is some other motivation. Against such anti-historical motivation, my knowledge and learning, humble though these are, is of no consequence. I will not be able to participate in any further correspondence on this subject. Those with genuine questions or doubts can find me at 

bonobashi@yahoo.co.in

What of the pack? They need to be dealt with by parallel fan-boys, and no doubt there will be a food fight on this thread. I lack the equipment for it.

A great pity, there were moments when I reached back to the very deepest parts of my discipline. But *c'est la vie*!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Rafi

Joe Shearer said:


> Wouldn't do to have a monopoly, would it?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you parsed your sentence? What does it mean? Or are we to believe that your English skills match your historical knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you will. Your printing industry and aircraft tail painting industries by themselves will take your economy soaring into the past.
> 
> A question in parting: did you understand even a little bit of what passed by under your nose in the last week or ten days? I know the answer from your last three posts, but just want to know how you will word it in your own words.
> 
> ===========================================
> Unfortunately, this is my last post on this subject. I have tried to explain the gross errors - and they have been gross, not fine - of history knowledge and of analysis that have been put forward, and believe that I have covered every point. Except for being told, after very careful and detailed explanations regarding the facts, the very same thing in the very next statement, there has not been much interaction. This leads me to believe that there is a lot of frantic mugging up and imperfect understanding of history that lies behind these sadly immature efforts.
> 
> When obvious amateurs and dunderheads start showing me painted planes' tails and printed currency notes in order to prove that they are responsible for some historical event or the other, it is time to leave. *Even a retard would look at the Dravidian features of the pert little dancer on the plane tails, and come to his own conclusions himself.* But this is beyond that point of infantilism. It does not seem to be an historical problem, it is a rhetorical, theological one. It is not history driving this debate on one side, my opposite side. It is some other motivation. Against such anti-historical motivation, my knowledge and learning, humble though these are, is of no consequence. I will not be able to participate in any further correspondence on this subject. Those with genuine questions or doubts can find me at
> 
> bonobashi@yahoo.co.in
> 
> What of the pack? They need to be dealt with by parallel fan-boys, and no doubt there will be a food fight on this thread. I lack the equipment for it.
> 
> A great pity, there were moments when I reached back to the very deepest parts of my discipline. But *c'est la vie*!



Indeed your bitterness is etched into your post, I can actually visualise you hammering your keyboard in frustration. 

History like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and you behold something very strange indeed. Modern india's attempt to co-opt our history and culture into it's own, I find very sad this obsession, and am forced to think again, that surely bharat which is rightly part and parcel of modern india - will satisfy our indian friends urge for a link to the past. 

If ancient india does not have awe inspiring artefacts, it is not therefore right to appropriate our cultural heritage. 

And I repeat what I said earlier, with nationalistic and earnest indians such as Mr Shearer - ready to carry the tricolour onward and upward in the field of indian history and archaeology, I'm sure any day now they will be able to rustle up some very awe inspiring revelations. 

Till than much luck and God Speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Regarding the pert little dancer, her ethnicity or cultural heritage are not clear, but you must have great powers of perception in deducing her Dravidian origins, how truly marvellous, indeed your powers of investigation show, that a career in Interpol or the FBI are in order. 

In my opinion, the girl is a slave - and then there is the bust of the priest/patrician 






Who's features are not Dravidian at all, it is quite clear that the people and their modern descendants are the erstwhile inheritors of probably one of the oldest urban civilizations in the known world.


----------



## BudWiser

LOL nice thread. Looks like Pakistanis are no longer content in being the "pure land" of Islam anymore. Apparently they have realized that their disgusting Hindoo ancestors had something of value.


----------



## aviator

Rafi said:


> Clearly the fact that indian contentions regarding our heritage, and our rejection of them, has hit a raw nerve, the fact that our indian friends are constantly trying to prove their non existent link to our civilization, has caused a few of our esteemed colleagues on to become highly agitated.
> 
> Not to worry, in the coming years and decades - there is sure to be discoveries made, regarding ancient india/bharat that will cause the many proud indians to swell out their chests, and beam from ear to ear with pride.
> 
> but until that time, they will continue to try to appropriate our history, which makes one sad - ancient bharat does seem somewhat barren of achievement. But with passionate and nationalistic people like Mr Shearer - they will be sure to rustle up some tit bits.



Pakistanis living in Sindh/Punjab are in majority REALLY sindhis/Punjabis(i.e descendants of people from Indus Valley civilization) or outsiders, first decide that because in many threads it is pakistanis who tend to prove that siginificant fraction of pakistani population may have their roots in armies of foreign invaders who came to sub-continent. 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/genera...4292-we-pakistanis-indians-3.html#post1333639

I am afraid George Bush is American but not Mayan.


----------



## BudWiser

Obviously there's a lot of "foreign" mixing and matching over the centuries in Pak Punjab and Sindh but really that's besides the point. Most of these guys are stuck between trying their hardest to become Arabs but at the same time having to somehow dissociate their pre-Islamic history from India in order to keep the myth of their "separatness" going. Usually resorting to racial stuff "we are taller/fairer"  or "we were not hindus but something else" or "we were always buddhists and you were always hindus" etc. etc.

Re: the name India, everybody who has studied history knows that it applied to the region east of the Indus river. Maybe in the very initial stage the Greeks used it for the regions which they had discovered. Big effing deal. What about the rest of 2000+ years? I don't know why this debate is still going.


----------



## Tameem

BudWiser said:


> Re: the name India, everybody who has studied history knows that it applied to the region east of the Indus river.


Absolutely...YES and within the frontier of great desert!! As of Pre-historians their is no country beyond desert.






BudWiser said:


> I don't know why this debate is still going.



That's What we asking to people like you and others.



I think some people make it an issue of their ego over nothing.


----------



## BudWiser

^Dude are you daft? What about when the Greeks (and the rest of the world) discovered the REST OF INDIA? 

I suppose you'll now say that the grain of sand which the first Greek explorer saw was called "India" and nothing more than that


----------



## BudWiser

Flintlock said:


> *Pliny: Position, Boundaries, and Physical Characteristics of India
> *
> BOOK VI. c. 17 (21). But where the chain of Hemodus rises the communities are settled, and the nations of India, which begin there, *adjoin not only the eastern sea but also the southern, which we have already mentioned under the name of the Indian Ocean.* That part which faces the east runs in a straight line to the bend where the Indian Ocean begins, and measures 1875 miles. *Then from this bend to the south up to the river Indus, which forms the western boundary of India,* the distance, as given by Eratosthenes, is 2475 miles. *But many authors have represented the total length of its coast as being a sail of forty days and forty nights, and its length from north to south as being 2850 miles*. Agrippa has estimated its length at 3300 miles, and its breadth at 2300. Poseidonios has measured it from north-east to south-east, placing it opposite to Gaul, which he was measuring from north-west to south-west, making the whole of India lie to west of Gaul. Hence he has shown by undoubted proofs that India being opposite to Gaul must be refreshed by the blowing of the west wind, and have in consequence a salubrious climate. Here the appearance of the heavens is entirely changed, and the stars rise differently; there are two summers in the year, and two harvests having winter between them, while the Etesian winds are prevalent; and during our winter the breezes there are light and the seas navigable. In this country the nations and cities are numberless should one attempt to reckon them all up. It was opened up to our knowledge not only by the arms of Alexander the Great and of the kings who succeeded him, Seleucus and Antiochus, as well as by their admiral Patrokles who sailed round even into the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, but also by certain Greek authors, who resided with Indian kings, such as Megasthenes, and Dionysius who was sent by Philadelphus, and have thus informed us of the power and resources of the Indian nations. However, there is no room for a careful examination of their statements, they are so diverse and incredible. The companions of Alexander the Great have written that in that *tract of India, which he subdued, there were 5000 towns, none less than Cos--that its nations were nine in number-*-that India was the third part of all the world, and that the multitude of its inhabitants was past reckoning. For this there was probably a good reason, since the Indians almost alone among the nations have never emigrated from their own borders. Their kings from Father Bacchus down to Alexander the Great are reckoned at 153 over a space of 6451 years and three months. The vast size of their rivers fills the mind with wonder. It is recorded that Alexander on no day had sailed on the Indus less than 600 stadia, and was unable to reach its mouth in less than five months and a few days, and yet it appears that it is smaller than the *Ganges*. Seneca, who was our fellow-citizen and composed a treatise on India, h*as given the number of its rivers at 60, and that of its nations at 118. *It would be as great a difficulty should we attempt to enumerate its mountains. The chains of Imavos, Hemodus, Paropanisus, and Caucasus are mutually connected, and from their base the whole country sinks down into a plain of immense extent and bears a great resemblance to Egypt. But that our account of the geography of these regions may be better understood, we shall tread in the steps of Alexander the Great, whose marches were measured by Diognetes and Baeton.
> 
> BooK II. c. 73 (75). In the same way they inform us that in the town of Syene, which is 5000 stadia south of Alexandria, no shadow is cast at noon on the day of the solstice, and that a well dug for the purpose of the experiment was completely illuminated, from which it appears that the sun is vertical at that place, and Onesicritus writes that in India this is the case at that time at the river Hypasis. . . . In the country of the Oretes, a people of India, is the mountain Maleus, near which shadows in the summer are cast to the south and in winter to the north. The stars of the Great Bear are visible there for fifteen days only.* In India also, at Patala, a celebrated port, the sun rises on the right hand and the shadows fall to the south.* It was observed, while Alexander was staying there the seven stars of the Bear were seen only at the early part of the evening. Onesicritus, one of his generals, states that in those parts of India where there are no shadows the Bear is not seen; these places, he says, are called 'ascia,' and time there is not reckoned by hours.
> 
> C. 108 (112). One part of the earth . . . stretches out to the greatest extent from east to west, that is, from India to the Pillars of Hercules at Gades, being a distance of 8578 miles according to Artemidorus, but according to Isidorus 9818 miles.
> 
> Book VI. c. 16 (18). This nation (the Bactrian) lies at the back of Mount Paropanisus over against the sources of the river Indus.
> 
> *From: McCrindle, J. W. Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature. Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1901, 107-110.*



There we go. Some dude has already cleared up the confusion on Page 1. Looks like people don't want to see the obvious


----------



## Tameem

BudWiser said:


> ^Dude are you daft? What about when the Greeks (and the rest of the world) discovered the REST OF INDIA?
> 
> I suppose you'll now say that the grain of sand which the first Greek explorer saw was called "India" and nothing more than that



Keep going.






& serve your ego...


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tameem said:


> Absolutely...YES and within the frontier of great desert!! As of Pre-historians their is no country beyond desert.



This is what happens when we jump in without knowing the territory.The argument is about the use of the name 'India'. The name 'India' was historical, not pre-historical. So where is the question of pre-historians (presumably by that you mean the people who lived then) thinking that there is no country beyond the desert? Whether or not they did so didn't matter, because they also did not use the name 'India'; that came about only with the Greeks identifying diverse elements in the Achaemenid imperial army.




Tameem said:


> That's What we asking to people like you and others.
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people make it an issue of their ego over nothing.



I am sure some of you Pakistanis think so. Nobody else does.


----------



## indianpatriot

arey bhai india=afganistan to myanmar and kashmir to sri lanka
its a subcontienent who first anicent civilization came in 3800BC in gujarat+sarwaswatibasi+gangetic plains!!!!!!!!


----------



## 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

We claim the invaders as well as the indigenous, it is our right, the Islamic Civilization in our country is the product of the mixing of both these influences. 

And our ancestors were largely, independent from bharat for most of our history, only short periods of empire - had us together. 

There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth.


----------



## absmonarch

Wrong!

Ancient Sindh and Punjab was part of Ancient India. Balochistan and Pashtun region part of Invader/foreign empire.

Pakistan is half-half country. Half in ancient India and half in ancient Persia/Bactria.

Ancient India half's history is part of Indian history and part of Pakistan history.


----------



## Rafi

absmonarch said:


> Wrong!
> 
> Ancient Sindh and Punjab was part of Ancient India. Balochistan and Pashtun region part of Invader/foreign empire.
> 
> Pakistan is half-half country. Half in ancient India and half in ancient Persia/Bactria.
> 
> Ancient India half's history is part of Indian history and part of Pakistan history.



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

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

The Indus Valley is unique and separate from bharat - 

Indus Valley equals Ancient Pakistan (9,000 years of history) equals Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan. 

Totally different from bharat = modern india.


----------



## Rafi

There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth 

It is a total fallacy, that the subcontinent was or is a mono-culture, what does a Tamil have in common with a Punjabi, or a Kashmiri with UP - nothing at all......


----------



## absmonarch

Pakistani authors twist and misrepresent history to prove wrong thing.

Eastern part of Pakistan part of Ancient India. India did not steal the name. The name always exist for 2300 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> Wrong!
> 
> Ancient Sindh and Punjab was part of Ancient India. Balochistan and Pashtun region part of Invader/foreign empire.
> 
> Pakistan is half-half country. Half in ancient India and half in ancient Persia/Bactria.
> 
> Ancient India half's history is part of Indian history and part of Pakistan history.



Do you have any good references to backup your claim or just lies and fabrication


----------



## Rafi

Rafi said:


> There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth
> 
> It is a total fallacy, that the subcontinent was or is a mono-culture, what does a Tamil have in common with a Punjabi, or a Kashmiri with UP - nothing at all......



^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the truth my friend, the Pakistan Civilization is unique and different, and has a 9,000 year old history. We are as different from bharat, as a French Man is to a Korean..


----------



## absmonarch

I posted evidence of ancient map. That is rock-solid evidence.

You are blind, do not want to believe the truth that Eastern half of Pakistan always part of Ancient India.

Even foreign invaders like Mughals recognize this fact and call it "Hindustan" - derived from "India".

British also recognize this and call it "India".


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> Pakistani authors twist and misrepresent history to prove wrong thing.
> 
> Eastern part of Pakistan part of Ancient India. India did not steal the name. The name always exist for 2300 years.



Eastern pakistan is indeed ancient india because the greeks(alexander empire) gave this name to people of indus valley i.e. punjab and sindh, the greeks called the inhabitants of ganga as Ganderites and prasii, they didn't call you indians, read the history by Plutarch and dionysis


----------



## absmonarch

Read the work by Father of Geography Eratosthenes who identify "Ancient India" properly in map.

Different kingdom people of Ancient India have different names, but collectively always "India".

Megasthenes, Greek ambassador to Mauryan kingdom at Pataliputra also call "India".


----------



## Ghoster

what Pakistanis saying Indus civilization purely as Pakistani civilization is not true............moreover it wasn't actually Indus civilization.

if you check the map you can find a dis-appropriate more settlements on eastern side of Indus than in western side .how could this happen if the civilization was centerd around indus.

it was actually centered around river saraswathy whose existence is proved by scientist

it was drying up of this river which cause the end of civilization not some AIT.


----------



## PureAryan

absmonarch said:


> I posted evidence of ancient map. That is rock-solid evidence.
> 
> You are blind, do not want to believe the truth that Eastern half of Pakistan always part of Ancient India.
> 
> Even foreign invaders like Mughals recognize this fact and call it "Hindustan" - derived from "India".
> 
> British also recognize this and call it "India".



your history knowledge is quite limited and this is probably my last post to you, the word Hindu comes from sindhu, it was a secular term not a religious term untill british came in 1800's, the name was given to Sindh (lower indus Valley region) rather than the Indian subcontinent by Sassanid persians Empire, The sassanids occupied Sindh in early 200AD and ruled for few centuries, When mughals came they applied name hindustan over all of northen india


----------



## Ghoster

so what?
i was replying to indus valley being categorised as a purely pakistan-only civilization which is not the case


----------



## absmonarch

Yes. Ancient Ghaggar- Hakra (Saraswati) river was primary river of Harappan civilization not Indus.

Most of the settlement are found on the banks of this river which flows through India and Pakistan. 

Majority of settlements are found in the desert region of eastern Pakistan. Not many people live here and partition boundary arbitrarily divide the region. It could have gone to India then India would become "center" of civilization.


----------



## Rafi

There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth


----------



## absmonarch

Then why it was called "partition" in 1947? You cannot change history to suit your own idea.

Jinnah never talked about Pakistan being always separate. He only talk about Pakistan as homeland for muslims of India. That is the real Pakistan, not the new Zia ul Haq definition of Islamic Theocracy or Protector of Islam.

We Indian don't want to merge with Pakistan. We are very happy in current border. But that does not change the fact of history.


----------



## arihant

Rafi said:


> There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth



You can't change history. India has been appointed as successor state of UN. British India seat was transferred to India. If you see UN official record, India is found member of UN and is member since 30 October 1945 while Pakistan is member since 30 September 1947.

This should clear your doubts. You should know that same basic was applied with USSR. When USSR was divided, USSR seat was transferred to Russia. So, Russia is successor state of Russia. Countries like Ukraine can't claim itself as equal or successor state.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PureAryan said:


> your history knowledge is quite limited and this is probably my last post to you, the word Hindu comes from sindhu, it was a secular term not a religious term untill british came in 1800's, the name was given to Sindh (lower indus Valley region) rather than the Indian subcontinent by Sassanid persians Empire, The sassanids occupied Sindh in early 200AD and ruled for few centuries, When mughals came they applied name hindustan over all of northen india



What a scholarly flourish!

The name Sindhu was Rg Vedic and Sindh was a usage of the Indo-Aryan Sanskrit branch of the language.

Iranians, of the earliest period of which we know of any recognition of India, called the same land the Hapta-Hindu, instead of the Rg Vedic Sapta Sindhu, and called the people Hindu (the Rg Veda had no equivalent term, as like many other examples throughout the world, it had no specific term for its own people).

The Iranians who referred to the land of the Hapta-Hindu, who recruited soldiers from these Indus Valley locations, and who introduced the Greeks to the possibility of a country, or a cultural centre, or a geographical area called India, were the Achaemenids, who ruled from ancient times until 324 BC. The Sassanids were very new to the block.

There is no difference, *none whatsoever,* between the residents of the sub-continent of South Asia and the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Culture, with the exception of the Pushto, the Baluch and the Parsis. This is according to a study of haplotypes available in Pakistan, conducted as a follow-up and local specialisation in the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza studies of genetic types in different regions.


----------



## Rig Vedic

*Ptolemy world map, 150 AD.*


----------



## aakash_2410

No no this is just another load of cra*!
As you would know that Jinnah did agree not to seperate from from india if, from karachi to kolkata and from kashmir to kanya kumari pakistani flag was hoisted. And muslim league was ruling party in delhi. And most importantly the name of the country would've been changed to PAKISTAN!! So, this just goes to show that indian leaders did not CHOOSE the name india but it was Jinnah who chose his seperate country for muslims to be called PAKISTAN!


----------



## Rafi

The claims of indians aside, we Pakistanis know the truth and that is for the vast majority of 9,000 years - Pakistan has been independent of bharat.


----------



## absmonarch

If your truth = ignore all facts, then yes you know truth.

But that truth is not truth, just blind belief


----------



## Joe Shearer

absmonarch said:


> If your truth = ignore all facts, then yes you know truth.
> 
> But that truth is not truth, just blind belief



A very close assessment, yet not close enough! Try this one:

_In arguing too, the parson own'd his skill,
*For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still;*
While words of learned length and thund'ring sound
Amazed the gazing rustics rang'd around;
_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

The Soanian is an archaeological culture of the Lower Paleolithic (ca. 500,000 to 1,250,000 BC), contemporary to the Acheulean. It is named after the Soan Valley in the Sivalik Hills, near modern-day Islamabad/Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The bearers of this culture were Homo erectus. In Adiyala and Khasala, about 16 kilometers (10 miles) from Rawalpindi, on the bend of the Soan River hundreds of edged pebble tools were discovered. 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 on display at the Natural History Museum in Islamabad.


----------



## Rafi

Mehrgarh, (Urdu: &#1605;*&#64425;*&#1585;&#1711;&#1681;&#1726; , Brahui: Mehrga&#341;h) one of the most important Neolithic (7000 BC to c. 2500 BC) sites in archaeology, lies on what is now the "Kachi plain" of today's Balochistan, Pakistan. It is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in South Asia."[1].


A relief map of Pakistan showing Mehrgarh.


Early farming village in Mehrgarh, c. 7000 BCE, with houses built with mud bricks. (Mus&#233;e Guimet, Paris).
The site is located near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day Pakistani cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi. Mehrgarh was discovered in 1974 by an archaeological team directed by French archaeologist Jean-Fran&#231;ois Jarrige, and was excavated continuously between 1974 and 1986. The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh&#8212;in the northeast corner of the 495-acre (2.00 km2) site&#8212;was a small farming village dated between 7000 BCE&#8211;5500 BCE.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

BARDS of Passion and of Mirth, 
Ye have left your souls on earth! 
Have ye souls in heaven too, 
Doubled-lived in regions new? 
Yes, and those of heaven commune 
With the spheres of sun and moon; 
With the noise of fountains wondrous, 
And the parle of voices thund'rous; 
With the whisper of heaven's trees 
And one another, in soft ease 
Seated on Elysian lawns 
Browsed by none but Dian's fawns; 
Underneath large blue-bells tented, 
Where the daisies are rose-scented, 
And the rose herself has got 
Perfume which on earth is not; 
Where the nightingale doth sing 
Not a senseless, tranced thing, 
But divine melodious truth; 
Philosophic numbers smooth; 
Tales and golden histories 
Of heaven and its mysteries. 

Thus ye live on high, and then 
On the earth ye live again; 
And the souls ye left behind you 
Teach us, here, the way to find you, 
Where your other souls are joying, 
Never slumber'd, never cloying. 
Here, your earth-born souls still speak 
To mortals, of their little week; 
Of their sorrows and delights; 
Of their passions and their spites; 
Of their glory and their shame; 
What doth strengthen and what maim. 
Thus ye teach us, every day, 
Wisdom, though fled far away. 

Bards of Passion and of Mirth, 
Ye have left your souls on earth! 
Ye have souls in heaven too, 
Double-lived in regions new! 

Keats


----------



## PureAryan

Joe Shearer said:


> What a scholarly flourish!
> 
> The name Sindhu was Rg Vedic and Sindh was a usage of the Indo-Aryan Sanskrit branch of the language.
> 
> Iranians, of the earliest period of which we know of any recognition of India, called the same land the Hapta-Hindu, instead of the Rg Vedic Sapta Sindhu, and called the people Hindu (the Rg Veda had no equivalent term, as like many other examples throughout the world, it had no specific term for its own people).
> 
> The Iranians who referred to the land of the Hapta-Hindu, who recruited soldiers from these Indus Valley locations, and who introduced the Greeks to the possibility of a country, or a cultural centre, or a geographical area called India, were the Achaemenids, who ruled from ancient times until 324 BC. The Sassanids were very new to the block.
> 
> There is no difference, *none whatsoever,* between the residents of the sub-continent of South Asia and the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Culture, with the exception of the Pushto, the Baluch and the Parsis. This is according to a study of haplotypes available in Pakistan, conducted as a follow-up and local specialisation in the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza studies of genetic types in different regions.



I know there is no point of having a discusssion with you, i will give a last try.
The name sapta sindhwa was only applied to punjab and sindh not to the entire sub-continent. The persians and greeks didn't know anything about land that lay beyond punjab.
Wrong again
The first time the word hindu was used aroud 262 AD when it was mentioned as an area in Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription of Shapur 1, the sassanid ruler, The inscription enlists the area conquered by Sassanid emperor who defeated Kushans. The name hindustan was only applied to sindh not to punjab because sassanids only occupied sindh.A sourcebook of Indian civilization - Google Books

I agree there is no diference between people of subcontinent, but pakistanis are not south asian, Pakistanis are south Central Asian, culturally, historically, ethnically, geographically, and all follow same religion.
Ofcourse you disagree to all what i have written.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PureAryan said:


> I know there is no point of having a discusssion with you, i will give a last try.



Please keep your promise - let it be your last. 

Being confronted with Google scholars in season and out of season is irritating in the extreme. There is no harm in resorting to Wikipedia on an area on which one has no expertise, in order to get one's bearings, but this has to be subject to the opinions of those trained in the disciplines concerned, and the fine details in Wikipedia should not be brandished under the noses of others as possessing any legitimacy beyond a preliminary direction to further research.



PureAryan said:


> The name sapta sindhwa was only applied to punjab and sindh not to the entire sub-continent.



True. And you failed to get the linguistic point, like some others earlier: neither did the term Hapta-Hindu refer to the whole sub-continent. The term Hindu, in its late mediaeval connotations, meaning black man, did refer to residents of the whole sub-continent. Hapta-Hindu was Avestan, about 2000 BC to 1500 BC; the other connotation may be as late as Sassanian.



PureAryan said:


> The persians and greeks didn't know anything about land that lay beyond punjab.



Both the Persians, due to their occupation and rule of cis-Indus territory, and the Greeks, due to their explorations, knew about land that lay beyond Punjab. There are _profuse _citations of historical literature and of old geographical tracts, even maps based on those old tracts, which have been reproduced here; there is no longer any excuse for pretended ignorance about Persian and Greek knowledge of conditions well within the sub-continent, at the minimum about the Gangaridae, Prasii and Icthyophagi, arguably at least about the Golden Chersonese. By the time of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the eastern coastline all the way until the south-east Asian coastline was known.



PureAryan said:


> Wrong again
> The first time the word hindu was used aroud 262 AD when it was mentioned as an area in Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription of Shapur 1, the sassanid ruler, The inscription enlists the area conquered by Sassanid emperor who defeated Kushans. The name hindustan was only applied to sindh not to punjab because sassanids only occupied sindh.A sourcebook of Indian civilization - Google Books



For those scholars who are determined to stay within Wikipedia and its mind-numbing inaccuracies, it is advisable to Google for Hapta-Hindu and see the evident results.

As anyone can do this and get the same results, your particular betisse in defining Hindu as a word of Sassanian origin can be demonstrated to be an egregious error using your own favourite source of information and knowledge. There is a lot of difference between the Avestan Vendidad and the inscriptions of Shapur. About 2,200 years, in fact.

About your statement about the name Hindustan, it is apparent that you have lost the thread (in more senses than one, it is tempting to surmise).

This thread is about India's selection of the word India to describe itself as a nation-state. It is not about the nooks and crannies of the use of the word Hindustan; that is not, in fact, a word under discussion, while the word Hindu is under discussion. The reason for that, clear to all who have kept their mental balance and a sense of direction, is that the word Indikos was derived from the Greek mispronunciation of Hindu; so Hindu is relevant. Hindustan had nothing to do with the Greeks, although it had a lot to do with history otherwise, therefore it is not relevant to this discussion.



PureAryan said:


> I agree there is no diference between people of subcontinent,



If you are willing to wait a month or so, I shall endeavour to get Professor Cavalli-Sforza's personal expression of gratitude to you to have so handsomely validated some 40 years of genetic research. As a preliminary, _thank you_ for condescending to endorse what nearly two generations of population geneticists have been toiling over. Now they know what it is like to be given a medal by Napoleon.



PureAryan said:


> but pakistanis are not south asian, Pakistanis are south Central Asian, culturally, historically, ethnically, geographically, and all follow same religion.
> Ofcourse you disagree to all what i have written.



Perfectly sensible and clear and lucid.

No difference between people of the sub-continent, but Pakistanis are not South Asian, they are south Central Asian. 

Ah, I see. First History was laid low, now it is the turn of geology and geography, not in that order necessarily.

Continental drift has apparently set in faster and harder than ever before, and after 1947, inspired by Nazaria-e-Pakistan, Pakistan itself has been separating itself from the rest of South Asia. 

No doubt soon we will find a Wikipedia entry justifying this. It's such a shame that even that rag-tag and bobtail collection of miscellaneous information baulks at your creative geological forays. 

It's also such a shame that some treacherous unpatriotic Pakistanis have blown holes in your arguments before even you had a fair chance to place it for review with your peers, and also in front of the rest of the world which enjoys unrestrained free movement. Their studies, reported in the Journal of American Genetics, taking the Cavalli-Sforza experiments dramatically forwards, shows that there is no difference, in terms of genetics between any on the sub-continent - specifically, between Pakistanis and other south Asians. 

Too bad. You should set somebody behind that dastardly lot of scientists - I don't know who is currently favoured for jobs of this sort - who knows, perhaps a Google search through Wikipedia might help?

PS: What is a _PureAryan_ ?

In case Wikipedia has failed you on this point as well, it might be worth your noting that there are Indo-Aryan languages, but no Aryan race, not since the last of the Nazis died. 

If you describe yourself as PureAryan, you are laying claim to speaking some branch of the Indo-Aryan branch of languages; it does not, regrettably, offer you any genetic or racial cachet.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> What a scholarly flourish!
> 
> There is no difference, *none whatsoever,* between the residents of the sub-continent of South Asia and the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Culture, with the exception of the Pushto, the Baluch and the Parsis. This is according to a study of haplotypes available in Pakistan, conducted as a follow-up and local specialisation in the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza studies of genetic types in different regions.



Dear Sir,
Good luck with that argument. You cannot hope to change by force of facts what they already know to be true, namely that they have nothing in common with you. Even if you do manage to silence them for now, be rest assured that the same argument will be repeated by the same gentlemen till you, like me get tired of refuting arguments that you think you have already dealt with. There is a Kannada proverb which you are probably aware of, translating as " Just because you think you have a strong head does not mean that you can bang it against a boulder". Take care with your head Sir, there is a lot in there that the rest of us are interested in.

Btw, what is your take on the contradictions that the genetic studies show with the theory of an Aryan movement from Central Asia, the basis for caste divisions etc?


----------



## Joe Shearer

absmonarch said:


> If your truth = ignore all facts, then yes you know truth.
> 
> But that truth is not truth, just blind belief



@absmonarch
@Capt. Popeye
@Bang Galore

Will some kind soul please tell the latest crop of Wikipediacs the difference between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens? 

Can some beacon of logic kindly go on to tell our Wikiwonders that Homo Erectus sites abound in South Asia? That the remains in Mohenjodaro happen to be Homo Sapiens? That Mehrgarh is relevant, as a typical 'root-site' for the IVC cities, Homo Erectus sites are not? 

There are a thousand other points, but who will stand up against the pantheon of wiki-talent concentrated on the other side?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> Dear Sir,
> Good luck with that argument. You cannot hope to change by force of facts what they already know to be true, namely that they have nothing in common with you. Even if you do manage to silence them for now, be rest assured that the same argument will be repeated by the same gentlemen till you, like me get tired of refuting arguments that you think you have already dealt with. There is a Kannada proverb which you are probably aware of, translating as " Just because you think you have a strong head does not mean that you can bang it against a boulder". Take care with your head Sir, there is a lot in there that the rest of us are interested in.
> 
> Btw, what is your take on the contradictions that the genetic studies show with the theory of an Aryan movement from Central Asia, the basis for caste divisions etc?



No contradiction at all.

Quite clearly a very small number of immigrants brought in the Sanskrit and associated Indo-Aryan languages. 

In genetic terms, they were so small in number that the immigrating pools of genes were readily absorbed into the earlier Kol-Dravidian population at large; in linguistic terms, the Aryan languages overwhelmed their predecessors. This was both due to the extensive as well as intensive use of these by the ruling classes originating from the immigrants and by adoption by those ruling classes joining the immigrants. So the language spread all over north India, down the Indus valley, down the Ganges valley, up the Brahmaputra, and down the Narmada.

I believe that the caste system, after the genetic studies have shown clearly that there was *ZERO* genetic distinction between the different castes, was a socio-anthropological phenomenon only. We were just unlucky to get a specially concentrated dose of rule-based occupation distinctions.

There was EXACTLY the same situation prevailing in the Trans-Oxiana steppes when the Scythian ruled over the steppes; the Scythians imposed their language, originally a border language of the Indo-Iranian split, later a distinctive east Iranian dialect, on to the varied genetic mixture that congregated as Scythians.

A third example was that of the Turks. Turkish was spoken by a collection of genetic identities, and served to harness them under one language and convert them into the Turkic and Turkish tribes.

In none of the three cases have researchers observed much genetic homogeneity; in all three, it was language that conferred identity.

In general, Cavalli-Sforza's initiative taken into the modern world has effectively discredited race as an identifier.


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> No contradiction at all.
> 
> Quite clearly a very small number of immigrants brought in the Sanskrit and associated Indo-Aryan languages.
> 
> In genetic terms, they were so small in number that the immigrating pools of genes were readily absorbed into the earlier Kol-Dravidian population at large; in linguistic terms, the Aryan languages overwhelmed their predecessors. This was both due to the extensive as well as intensive use of these by the ruling classes originating from the immigrants and by adoption by those ruling classes joining the immigrants. So the language spread all over north India, down the Indus valley, down the Ganges valley, up the Brahmaputra, and down the Narmada.



Maybe, maybe not.Not quite convinced. What is being suggested by you is a new theory to fit the genetic facts, all previously prevalent theories seem to go out of the window in light of those studies. The dates of the Aryan movements are a problem because of the importance of Saraswathi in the Rig veda. In previous theories this was largely discounted as mythical and therefore the dates could be moved as close as 1500 B.C. The drying up of the most important river & the tectonic shifts which resulted in the Sutlej moving into the Indus & Yamuna moving towards the Ganges would have been monumental if that happened very suddenly. The fact that the Saraswathi is mentioned as late as the Mahabharata(even if no longer mentioned as a flowing river) indicates a substantial passage of time where this occurred. The dates are important because it changes everything previously assumed. For the Indus to become the river it is and for it be the origin of the name that India is now known by, it must have postdated the drying up of the Saraswathi. So when was the Rig veda composed?

The other problem is a complete lack of any evidence of widespread use of a pre aryan language system in Northern india. Some evidence must be around somewhere if the pre aryan people remained the majority. The similarity of religious figures in the whole of India especially when there was a concept of Aryavartha prevailing is a little odd. If the South of the Vindhyas was normally a no go zone then how did it start to resemble the North including in the concept of caste which incidentally is a post Rig vedic phenomenon.

Too many questions, too little answers. The genetic studies seem to have opened up a Pandora's box.


----------



## PureAryan

Joe Shearer said:


> Please keep your promise - let it be your last.
> 
> Being confronted with Google scholars in season and out of season is irritating in the extreme. There is no harm in resorting to Wikipedia on an area on which one has no expertise, in order to get one's bearings, but this has to be subject to the opinions of those trained in the disciplines concerned, and the fine details in Wikipedia should not be brandished under the noses of others as possessing any legitimacy beyond a preliminary direction to further research.
> 
> 
> 
> True. And you failed to get the linguistic point, like some others earlier: neither did the term Hapta-Hindu refer to the whole sub-continent. The term Hindu, in its late mediaeval connotations, meaning black man, did refer to residents of the whole sub-continent. Hapta-Hindu was Avestan, about 2000 BC to 1500 BC; the other connotation may be as late as Sassanian.
> 
> 
> 
> Both the Persians, due to their occupation and rule of cis-Indus territory, and the Greeks, due to their explorations, knew about land that lay beyond Punjab. There are _profuse _citations of historical literature and of old geographical tracts, even maps based on those old tracts, which have been reproduced here; there is no longer any excuse for pretended ignorance about Persian and Greek knowledge of conditions well within the sub-continent, at the minimum about the Gangaridae, Prasii and Icthyophagi, arguably at least about the Golden Chersonese. By the time of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the eastern coastline all the way until the south-east Asian coastline was known.
> 
> 
> 
> For those scholars who are determined to stay within Wikipedia and its mind-numbing inaccuracies, it is advisable to Google for Hapta-Hindu and see the evident results.
> 
> As anyone can do this and get the same results, your particular betisse in defining Hindu as a word of Sassanian origin can be demonstrated to be an egregious error using your own favourite source of information and knowledge. There is a lot of difference between the Avestan Vendidad and the inscriptions of Shapur. About 2,200 years, in fact.
> 
> About your statement about the name Hindustan, it is apparent that you have lost the thread (in more senses than one, it is tempting to surmise).
> 
> This thread is about India's selection of the word India to describe itself as a nation-state. It is not about the nooks and crannies of the use of the word Hindustan; that is not, in fact, a word under discussion, while the word Hindu is under discussion. The reason for that, clear to all who have kept their mental balance and a sense of direction, is that the word Indikos was derived from the Greek mispronunciation of Hindu; so Hindu is relevant. Hindustan had nothing to do with the Greeks, although it had a lot to do with history otherwise, therefore it is not relevant to this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are willing to wait a month or so, I shall endeavour to get Professor Cavalli-Sforza's personal expression of gratitude to you to have so handsomely validated some 40 years of genetic research. As a preliminary, _thank you_ for condescending to endorse what nearly two generations of population geneticists have been toiling over. Now they know what it is like to be given a medal by Napoleon.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly sensible and clear and lucid.
> 
> No difference between people of the sub-continent, but Pakistanis are not South Asian, they are south Central Asian.
> 
> Ah, I see. First History was laid low, now it is the turn of geology and geography, not in that order necessarily.
> 
> Continental drift has apparently set in faster and harder than ever before, and after 1947, inspired by Nazaria-e-Pakistan, Pakistan itself has been separating itself from the rest of South Asia.
> 
> No doubt soon we will find a Wikipedia entry justifying this. It's such a shame that even that rag-tag and bobtail collection of miscellaneous information baulks at your creative geological forays.
> 
> It's also such a shame that some treacherous unpatriotic Pakistanis have blown holes in your arguments before even you had a fair chance to place it for review with your peers, and also in front of the rest of the world which enjoys unrestrained free movement. Their studies, reported in the Journal of American Genetics, taking the Cavalli-Sforza experiments dramatically forwards, shows that there is no difference, in terms of genetics between any on the sub-continent - specifically, between Pakistanis and other south Asians.
> 
> Too bad. You should set somebody behind that dastardly lot of scientists - I don't know who is currently favoured for jobs of this sort - who knows, perhaps a Google search through Wikipedia might help?
> 
> PS: What is a _PureAryan_ ?
> 
> In case Wikipedia has failed you on this point as well, it might be worth your noting that there are Indo-Aryan languages, but no Aryan race, not since the last of the Nazis died.
> 
> If you describe yourself as PureAryan, you are laying claim to speaking some branch of the Indo-Aryan branch of languages; it does not, regrettably, offer you any genetic or racial cachet.



A typical pathetic attempt to deceive, trick, and misguide people for spreading disinformation, Just who are you trying to impress with your scholarly English, we all know the literacy rate of Bharat don&#8217;t we.
I couldn't even understand half of your diatribe and there is not a single reference you have given me while I did give you reference.
Your failure to give any reference and your cheap tactic of using shoddy vocabulary to impress upon others has earned you zero credibility. Sir, you know nothing about Pakistan&#8217;s history.
The Aryans associated with the Rig Veda and Sapta Sindhu (i.e. today's Pakistan region) had nothing to do with Ganga valley and they were 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. &#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;. Arywarta was the region composed of Indus valley, Punjab and sindh were sacred. The aryavartans(Punjabis and Sindhi) called the people living in Ganga valley as Dasya vartans. *Source* (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)

The name hind was first applied to Bharat when Arabs invaded Sindh and called everything east of Sindh as Hind including South East Asia. Arabs called the region between Arabian Sea and Hindu Kush as Sindh. *Source* Chach Nama

Again you are making a joke of yourself, there were dozens of independent kingdoms in Pakistan during the time of Alexander invasion, some of the famous were Kingdom of Porus, Ghandhara kingdom, Kambojas, Swat, bajour, Malli, Surashtra, and there are dozens more. Alexander and Persians only knew about land beyond Punjab when they invaded those regions. Aristotle had told Alexander of ancient India(modern Pakistan) as being narrow and a great ocean lay beyond. *Source* Albert Brian Bosworth &#171;Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph&#187;
They only came to know of Gangaridae, Prasii and Icthyophagi after they invaded ancient India.
The land west of river Indus is part of ancient Persia and central Asia which makes up around 60-70&#37; Pakistan&#8217; total area. Punjab and Sindh has always been knows as proper India and lies at the crossroads of Central, South and West Asia. Just because Bharat stole the name of ancient Pakistan(India) doesn&#8217;t means we will accept you people as our own. *Source History of Pakistan Ahmed Danni*
About 50 % of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin colour. About 70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Pakistanis are tall with fair skin complexion, similar to Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. Linguistically speaking, India is only about one-half to three quarters Indo-European, while Pakistan is an almost entirely Indo-European speaking country up to ninety-nine percent. *Source* Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture

Final note: Keep trying hard to prove Indians and Pakistanis are same people, no Pakistani will ever want to associate themselves to you. Just because you people have adopted our language (Sanskrit, Urdu), our culture, claim our heritage as your own, you people have forgotten your real Dravidian roots. Wake up Bharat.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

PureAryan said:


> *About 65 % of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 20% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin colour. *





I don't recall even the British imperialists /Ahmed Qureshi/Zaid Hamid coming up with such crap.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PureAryan

Bombensturm said:


> I don't recall even the British imperialists /Ahmed Qureshi/Zaid Hamid coming up with such crap.



Sorry, it's supposed to be 50&#37; australoid. I read these books a while ago so my apologies.

i have fixed that


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

PureAryan said:


> Sorry, it's supposed to be 50% australoid. I read these books a while ago so my apologies.



I guess those books are obsolete or either your are throwing numeric values as you please.

Historically scholars tried to classify Indians from a racial piont,it didn't work out,too diverse.

Later they tried based on genetic parameters,even that didn't work,since each new study disproves the previous held fact.

So finally what everyone agree on is division of Indians based on ethno-linguistic lines.


----------



## PureAryan

Bombensturm said:


> I guess those books are obsolete or either your are throwing numeric values as you please.
> 
> Historically scholars tried to classify Indians from a racial piont,it didn't work out,too diverse.
> 
> Later they tried based on genetic parameters,even that didn't work,since each new study disproves the previous held fact.
> 
> So finally what everyone agree on is division of Indians based on ethno-linguistic lines.



Excluding the number everything is from books, reference given, the source for racial classification is at www.storyofpakistan.com/discforum/topic.asp?topicid=254 its not opening but


----------



## absmonarch

Why you people obsess with racial thing? Every discussion become about race, skin colour, gene.

It is sad. You should think about future of poor people of Pakistan instead of prove that they are fair and Aryan or something.


----------



## subject17

Bombensturm said:


> I don't recall even the British imperialists /Ahmed Qureshi/Zaid Hamid coming up with such crap.



Even they don't spew such utter nonsensical crap.


----------



## PureAryan

subject17 said:


> Even they don't spew such utter nonsensical crap.



I have apologized for the mistake and corrected it. Its not my fault if the website is not opening, now get over it


----------



## Omar1984

Our elders in Pakistan always refer to india as hindustan. For them india = british india and after british left, two nations were formed Pakistan and Hindustan.

When my grandparents and their friends talk about india they always refer to that country as hindustan. My grandfather visited delhi and tells us stories of his visit and always refers to that country as hindustan and to the people there as hindustanis. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his speeches always referred to today's india as Hindustan and our country as Pakistan.

For those who were alive during partition, india = british india that is no longer on earth today. Hindustanis kept the words india and indians because they want to claim everything that was once part of british india.


----------



## third eye

Cant understand why we must see an ulterior motive in everything.

India existed even before the brits came , when they left a part of India seperated to form a new entity while the rest of India remained.

Thats all.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Omar1984 said:


> Our elders in Pakistan always refer to india as hindustan. For them india = british india and after british left, two nations were formed Pakistan and Hindustan.
> 
> When my grandparents and their friends talk about india they always refer to that country as hindustan. My grandfather visited delhi and tells us stories of his visit and always refers to that country as hindustan and to the people there as hindustanis. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his speeches always referred to today's india as Hindustan and our country as Pakistan.



This habit can be attributed ,of your elders , them assuming Pakistan was encapsulation of Muslims of entire India.Which wasn't the case considering many Muslims stayed in India and further the event of 1971 was the last straw to this 2 nation theory.




> For those who were alive during partition, india = british india that is no longer on earth today. Hindustanis kept the words india and indians because they want to claim everything that was once part of british india.



We cling to the name India because our new nation being a pluralistic, multilingual and multiethnic society ,we didn't want a name biased in any case.
Hence the obvious pick was *India*


----------



## Omar1984

third eye said:


> Cant understand why we must see an ulterior motive in everything.
> 
> India existed even before the brits came , when they left a part of India seperated to form a new entity while the rest of India remained.
> 
> Thats all.



Before the British came, british india were a bunch of separate independent countries. The British combined all those countries saw the Indus River flowing through Punjab and Sindh and called their empire British India.

Our land only has historical and cultural links with East Punjab that is in your country.


----------



## PureAryan

third eye said:


> Cant understand why we must see an ulterior motive in everything.
> 
> India existed even before the brits came , when they left a part of India seperated to form a new entity while the rest of India remained.
> 
> Thats all.



Wrong, After 1720's Punjab and Sindh became almost independent, after Nadir Shah's 1738 invasion, mughal ceded punjab and sindh to nadir shah, Pakistan reamined separated untill 1844, Untill 1844, Punjab and pukhtunkhwa were independent, Sindh and Balochistan ware independent.

British invaded independent kingdom of Sindh using slave soldiers from hindustan, Sindhis lost. Sindh made part of bombay presidency,

Then they invaded iindependent punjab using the same hindustani soldiers. If hindustanis had never helped those brits in occupying punjab and sindh and kashmir, we would have remained independent.
In short brits came created 565 princely states and 13 princes, and they left with two dominions, If it wasn't for the brits, hindustan would still be under muslim control.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PureAryan

Bombensturm said:


> This habit can be attributed ,of your elders , them assuming Pakistan was encapsulation of Muslims of entire India.Which wasn't the case considering many Muslims stayed in India and further the event of 1971 was the last straw to this 2 nation theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We cling to the name India because our new nation being a pluralistic, multilingual and multiethnic society ,we didn't want a name biased in any case.
> Hence the obvious pick was *India*



Two nation theory remains intact as long as bangladesh remains independent and separate from Bharat

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

PureAryan said:


> Wrong, After 1720's Punjab and Sindh became almost independent, after Nadir Shah's 1738 invasion, mughal ceded punjab and sindh to nadir shah, Pakistan reamined separated untill 1844, Untill 1844, Punjab and pukhtunkhwa were independent, Sindh and Balochistan ware independent.
> 
> British invaded independent kingdom of Sindh using slave soldiers from hindustan, Sindhis lost. Sindh made part of bombay presidency,
> 
> Then they invaded iindependent punjab using the same hindustani soldiers. If hindustanis had never helped those brits in occupying punjab and sindh and kashmir, we would have remained independent.
> In short brits came created 565 princely states and 13 princes, and they left with two dominions, If it wasn't for the brits, hindustan would still be under muslim control.




Wrong Hindustan was not under total muslim control as you say even b4 the British empire it was fragmented with Marathi and Sikh empires ruling vast lands of Bharat.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Omar1984 said:


> *Before the British came, british india *were a bunch of separate independent *countries*.



So before British came there was British India?

If i recall there were a bunch of kingdoms.



> The British combined all those countries



The British just dissolved the dominate powers(Sikh,Maratha) into their empire after successive defeats.



> saw the Indus River flowing through Punjab and Sindh and called their empire British India.



They just refered the lands with name which Europeans did.

Why do you think Columbus said he had discovered India when he reached America.


----------



## PureAryan

Yeti said:


> Wrong Hindustan was not under total muslim control as you say even b4 the British empire it was fragmented with Marathi and Sikh empires ruling vast lands of Bharat.



Marathas were routed by the durranis and the Sikh had nothing to do with bharatis sikhs, They were pakistani sikh, Only The 65000 strong pakistani sikh comunity can lay claim to sikh empire not the hindustanis sikhs, And yes Ranjit singh empire never went beyond sutlej river, so it was only pakistani punjab, KPK,Kashmir that were part of it.
Ranjith was the son of gujranwala and nothing to do with hindustani sikhs.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

PureAryan said:


> Two nation theory remains intact as long as bangladesh remains independent and separate from Bharat



The argument about the 2 nation theory was Indian Hindus and Muslims cannot live together as they are 2 different nationalities .

India is a home to the 3rd largest Muslim population in the world,which openly proves the opposite of this 2 nation theory concept.


----------



## Yeti

PureAryan said:


> Marathas were routed by the durranis and the Sikh had nothing to do with bharatis sikhs, They were pakistani sikh, Only The 65000 strong pakistani sikh comunity can lay claim to sikh empire not the hindustanis sikhs, And yes Ranjit singh empire never went beyond sutlej river, so it was only pakistani punjab, KPK,Kashmir that were part of it.
> Ranjith was the son of gujranwala and nothing to do with hindustani sikhs.




Rubbish there was no Pakistan b4 1947 so your claim on The Sikh empire is non sense considering parts of it fell under states like Himachal and Kashmir.

Second point The Marathas never fully recovered from the loss at Panipat, *however they remained the predominant military power in India and managed to retake Delhi 10 years later*. However, their claim over all of India ended with the three Anglo-Maratha Wars, almost 50 years after Panipat.


----------



## absmonarch

PureAryan said:


> Two nation theory remains intact as long as bangladesh remains independent and separate from Bharat



Not two nation but three nation theory now.


----------



## PureAryan

Yeti said:


> Rubbish there was no Pakistan b4 1947 so your claim on The Sikh empire is non sense considering parts of it fell under states like Himachal and Kashmir.
> 
> Second point The Marathas never fully recovered from the loss at Panipat, *however they remained the predominant military power in India and managed to retake Delhi 10 years later*. However, their claim over all of India ended with the three Anglo-Maratha Wars, almost 50 years after Panipat.



Of course there was no word as pakistan but the land was always there, sikh empire only included part of himachal, and indian punjab doesn't means you are the inheritors of sikh empire, Just like persian empire ruled balochistan for centuries and only persians can claim to be the inheritors of persian empire not pakistan.


----------



## Bang Galore

PureAryan said:


> A typical pathetic attempt to deceive, trick, and misguide people for spreading disinformation, Just who are you trying to impress with your scholarly English, we all know the literacy rate of Bharat don&#8217;t we.



*@ Joe shearer*

You have been caught out. Who are you trying to impress? I mean, so what if you went to the finest schools, the top Management institute(IIM if i recall), had a long & distinguished career and are an expert in History. You are not impressing this guy.(don't say I didn't warn you:*post 481*)



> I couldn't even understand half of your diatribe


*@ Joe shearer*
Well! that explains why he was not impressed.



> and there is not a single reference you have given me while I did give you reference.


*@ Joe shearer*
*I say, my dear Sir!* Are you not aware that all the books that you quote from mean nothing unless it is clearly enumerated in alphabetical order. I blame your shoddy vocabulary & your cheap tactics.



> Your failure to give any reference and y*our cheap tactic of using shoddy vocabulary *to impress upon others has earned you *zero credibility*. Sir, you know nothing about Pakistan&#8217;s history.


*@ Joe shearer*
*Zero credibility! *You are finished here,Sir-*finished! * Certificates have been issued by this very established member who has been here since.....err..sometime this month.




> . The aryavartans(Punjabis and Sindhi) called the people living in Ganga valley as *Dasya vartans*. *Source* (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)



Dasya Vartans indeed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

PureAryan said:


> Of course there was no word as pakistan but the land was always there, sikh empire only included part of himachal, and indian punjab doesn't means you are the inheritors of sikh empire, Just like persian empire ruled balochistan for centuries and only persians can claim to be the inheritors of persian empire not pakistan.



I never said India was the inheritor of the Sikh empire I just pointed out that there was various warring factions who established rule over parts of modern day Pakistan and India.


----------



## PureAryan

Bang Galore said:


> *@ Joe shearer*
> 
> You have been caught out. Who are you trying to impress? I mean, so what if you went to the finest schools, the top Management institute(IIM if i recall), had a long & distinguished career and are an expert in History. You are not impressing this guy.(don't say I didn't warn you:*post 481*)
> 
> 
> 
> Well! that explains why he was not impressed.
> 
> 
> 
> *I say, my dear Sir!* Are you not aware that all the books that you quote from mean nothing unless it is clearly enumerated in alphabetical order. I blame your shoddy vocabulary & your cheap tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> *Zero credibility! *You are finished here,Sir-*finished! * Certificates have been issued by this very established member who has been here since.....err..sometime this month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dasya Vartans indeed!



Your utter inability to refute my argument reveals your true personality, when all else fails and you are facing an ocean of facts with actual quotes from a plethora of history books you stoop so low to make fun of writer, why should i enumerate books in alphabetical order. I am not in a writing competition.
Sorry, i come here for decent discussion not to indulge in any cheap arguments, So if you are not prepared to use cheap shots, you will not win any arguments.
If i tell you about my real age you will be banging your head against wall.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> Maybe, maybe not.Not quite convinced. What is being suggested by you is a new theory to fit the genetic facts, all previously prevalent theories seem to go out of the window in light of those studies. The dates of the Aryan movements are a problem because of the importance of Saraswathi in the Rig veda. In previous theories this was largely discounted as mythical and therefore the dates could be moved as close as 1500 B.C. The drying up of the most important river & the tectonic shifts which resulted in the Sutlej moving into the Indus & Yamuna moving towards the Ganges would have been monumental if that happened very suddenly. The fact that the Saraswathi is mentioned as late as the Mahabharata(even if no longer mentioned as a flowing river) indicates a substantial passage of time where this occurred. The dates are important because it changes everything previously assumed. For the Indus to become the river it is and for it be the origin of the name that India is now known by, it must have postdated the drying up of the Saraswathi. So when was the Rig veda composed?



I am sorry, I should have stepped back one step and given you - and others - a little more of a perspective view.

In history, except during the precise recorded history that we find as we come further and further into modern times, where sometimes days and hours are possible to identify, it is safer to work with a range. Much of historical studies of ancient times, whether of Ancient Europe, of Ancient Iran, or of Ancient India, depends on intelligent estimation of _a range of dates which are equally possible._ The exception is, of course, Ancient China; the Chinese have always been the most methodical with regard to their reporting and their administrative processes, bar none.

I am not sure exactly what is worrying you, but suspect that if you put down all the major events relevant to you for your analysis, whatever you believe those events to be, and assign an earliest possible date and a latest possible date to them, you may find that there is a lot of room for things to happen. 

However, I do know that there are certain philosophical differences between us; in terms of the older historical paradigms, I belong to the AIT, and you perhaps to the OOI - these are the Aryan Invasion of India and the Out of India theories. The clue I got was your mention of the Saraswati; for reasons that I have not got deeply involved with till now, the existence and direction of flow of the Saraswati is very, very important for the OOI school. 

If I remember correctly, and this is from memory, since I couldn't bring myself to read Frawley or Rajaram, the early mention of the Saraswati shows that the Rg Vedic culture was aware of it, it is seen as one of the sustaining rivers of the Indus Valley Civilisation, therefore, the OOI school say that with the IVC dependent on it, and its drying up rendering the IVC impossible to sustain, and with the evident knowledge of the river apparent in the earliest part of the Rg Veda, these events were almost contemporaneous. There is circumstantial evidence, therefore, to consider that the IVC may have been a Sanskrit speaking civilisation, rather than a Dravidian one, as conventional wisdom among the AIT had all along held.

I have nothing to say about OOI vs. AIT here. That is a thread, a blog, a book, a reference journal by itself. As of now, it does seem that the AIT has a credible story to tell, and that it is for others to put forth a stronger story, or to discredit this story in a conclusive way. That has not yet happened.

But about the dates, very briefly, and without prejudice, meaning I am representing the commonly held view for your ready reminder in a separate note (I will try and see if a table formed in Word can be fitted into this format).

Indo-Iranian tribes in Central Asia: 2500 BC to 2000 BC
Iranian tribes move westward: 2000 to 1700 BC
Composition of the Avesta: 1700 BC to 1300 BC
Indian tribes move eastward: 2000 to 1700 BC
Last dates of viable IVC settlements, latest: 1300 BC
Composition of the Rg Veda and three other Vedas*: 1700 BC to 1000 BC
Composition of the Mahabharata*: 800 BC to 800 AD 

* Both contain evidence of earlier events and activities, in places other than their place of final composition.

You must consider that in the Mahabharata itself, a Scythian King, the Lord of the Parama Kamboja, is general for Duryodhana and the Kaurava Army after the death of Shalya. Connections between the tribes that drifted apart lasted much longer than these dates indicate, and there were links with east Iranian tribes such as the Parama Kamboja which were remembered as late as the 8th century BC. The split of the tribes happened around 1700 BC give or take a century, and was in any case a gradual process; nobody got up one morning, declared,"Right, today onwards we are Iranian," and marched off west to their manifest destiny. So there is a relationship which lasted into subsequent centuries, and was remembered nearly 900 years later.

Is it possible that likewise, the Saraswati was remembered years later, in the Mahabharata in 800 BC, while being first mentioned in the Rg Veda between 1700 to 1000? Would you be comfortable with its probable final stages being, say, towards the end of the Rg Vedic period, 1000 BC, and a couple of hundred years before the Mahabharata? That would more or less coincide with 1300 BC, the final years of the IVC.

//Aaaaaaaaaaaargh! I missed seeing your entire second paragraph//



Bang Galore said:


> The other problem is a complete lack of any evidence of widespread use of a pre aryan language system in Northern india. Some evidence must be around somewhere if the pre aryan people remained the majority. The similarity of religious figures in the whole of India especially when there was a concept of Aryavartha prevailing is a little odd. If the South of the Vindhyas was normally a no go zone then how did it start to resemble the North including in the concept of caste which incidentally is a post Rig vedic phenomenon.
> 
> Too many questions, too little answers. The genetic studies seem to have opened up a Pandora's box.



I am not sure if you are familiar with the connections between Kol-Mundari and the Tamil family, within the larger Dravidian group. Kol-Mundari, or Brahui, or similar languages prevailed all over north India, and it is considered that the Tamil/Dravidian words in Sanskrit were adopted from the sub-stratum languages in northern India.

There is actually a complete language coverage for the whole of India. It was the Dravidian family, and it retreated slowly, in fact, never lost its hold on some rural pockets in north India right until now.

Regarding the Dravidian pantheon, by simple elimination of the Aryan war-band from the present host in the combined cosmogony, we can get a thumb-nail sketch. It is clear that there was some elimination - Varuna, Mitra, the Nasatyas; some assimilation - Kartik is Subrahmanyam is Shanmugham; and some addition - the entire body of the Shaktis, Shiva. The composite Puranic culture apparently added some baggage; there are tempting indications that heroic men become demi-gods and then were elevated by their own particular sect to avatars. The first process was available in Greek and Roman Mythology already. I personally tend to suspect that the Dravidian pantheon was pretty close to the Great Mother cult suppressed by the patriarchal war-bands of the Greeks, the Celts, the Italians, the Germans, and arguably, the Indo-Aryans. The Titans turn up, too, in their expected places and expected roles; suddenly, we find Vanir and Aesir striding through our epics. Animal spirits abound; the strong similarity between Rg Vedic bear and mysterious man-killing quasi-humanoids of the woods is relatively easy to trace back.

Regarding your question of the spread to the south, consider it as a Sanskritisation process, which skipped the entire heirarchy and concentrated on key aspects. It acquired Brahmins probably by elevation of local shamans and partially by intermarriage with northern priestly families - I can write on this separately if anyone is interested, and point out the significance of Vadagalai and Thengalai. It allowed no one the Kshatriya rank; the Brahmins, by 800 BC, were facing increasing resistance to their encroaching ways and their universal greed, and the outburst of 600 BC must have been a long time in the making. Since this resistance was spearheaded by Kshatriyas, they may not have been too keen to elevate the warrior classes of the south to Kshatriya status. So Reddy, Thevar, Bunt, Nair stayed what they were, and didn't make it to the warrior castes, not to the level of the old Kshatriya. Businessmen got absorbed and Shettys/Chetttys abound in large numbers. Finally, the poor remained downtrodden and oppressed, here as in there.

But there is some room for doubt. Considering the striking difference between the Vedic war-band, whether that of the Gods or that of the humans, it is a tempting suggestion that the Indo-Aryans succumbed to caste under pressure from an existing system.

And I didn't get your reference to a no-go zone. It was emphatically nothing of the kind.


----------



## Bang Galore

PureAryan said:


> Your utter inability to refute my argument reveals your true personality, when all else fails and you are facing an ocean of facts with actual quotes from a plethora of history books you stoop so low to make fun of writer, why should i enumerate books in alphabetical order. I am not in a writing competition.
> Sorry, i come here for decent discussion not to indulge in any cheap arguments, So if you are not prepared to use cheap shots, you will not win any arguments.
> If i tell you about my real age you will be banging your head against wall.



The post was addressed at Joe Shearer, not to you .


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> However, I do know that there are certain philosophical differences between us; in terms of the older historical paradigms, I belong to the AIT, and you perhaps to the OOI - these are the Aryan Invasion of India and the Out of India theories. The clue I got was your mention of the Saraswati; for reasons that I have not got deeply involved with till now, the existence and direction of flow of the Saraswati is very, very important for the OOI school.
> .



I don't belong to the OOI school or any other. If saraswathi is very important for that school, it still does not tally with the genetic studies presently available. My opinion Sir is my own based on the facts presently known to me & will gladly change it if facts suggest otherwise. Having said that, in my mind ,even if you won't concede the point, the results of the genetic studies contradict many of the erstwhile assumptions made by the AIT school. The argument put by you now i.e. the Aryans were numerically so small that they were absorbed into the main body leaving behind no traces is not something that was widely accepted by AIT school before the genetic studies forced that rethink. My point still stands in as much the AIT as enumerated before has taken a bit of knocking with the genetic results unable to find supporting evidence. The OOI theory was propounded in the 18th century, discarded in the 20th and while it may still be the favourite of some radical group, I certainly don't subscribe to it and it faces the same problems with the genetic studies as the AIT.

btw, I brought in Saraswathi because I was curious to know your opinion on a river which finds mention in all the mandalas of the Rig veda except one(4th).I am not clear on what your opinion is? Is it that it was not a major river/did not exist?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> I don't belong to the OOI school or any other. If saraswathi is very important for that school, it still does not tally with the genetic studies presently available. My opinion Sir is my own based on the facts presently known to me & will gladly change it if facts suggest otherwise. Having said that, in my mind ,even if you won't concede the point, the results of the genetic studies contradict many of the erstwhile assumptions made by the AIT school. The argument put by you now i.e. the Aryans were numerically so small that they were absorbed into the main body leaving behind no traces is not something that was widely accepted by AIT school before the genetic studies forced that rethink. My point still stands in as much the AIT as enumerated before has taken a bit of knocking with the genetic results unable to find supporting evidence. The OOI theory was propounded in the 18th century, discarded in the 20th and while it may still be the favourite of some radical group, I certainly don't subscribe to it and it faces the same problems with the genetic studies as the AIT.
> 
> btw, I brought in Saraswathi because I was curious to know your opinion on a river which finds mention in all the mandalas of the Rig veda except one(4th).I am not clear on what your opinion is? Is it that it was not a major river/did not exist?



Let me start backwards.



Bang Galore said:


> btw, I brought in Saraswathi because I was curious to know your opinion on a river which finds mention in all the mandalas of the Rig veda except one(4th).I am not clear on what your opinion is? Is it that it was not a major river/did not exist?



No. The mounting weight of evidence, mainly geological, the increasing support given by satellite photography to the proposed channel of the Hakkra/Ghagra/Saraswati makes it clear that there was a river, and that it might have been a major river in the remote past. 

In favour of this is the information that we have about elephants, rhinoceri and large tracts of wooded land in the Indus valley in late Vedic and Puranic times. We also know that the extremely heavy rainfall prevented the breeding of good horses in India from pre-historic times; the theory is that by leaching calcium from the soil, the monsoons made it impossible to grow horses with strong bones. It is significant that the only good (reasonably good) horseflesh is in the dry fastnesses of Kathiawar and of Rajasthan - Kathiawaris and Marwaris. So some part of the Indus Valley was a lush and green valley at one time.

Was it the left bank or the right bank? The right bank is perfectly possible, but in the absence of any significant climatic shift, why should we suspect that it was wet rich jungle? The left bank, on the other hand, is a far more likely candidate. We have tiger forests to the east of the Ghagger's dried-up bed. That is good enough (at the conjectural level).

<More>


----------



## SpArK

*Proof of unique geography ..*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> I don't belong to the OOI school or any other. If saraswathi is very important for that school, it still does not tally with the genetic studies presently available. My opinion Sir is my own based on the facts presently known to me & will gladly change it if facts suggest otherwise. Having said that, in my mind ,even if you won't concede the point, the results of the genetic studies contradict many of the erstwhile assumptions made by the AIT school. The argument put by you now i.e. the Aryans were numerically so small that they were absorbed into the main body leaving behind no traces is not something that was widely accepted by AIT school before the genetic studies forced that rethink. My point still stands in as much the AIT as enumerated before has taken a bit of knocking with the genetic results unable to find supporting evidence. The OOI theory was propounded in the 18th century, discarded in the 20th and while it may still be the favourite of some radical group, I certainly don't subscribe to it and it faces the same problems with the genetic studies as the AIT.
> 
> <snip>



To be perfectly honest, I have changed my position twice in recent years, once under the impact of the huge wealth of information released from Soviet archaeologists, and others, all under the influence of the incomparable Marija Gimbutas, the second time under the influence of Cavalli-Sforza and his historical geneticism, usually called population geneticism.

Even without such additional information, one's thinking does change after contemplating the situation under discussion and its ramifications, as well as similar parallel situations.

I no longer think that a broad, thick wave of people came into India. Clearly, even earlier, it was a series of spasmodic events. What has made a difference to me is the increasing evidence of our pre-Aryan past, in all the important river valley cultures of south Asia - Brahmaputra, Ganges, Indus, Narmada, Tungabhadra, Krishna, Kaveri. These are borne out by archaeological discoveries and the traces of material culture.

It is also clear that there was a flourishing Kol-Mundari-Dravidian culture which was replaced by the Indo-Aryan synthesis of two cultures. This is borne out by greater understanding of the development of the Dravidian languages, and of the implications of their word-stock; also, the implications of the borrowal of Dravidian root-words and grammatical usages into Indo-Aryan (downstream from Vedic Sanskrit). 

There are a number of points on which things look different to me than they would have from the root AIT point of view. That is as it should be. Let us look at this theme further in the next few exchanges, ignoring the unwelcome interruptions of fanboys masquerading as latter-day savants.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

Mr Shearer quite bitter aren't you, it has become apparent that you are obsessed, may I suggest you pick up a bucket and spade, and dig for the honour of your country and find some artefacts, that can glorify your bharat. Which will allow you to stick out your chest, and smile from ear to ear. 

God Speed.


----------



## Masterchief

@rafi: why dont you do the same sir. Your bitterness is quite clear.


----------



## LaBong

gaurav yadav said:


> @rafi: why dont you do the same sir. Your bitterness is quite clear.



Not only bitterness but a complete lack of any knowledge about the subject being discussed. Ah, wait, he does know of a nice paint job and picture on currency note!  

Ok please don't abuse me for this! :-/


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> Not only bitterness but a complete lack of any knowledge about the subject being discussed. Ah, wait, he does know of a nice paint job and picture on currency note!
> 
> Ok please don't abuse me for this! :-/



Not into abusing my friend, it is rather strange - is it not, that indians are on a Pakistani forum, trying to teach big, bad, Pakistanis about their country and its origins. 

Seems clear to me - who is obsessed with who. And regarding bharat most Pakistanis couldn't care less. And we don't join indian forum, figures


----------



## LaBong

Rafi said:


> Not into abusing my friend, it is rather strange - is it not, that indians are on a Pakistani forum, trying to teach big, bad, Pakistanis about their country and its origins.



I think the thread say "Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947", so it's more like Pakistanis trying to teach us our origin and history! 



> Seems clear to me - who is obsessed with who. And regarding bharat most Pakistanis couldn't care less. And we don't join indian forum, figures



Lol, this forum having an Indian Defence section(which is always having most hits) and Indian Military Pictures being one of the most viewed thread doesn't make Pakistanis obsessed with India, does it?  

Anyway, it's not your forum, according to management it's an international forum which focuses on Pakistan.  

I think you're familiar with other Pakistani Forums in their true sense, aren't you?


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> I think the thread say "Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947", so it's more like Pakistanis trying to teach us our origin and history!
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, this forum having an Indian Defence section(which is always having most hits) and Indian Military Pictures being one of the most viewed thread doesn't make Pakistanis obsessed with India, does it?
> 
> Anyway, it's not your forum, according to management it's an international forum which focuses on Pakistan.
> 
> I think you're familiar with other Pakistani Forums in their true sense, aren't you?



Verbal gymnastics here, jolly good show,  you have just proved your obsession, this is a Pakistani forum - just look at the banners, or put your glass on. 

The amount of indians using multiple id's and that keep coming back for more, prove my contention - that it indians obsessed with Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Will indians please finally start to develop some self-respect, and leave Pakistanis alone.


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> But about the dates, very briefly, and without prejudice, meaning I am representing the commonly held view for your ready reminder in a separate note (I will try and see if a table formed in Word can be fitted into this format).
> 
> Indo-Iranian tribes in Central Asia: 2500 BC to 2000 BC
> Iranian tribes move westward: 2000 to 1700 BC
> Composition of the Avesta: 1700 BC to 1300 BC
> Indian tribes move eastward: 2000 to 1700 BC
> Last dates of viable IVC settlements, latest: 1300 BC
> Composition of the Rg Veda and three other Vedas*: 1700 BC to 1000 BC
> Composition of the Mahabharata*: 800 BC to 800 AD
> 
> * Both contain evidence of earlier events and activities, in places other than their place of final composition.
> 
> You must consider that in the Mahabharata itself, a Scythian King, the Lord of the Parama Kamboja, is general for Duryodhana and the Kaurava Army after the death of Shalya. Connections between the tribes that drifted apart lasted much longer than these dates indicate, and there were links with east Iranian tribes such as the Parama Kamboja which were remembered as late as the 8th century BC. The split of the tribes happened around 1700 BC give or take a century, and was in any case a gradual process; nobody got up one morning, declared,"Right, today onwards we are Iranian," and marched off west to their manifest destiny. So there is a relationship which lasted into subsequent centuries, and was remembered nearly 900 years later.
> 
> Is it possible that likewise, the Saraswati was remembered years later, in the Mahabharata in 800 BC, while being first mentioned in the Rg Veda between 1700 to 1000? Would you be comfortable with its probable final stages being, say, towards the end of the Rg Vedic period, 1000 BC, and a couple of hundred years before the Mahabharata? That would more or less coincide with 1300 BC, the final years of the IVC.



My main point was the genetic evidence which throws up all of this large scale movement into India as being suspect.(something you agree with) The points you make about the Parama Kamboja fit the earlier opinions of the AIT than they do your newer idea of them having been absorbed. The evidence here would suggest that the tribes have maintained contact for atleast a 1000 years which would then bring to question their absorption into existing populations. Further with caste having established itself firmly by the time of the Mahabharata, it is probably unlikely that the intermingling happened at a later date. Even mentions of the Buddha's reference to the Aryan "Sakhya" clan seem to suggest an holding on to the ancient tribal identity. So when did all this mixing take place & why don't the supposedly numerically larger local population find mention? This is where I have a problem with your theory. Either the Aryans tribes were numerically large in number at the time of the Mahabharata(a good 1000 years from the earlier date of their arrival) in which case why is it that it does not show up in the genetic studies or they were completely absorbed in the local population to the point of completely losing their genetic identity as you suggest which brings us to a different problem of how they maintained contacts with ancient Iranian tribes which should by then have little in common with them.

My question about the Saraswathi is more simple & straightforward. Why are the Iranians less aware of the Saraswathi which at the time of the Rig Veda would have been the most important river for those on the Indian side( at a time when the two populations would have just started to separate) and more aware of the Indus which would attain its status only after the demise of the Saraswathi & the change in course of the Sutlej?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Deleted duplicate message.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Let us take a walk through these points. I believe that there is a consistency which will stand forth.



Bang Galore said:


> My main point was the genetic evidence which throws up all of this large scale movement into India as being suspect.(something you agree with)



Oh, absolutely. Or rather, it is the other way around, in a manner of looking.

We can either find consistency between the genetic evidence and a proposition that there was movement of allied tribes in the period 2000 BC to 1000 BC (keeping the period as large as possible to include both the earliest and the latest possible dates) by saying that the tribes were small in total numbers, and did not make any genetic impact on a moderate-sized, or even small-sized autochthonous population, or the opposite, by saying that even fair-sized tribes made no impact on what was already a very significant sized population. We have discussed the first possibility; what about the second?

Consider that there were Neolithic settlements right through south Asia. Consider that the level of technology was surprisingly high; taking one example, look at the record for Wootz steel, the original model for both the Japanese samurai and the 'damascened' swords of Spain (from the western mistake that damascened referred to Damascus from where sword-making technology moved to al'Andalus, rather than associating it with 'damas', water); consider that the Tamizh were well-advanced in water-management, good enough to support large populations even in ancient times; consider that Tamizh 'classical' literature from its literary high noon periods dated back to the 3rd century BC. Consider that the people of the east appear in their organised form very, very quickly in history, in fact with the Mahajanapadas coming in rapidly into the political arena, as early as the first five hundred years of the last millennium BC.

All we have to consider, in fact, is an immigrant population so small that it had no apparent impact on the genetic map of the entire sub-continent, and so large that it kept up relations with their old neighbours, the Indo-Iranian tribes, for some considerable period.

This is not imaginatively difficult to visualise.



Bang Galore said:


> *The points you make about the Parama Kamboja fit the earlier opinions of the AIT than they do your newer idea of them having been absorbed.* The evidence here would suggest that *the tribes* have maintained contact for atleast a 1000 years which would then bring to question *their absorption into existing populations.*



Why do you say so? The Parama Kamboja were a tribe listed in the Mahabharata as having taken part in the great war. This dates them as having been intact long enough to be recorded in a bardic work sometime between the 5th century and the 8th century BC. Where did I say that they were absorbed?

I think I understand what the problem is. 

When I was speaking about the absorption of other steppe people into the original Indo-Iranians, that did not mean the extinction of tribes. These absorptions, more to the point, were focused by tribes, individually. It was vertical absorptions, and not horizontal ones, which would have completely absorbed all the tribes at all times . They continued to be ruled by their kings, speak their language, and do everything that a tribe should do. Even till late, as Herodotus and other contemporary authors noted, they led a remote, steppe-like existence.

[Added at 6:45 am]

I am taking into account your 11:14 comment.

There is some complicated syntax. In your original comment, it appears that there is some mention both of the Parama Kamboja and of the Indian tribes. In neither case is it necessary to visualise a tribe, whether the diverging Parama Kamboja or the hypothetical Indian tribe, losing its coherence as a tribe _merely because it was absorbing members of the conquered population at large._

It is surely not necessary for this to be so. A tribe might absorb very large numbers of non-tribal members, mostly as slaves, a few as freeman artisans, without giving up its identity. 

Coming to your specific argument in §525, that there is inconsistency between the contact required for a mention in the Mahabharata and in the concept of the Aryans being absorbed into the general population and thus losing touch with the tribes left behind in the north-west.

It is not necessary for this to happen. Neither Aryan tribe nor Iranian tribe had to lose its identity merely because larger numbers of non-tribals joined it. The Aryans absorbed conquered Dasas, Dasyus and the Panis as Shudras; the Iranians absorbed conquered people too, as well as those who joined voluntarily. We see that happening in other tribes: the Alans, for instance, or the Pecheneg, in much later phases of history.



Bang Galore said:


> Further with caste having established itself firmly by the time of the Mahabharata, it is probably unlikely that the intermingling happened at a later date.



Later, please, as Morpheus beckons.I will answer these questions as soon as I can.

[7:20 am] Yes, I agree that it is unlikely that the intermingling happened at a later date, but because a later intermingling would distance the period of contacts in the north-east and the recitation and formalising of the epics by too much.



Bang Galore said:


> Even mentions of the Buddha's reference to the Aryan "Sakhya" clan seem to suggest an holding on to the ancient tribal identity.



Indeed it _might_, although the Sakya are not mentioned earlier.

Two points: Arya, to the Aryans, new and old, meant 'noble one', and did not signify race. Of course, in India, during the period of expansion, as the numbers of captive people grew, Arya increasingly came to refer to some of the social leadership who might have held themselves out of the commons. One has a well-documented example of this happening in Roman tribes: a top layer, the Patricians, holding itself superior to the others, the Plebeans.



Bang Galore said:


> So when did all this mixing take place & why don't the supposedly numerically larger local population find mention?



The mixing must have taken place right from the inception of contact through conquest or conference. Only it might have had accelerated throughout. The larger local population found mention right through the Vedas, as Dasas, Dasyus and Panis.



Bang Galore said:


> This is where I have a problem with your theory.



More.



Bang Galore said:


> Either the Aryans tribes were numerically large in number at the time of the Mahabharata(a good 1000 years from the earlier date of their arrival) in which case why is it that it does not show up in the genetic studies or they were completely absorbed in the local population to the point of completely losing their genetic identity as you suggest which brings us to a different problem of how they maintained contacts with ancient Iranian tribes which should by then have little in common with them.






Bang Galore said:


> My question about the Saraswathi is more simple & straightforward. Why are the Iranians less aware of the Saraswathi which at the time of the Rig Veda would have been the most important river for those on the Indian side( at a time when the two populations would have just started to separate) and more aware of the Indus which would attain its status only after the demise of the Saraswathi & the change in course of the Sutlej?



I will fill this later, as duty calls.


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> Why do you say so? The Parama Kamboja were a tribe listed in the Mahabharata as having taken part in the great war. This dates them as having been intact long enough to be recorded in a bardic work sometime between the 5th century and the 8th century BC. Where did I say that they were absorbed?



You misunderstand. I meant that if the Iranian tribe(Parama Kamboja) took part in the Mahabharata war, there must have been close contacts with the different tribes a 1000 years after they separated. That would suggest a non absorbed society on the Indian side at that comparatively late date in their history since any dilution would probably have resulted in loosening of the bonds between the tribes of Iran & India.. I was not talking about the Parama Kamboja being absorbed.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> The amount of indians using multiple id's and that keep coming back for more, prove my contention - that it indians *obsessed* with Pakistan.



Indians are obssesed with knowledge and quality discussions,If don't understand what i mean.

Jut get rid of the mods/think tanks/military professionals and a few senior members here ,overnight 90% will leave this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Bombensturm said:


> Indians are obssesed with knowledge and quality discussions,If don't understand what i mean.
> 
> Jut get rid of the mods/think tanks/military professionals and a few senior members here ,overnight 90% will leave this forum.



Quality discussions about  other forum such as Pakdef and Pakistanidefence have little or no indian participation and do fine. 

But most Pakistanis are the least bit interested in bharatrakshak and other indian sites are up to. 

This fascination is mostly from your side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Rafi said:


> Quality discussions about  other forum such as Pakdef and Pakistanidefence have little or no indian participation and do fine.
> 
> But most Pakistanis are the least bit interested in bharatrakshak and other indian sites are up to.
> 
> This fascination is mostly from your side.




Kindly stop whining. It gets a bit tiresome after a while. If the forums mentioned by you are more interesting in your opinion, why do you spend your time here wasting it on a forum that you particularly have issues with.

We are here because the administrators have chosen to adopt this particular format & membership. If you have issues with that, kindly take it up with them & spare us your continuous ranting.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bang Galore

> Originally Posted by Joe Shearer View Post
> But about the dates, very briefly, and without prejudice, meaning I am representing the commonly held view for your ready reminder in a separate note (I will try and see if a table formed in Word can be fitted into this format).
> 
> Indo-Iranian tribes in Central Asia: 2500 BC to 2000 BC
> Iranian tribes move westward: 2000 to 1700 BC
> Composition of the Avesta: 1700 BC to 1300 BC
> Indian tribes move eastward: 2000 to 1700 BC
> Last dates of viable IVC settlements, latest: 1300 BC
> Composition of the Rg Veda and three other Vedas*: 1700 BC to 1000 BC
> Composition of the Mahabharata*: 800 BC to 800 AD



Okay, some issues with the dates now. Why I brought the Saraswati into the discussion was because its mention as the major river at the time of the Rig Veda and its decline thereafter would throw into question the dates normally given for movement of the Aryans. The Rig Veda , it can be argued would have been composed after a settlement had been well established and a language distinct from any other common earlier language had evolved. Let's say that this took place over a few hundred years. The saraswathi dried up long before 1000B.C.


> The wide river bed (paleo-channel) of the Ghaggar river suggest that the river once flowed full of water during the great meltdown of the Himalayan Ice Age glaciers, some 10,000 years ago, and that it then continued through the entire region, in the presently dry channel of the Hakra River, possibly emptying into the Rann of Kutch. It supposedly dried up due to the capture of its tributaries by the Indus system and the Yamuna river, and later on, additionally, the loss of water in much of its catchment area due to deforestation and overgrazing.[23] This is supposed by some to have happened at the latest in 1900 BCE [24][25]
> 
> *Painted Grey Ware sites (ca. 1000 BCE) have been found in the bed and not on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra river, suggesting that the river had dried up before this period*


http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/archaeology/site/archs0001.htm
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct25/articles20.htm

That puts back the dates suggested by you considerably as the river to be spoken of so highly & personified as a Goddess suggests that it was a river in greater flow than others in comparison.(The Aryans would have had to cross the Indus to come to the Saraswati) 
A second problem is one on which you & I have touched upon on an earlier thread- *The Mitanni. *They came to power, as you know about 1500 B.C. & specifically used Indo-Aryan names & words including aika. That would suggest not only a separation between the Iranian tribes & the Indian tribes but also a considerable interval wherein the specific culture & language evolved with the difference being clear & distinct. Regardless of what you think of the Mitanni's presence(you had an interesting theory, I remember), it is the presence of the their distinct Indo-aryan roots that are important for our purpose. The dates given by you are too tight to accommodate this & certainly the question of the saraswati.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rafi

Bang Galore said:


> Kindly stop whining. It gets a bit tiresome after a while. If the forums mentioned by you are more interesting in your opinion, why do you spend your time here wasting it on a forum that you particularly have issues with.
> 
> We are here because the administrators have chosen to adopt this particular format & membership. If you have issues with that, kindly take it up with them & spare us your continuous ranting.



Your doing the whining, shows that the inferiority complex is alive and kicking in you.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> Okay, some issues with the dates now. Why I brought the Saraswati into the discussion was because its mention as *the major river *at the time of the Rig Veda and its decline thereafter would throw into question the dates normally given for movement of the Aryans.



Not really.

It is not by any means the major river in the Rg Veda; an important one, certainly, but to assign a rank order to it superior to that of the Sindhu is stretching a bit, don't you think? Naturally, the question that arises is - how did you calculate the rank order? How and where did you get the superiority of the Saraswati over the Sindhu?

And the dates don't seem to be inconsistent. See below. 



Bang Galore said:


> The Rig Veda , it can be argued would have been composed after a settlement had been well established and a language distinct from any other common earlier language had evolved. Let's say that this took place over a few hundred years. The saraswathi dried up long before 1000B.C.
> 
> The Saraswati:- Where lies the mystery
> Saraswati  the ancient river lost in the desert
> 
> That puts back the dates suggested by you considerably as the river to be spoken of so highly & personified as a Goddess suggests that it was a river in greater flow than others in comparison.(The Aryans would have had to cross the Indus to come to the Saraswati)



There are several issues here.

It is precisely NOT the case that the Rg Veda was composed by a settled people, leave alone a sedentary people, and in fact, the bulk of the evidence shows that the hymns were composed and sung when the tribes were wanderers and herdsmen.
Nor is the point about the language having been differentiated consistent with historical facts. On the contrary. The earlier hymns and the language of the Zend Avesta are so close as to seem dialectal variants. It was written precisely at around the time of the physical break, when the linguistic break was not yet congealed into significant differences.
The dates are not inconsistent with a possibility that the Saraswati stopped sustaining the IVC around 1000 BC. We are looking at generally accepted dates of 1700 BC to 1000 BC for the composition of the Vedas, and 1000 BC (according to your figure) for the cessation of the Saraswati. I have already proposed a last date of 1300 BC for the IVC. If the river stopped flowing in 1000 BC, it might very well have become unable to sustain its client cities by three hundreds years previous to that. 
There is no inconsistency with the hymn-writers having written about the Saraswati in the Rg Veda, as it was in a flux till as late as 1000 BC. So why should a river that was significant until then not find mention? Or putting it the other way around, why should it finding mention surprise us?

I find it difficult to agree that the river should be given such a high priority as you seem to assign it. Its personification as a Goddess does not necessarily signify a greater size or a greater volume of water flow. As we already know, the preferred term for dealing with a large body of water was already the Sindhu, and there is clear room to believe that some of the earliest references to the Sindhu might have been references to the Aral Sea, the Syr Daria or the Amu Daria.

Such might have been the case with the Saraswati also. We cannot rule out that the existence of the Ghaggra/Hakkra apart, the name Saraswati may have belonged to another river, flowing into another Sindhu, in the earliest times, and may have been transferred when the migrants in their eastward wanderings encountered new water-bodies and used their old familiar names for them, reminders of their earlier wanderings. An example is New York, New Hampshire and their type; Cartagena, New Carthage, in ancient and mediaeval times in the Mediterranean; in India, Then Kasi for Madurai, signifying the southern Kasi and others.



Bang Galore said:


> A second problem is one on which you & I have touched upon on an earlier thread- *The Mitanni. *They came to power, as you know about 1500 B.C. & specifically used Indo-Aryan names & words including aika.
> 
> That would suggest not only a separation between the Iranian tribes & the Indian tribes but also a considerable interval wherein the specific culture & language evolved with the difference being clear & distinct. Regardless of what you think of the Mitanni's presence(you had an interesting theory, I remember), it is the presence of the their distinct Indo-aryan roots that are important for our purpose.



As a matter of fact, linguistically, the names of the Gods of the War Band date back to the Indo-Iranian and earlier, NOT to the Indo-Aryan. These same gods are known to a wide array of allied tribes and cultures within the Indo-European speaking peoples.

The Mittanni are presently thought, generally, to be a tribe speaking a variant of Proto-Indo-Iranian, and to have branched off from the Greek-Armenian- Indo-Iranian stem. Greek and Armenian separated out later, and left the Indo-Iranian balance to the rest of the march eastward.

No problem, Saar.

Secondly, I am not entirely certain what you refer to by the phrase 'separation'. The Parama Kamboja and the Kuru were separated; they were separated by distance, they were separated by then by language, but literary records insist that they were allied in battle sometime before 800 BC. We need not take literary records as absolute evidence, but it does give us clues. 



Bang Galore said:


> The dates given by you are too tight to accommodate this & certainly the question of the saraswati.



I believe that there is room, room for the existing hypothesised sequence of facts that I have presented, room for the Saraswati, room for the broad fit of events discussed by us.

But we can always discuss any further doubts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> Not really.
> 
> It is not by any means the major river in the Rg Veda; an important one, certainly, but to assign a rank order to it superior to that of the Sindhu is stretching a bit, don't you think? Naturally, the question that arises is - how did you calculate the rank order? How and where did you get the superiority of the Saraswati over the Sindhu?



The fact that the Sutlej & the Yamuna flowed into the saraswathi? That would automatically lower the flow in the Indus, wouldn't it?



Joe Shearer said:


> [*]The dates are not inconsistent with a possibility that the Saraswati stopped sustaining the IVC around 1000 BC. We are looking at generally accepted dates of 1700 BC to 1000 BC for the composition of the Vedas, and 1000 BC (according to your figure) for the cessation of the Saraswati.



Not quite correct.; What I said was that the river had dried up by then since there is evidence suggesting to that end.

"Painted Grey Ware sites (ca. 1000 BCE) have been found in the bed and not on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra river, suggesting that the river had dried up before this period"



Joe Shearer said:


> I have already proposed a last date of 1300 BC for the IVC. If the river stopped flowing in 1000 BC, it might very well have become unable to sustain its client cities by three hundreds years previous to that.
> [*]There is no inconsistency with the hymn-writers having written about the Saraswati in the Rg Veda, as it was in a flux till as late as 1000 BC. So why should a river that was significant until then not find mention? Or putting it the other way around, why should it finding mention surprise us?
> [/LIST]
> 
> I find it difficult to agree that the river should be given such a high priority as you seem to assign it. Its personification as a Goddess does not necessarily signify a greater size or a greater volume of water flow.



I did not claim an exact date for the decline of the Saraswathi even though the links provided by me suggests a much earlier date for its drying up. Since I am not very clear about the veracity of such statements (& hidden agendas if any) I pointed out the date given as being most certain because of the evidence of inhabited sites on the bed of the river by about 1000 B.C. It is however unlikely that a river in the process of drying up would have been given as much importance as the Saraswathi was. I also find your dismissal of the Goddess personification a bit troublesome. No other river(including Ganga) achieved the status as an independent Goddess(not just as a river Goddess) in the sub continent. Stories of the Saraswathi existing as an underground river finally meeting the Yamuna & the Ganga at Allahabad indicate the importance given to that river. This continued even when the focus had long shifted to the gangetic plains. 





Joe Shearer said:


> As a matter of fact, linguistically, the names of the Gods of the War Band date back to the Indo-Iranian and earlier, NOT to the Indo-Aryan. These same gods are known to a wide array of allied tribes and cultures within the Indo-European speaking peoples.
> 
> The Mittanni are presently thought, generally, to be a tribe speaking a variant of Proto-Indo-Iranian, and to have branched off from the Greek-Armenian- Indo-Iranian stem. Greek and Armenian separated out later, and left the Indo-Iranian balance to the rest of the march eastward.




I have to disagree, The Mitanni used many words which are similar to Sanskrit & not to an earlier Proto Indo-Iranian language. While accepting that your knowledge of history is probably greater, let me remind you that you admitted in an earlier thread that that particular part baffled you.



Joe Shearer said:


> Secondly, I am not entirely certain what you refer to by the phrase 'separation'. The Parama Kamboja and the Kuru were separated; they were separated by distance, they were separated by then by language, but literary records insist that they were allied in battle sometime before 800 BC. We need not take literary records as absolute evidence, but it does give us clues.



I was referring to your theory of absorption of Aryan tribes into a pre existing culture. My point was that if such an absorption did occur than ties based on tribal loyalties with those in the east would have suffered. Not disputing dates but just pointing out some of the problems caused by the newer theory.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

I must apologise for the spasmodic nature of my writing.

Between the demands of my travel, and the close attention that has to be paid to my father's establishment in Calcutta, and the need to retain a foothold in Bangalore, it is difficult to snatch time on line. On top of that, the grip of the birthsign I was born under doesn't permit me to give incomplete or half-hearted answers. Even if someone is being sarcastic or ironic, I believe that he (or she) has the right to the same courtesy and full reply that any other supportive person would have; a greater right, in fact. 

That last obviously doesn't apply to you; the other day, I was horrified to find one of the most sober and balanced posters taking umbrage at a phrase I used, which had nothing whatsoever to do with my high respect for him. I am now careful. 



Bang Galore said:


> The fact that the Sutlej & the Yamuna flowed into the saraswathi? That would automatically lower the flow in the Indus, wouldn't it?



The Sutlej flowing into the Saraswati would certainly affect the flow in the Indus. The Yamuna wouldn't; it went off to join the Ganges at Allahabad anyway. All this assuming that they did in fact flow into the Saraswati.



Bang Galore said:


> Not quite correct.; What I said was that the river had dried up by then since there is evidence suggesting to that end.
> 
> "Painted Grey Ware sites (ca. 1000 BCE) have been found in the bed and not on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra river, suggesting that the river had dried up before this period"
> 
> I did not claim an exact date for the decline of the Saraswathi even though the links provided by me suggests a much earlier date for its drying up. Since I am not very clear about the veracity of such statements (& hidden agendas if any) I pointed out the date given as being most certain because of the evidence of inhabited sites on the bed of the river by about 1000 B.C. It is however unlikely that a river in the process of drying up would have been given as much importance as the Saraswathi was.



There is a gap of 300 years between the last settlements clearly ascribable to the IVC and the dried up PGW sites in the Ghaggra-Hakkra bed. Wouldn't you agree that this gap would give sufficient time for the Saraswati to dry up and leave the IVC settlements unsustainable?

We are on the same page, I hope, wrt the PGW settlements; those were little hamlets, in some cases, and have been assigned to the early incoming Indo-Aryan culture.



Bang Galore said:


> I also find your dismissal of the Goddess personification a bit troublesome. No other river(including Ganga) achieved the status as an independent Goddess(not just as a river Goddess) in the sub continent. Stories of the Saraswathi existing as an underground river finally meeting the Yamuna & the Ganga at Allahabad indicate the importance given to that river. This continued even when the focus had long shifted to the gangetic plains.



Frankly this is difficult to deal with; as you know, there is no other case of this sort. 



Bang Galore said:


> I have to disagree, The Mitanni used many words which are similar to Sanskrit & not to an earlier Proto Indo-Iranian language. While accepting that your knowledge of history is probably greater, let me remind you that you admitted in an earlier thread that that particular part baffled you.



I take your general point, but it is still true that the Mitanni usages are consistent with a much earlier break-away than the Indo-Iranian, which was quite late, about 2000 BC. Linking it to Sanskrit is difficult; which variety of Sanskrit did you have in mind, Vedic or Classic? (pre- or post-Panini?). It is utterly impossible to synchronise it with post-Panini Sanskrit, as the codification by the great man lost several Proto-Indo-Iranian language features, which indicate clearly that the two were not in proximity.

What was puzzling was the sequence proposed for the break-away, that it separated out from PIE even earlier than Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranian. This was not a sequence I had expected, but my knowledge of the precise sequence of break-aways currently favoured by linguists is a little grey. 

It is now time to rip off my false whiskers and stand revealed in public view as a mere historian with little knowledge of the current trends in linguistics. Contrary to your summation, this discussion is not within the boundaries of history, but of linguistics. So, quite honestly, we are quite on par in the matter. 

What we are discussing is that awkward period that historians normally dread, that grey period before history started settling down into what it properly is, a period when it was necessary to resort to linguistic and literary interpretation - never an historian's first resort! - and more so, resort to it without the comfort of material culture to support any conclusions.



Bang Galore said:


> I was referring to your theory of absorption of Aryan tribes into a pre existing culture. My point was that if such an absorption did occur than ties based on tribal loyalties with those in the east would have suffered. Not disputing dates but just pointing out some of the problems caused by the newer theory.



It all depends on the question of absorption and of communications while the process of absorption goes on. We can consider parallel cases and see what happens in those. Some examples in Pakistan, on their Punjab/KP borders, are more appropriate to this discussion than any other. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to find a cooperative interlocutor who will lead the discussion at this point, since apparently the only things that are of interest are how quickly our nation will decay and vanish, and which weapons are likeliest to do the most damage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> The Sutlej flowing into the Saraswati would certainly affect the flow in the Indus. The Yamuna wouldn't; it went off to join the Ganges at Allahabad anyway. All this assuming that they did in fact flow into the Saraswati.



Sorry for not being clearer. My point was that the Saraswathi would be a greater river if both the Sutlej & the Yamuna flowed into it.(In comparison, the Indus & the Ganges would be slightly lesser rivers)


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> Sorry for not being clearer. My point was that the Saraswathi would be a greater river if both the Sutlej & the Yamuna flowed into it.(In comparison, the Indus & the Ganges would be slightly lesser rivers)


 
If you are still interested, there is evidence that the Yamuna was captured alternately by the Indus system and the Gangetic system. The note does not refer to the Saraswati but does refer separately to both the Ghaggra and the Hakkra.


----------



## fujistu

i dont no why becouse in the earliers the real name of india was bharat


----------



## roadrunner

the sarasvati wasn't a river that dried up, if I've read you correct Joey/Blore. 

It was just the Indus and its tributaries. If any river was bigger than the Indus, ancient maps would all have recorded it. But the only river they record is the Indus. 

Conclusion: The Sarasvati was the Indus.


----------



## alphamale

roadrunner said:


> the sarasvati wasn't a river that dried up, if I've read you correct Joey/Blore.
> 
> It was just the Indus and its tributarieRosa Caracciolo. If any river was bigger than the Indus, ancient maps would all have recorded it. But the only river they record is the Indus.
> 
> Conclusion: The Sarasvati was the Indus.


 
no it has been proved that there was a river which started from Himalayas & flows into today's haryana, rajasthan into pak thar & adjacent to indus. u can search on internet, there are many satellite images showing dry river bed of same river.


----------



## roadrunner

Satellite imagery of land indentations aren't proof a river existed. 

Here's a satellite image. How much of the so called Sarasvati Basin can you see? Virtually nothing.


----------



## Joe Shearer

I had planned to wind up my contributions to this thread and retire gracefully, but was prevented from doing so by certain unfortunate events occurring elsewhere. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to bring an orderly end to my personal contributions to the thread.



roadrunner said:


> the sarasvati wasn't a river that dried up, if I've read you correct Joey/Blore.
> 
> It was just the Indus and its tributaries. If any river was bigger than the Indus, ancient maps would all have recorded it. But the only river they record is the Indus.
> 
> Conclusion: The Sarasvati was the Indus.



To be honest, this conclusion would appear to be a misunderstanding. My views, such as they are, are best taken from notes 534 and 535.



alphamale said:


> no it has been proved that there was a river which started from Himalayas & flows into today's haryana, rajasthan into pak thar & adjacent to indus. u can search on internet, there are many satellite images showing dry river bed of same river.



Yes. This has been confirmed many times. It is speculated that the Sarasvati or Ghaggra or Hakkra dried up by 1900 BC, since the oldest civic establishments are dated to that period.



roadrunner said:


> Satellite imagery of land indentations aren't proof a river existed.
> 
> Here's a satellite image. How much of the so called Sarasvati Basin can you see? Virtually nothing.



If you are seriously interested, this can be discussed in full, with attendant evidence in the form of very sound scientific findings.

However, to me, this is a dead subject, as the Sarasvati/ Ghaggra/ Hakkra complex has been co-opted by very determined propagandists for the oout of India theory. It is their case that these settlements prove, in some mysterious magical way, that Sanskrit was disseminated from India outward; that the so -called Indo-European languages were all derived from Sanskrit; that all the dates must be adjusted to allow for this particular model, including the unending interval that is created in order to explain the gap between the Rg Veda and other, subsequent compositions.

How does one respond to these attacks by the bigots and fascists?

I am in no position to offer advice to people as wise or as learned as you. However, what can be done without losing face is to narrate one's own responses to these attacks by the Hindutvavadis, and their academic minions, and to leave it to the understanding of the reader how it applies to their situation. My response is to flee the battle. As I was originally Hindu, it is appropriate to confirm that the urgency and the pressing imperative of this demand is sufficient to release that most civilised garment, the dhoti, from all its restraints, and to conjure up the picture which in Pakistan seems to have an irresistible allure - a dhoti with its ends fluttering. Only reading a Pakistani brigadier on the subject will make apparent how much emotion, how much erotic feeling can be brought into this simple imagery. 

To cut a long story short, run, run for your lives, when you read these magic words, Sarasvati, Ghaggra and Hakkra; in the Bard's words,"Stand not on the order of thy going, but go!" When faced by a ghost, this is the only response.

Perhaps on some other occasion, in some other forum, I will have an opportunity to point out to Roadrunner that he spoilt a perfectly good argument, a tenable, sustainable argument, by one single, simple flaw, and what agonies I suffered in restraining myself from bringing this to his notice.


----------



## nitesh28

is this issue worth anything to anyone


----------



## roadrunner

Joe Shearer said:


> I had planned to wind up my contributions to this thread and retire gracefully, but was prevented from doing so by certain unfortunate events occurring elsewhere. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to bring an orderly end to my personal contributions to the thread.


 
Go on, what is your evidence? Also explain why Ptolemy and all the other cartographers of history missed out the Sarasvati and spotted the Indus, did he have bad eyesight perhaps?


----------



## Joe Shearer

roadrunner said:


> Go on, what is your evidence? Also explain why Ptolemy and all the other cartographers of history missed out the Sarasvati and spotted the Indus, did he have bad eyesight perhaps?


 
You perhaps misunderstand; post 540 was in fact the intended orderly end to my personal contributions. It is surely not of any consequence to add further, since mentioning that the Sarasvati/ Ghaggra/ Hakkra dried up long before a latest date of 1900 BC only elicits from you the incredulous question why Ptolemy and the other cartographers missed out the Sarasvati and spotted the Indus, perhaps due to bad eyesight. Considering that Ptolemy lived between the years 90 and 168 AD, perhaps some 2,000 years after the river-system in question dried up, yes, I agree with you, that is the only possible explanation, he and his colleagues must have suffered from bad eyesight.

This perfectly explains why any further contribution from me will be a waste of your time, since I was manifestly unable to spot even this small but pertinent fact that you did, which illuminates the whole space. This, then, is the right moment to take your leave.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## roadrunner

If the Ghaggar-Hakra dried up long before 1900 BC, why would the Rig Vedic poems make mention of an extinct river being larger than the Indus? 

What date range do you consider the Rig Veda was composed between? 

would 1500-1000 BC be about right?


----------



## red_baron

india's father of nation gandhi was given the choice of either naming the country after himself or ganges river that flows in land whats now called india...since no one knew either him or ganges he decided to name his country after a river that runs in foreign land named Pakistan...thats it..no motivation....just lack of dignity and a practice of copy right infringement


----------



## divya

red_baron said:


> india's father of nation gandhi was given the choice of either naming the country after himself or ganges river that flows in land whats now called india...since no one knew either him or ganges he decided to name his country after a river that runs in foreign land named Pakistan...thats it..no motivation....just lack of dignity and a practice of copy right infringement


 
are you like this or have you taken up some course?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mech

Rafi said:


> Your doing the whining, shows that the inferiority complex is alive and kicking in you.


 
ooooooh! Inferiority complex! I wonder what else is new......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Mech said:


> ooooooh! Inferiority complex! I wonder what else is new......


 
Exactly, but a few months old.


----------



## 2012

The name India (&#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340 may refer to either the Indian Subcontinent, the contemporary Republic of India or the region of Greater India. *The term is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC)*. The term appears in Old English in the 9th century, and again in Modern English since the 17th century. The Republic of India has three principal short names, in both official and popular English usage, each of which is historically significant. All originally designated a single entity comprising all the modern nations of the Indian subcontinent. These names are India and Bharat.[1] The first Article of the Constitution of India states that "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states." Thus, India and Bharat are equally official short names for the Republic of India, Indians commonly refer to their country as Bharat, India depending on the context and language of conversation.


----------



## clmeta

UnitedPak said:


> stealth, why do you flood every thread with off topic quotes?
> 
> The "India" the greeks were referring to wasnt called "India", and it was in Pakistan. Look up Alexanders invasion of "India", it didnt even touch modern India.
> 
> And this is about the naming of Modern India, you cant possibly use ancient quotes to justify anything here.
> 
> Churchill was spot on, but I suppose you only want to quote hinduonnet sources.
> 
> India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator. -Winston Churchill


 
Churchill ain't no God.
Just because Pakistan came into existence in 1947 doesn' mean the rest of the world also came into existence in 1947. By your logic every country that was colonized came into existence after the colonials left. By that logic Afghanistan hasn't even come into existence. Nor Iraq. Are these countries or Geographical expression? Even Pakistan was created in 1971. Before that it was a geographical expression of West Pakistan and present day Bangaldesh. When did Saudi Arab, Egypt, etc become nations? Or they haven't? What about Pakistan? Is it a country yet? Or are you waiting for some certificate from the British ruler?
Silly man, do you read these kind of things in your textbooks???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## red_baron

clmeta said:


> Churchill ain't no God.
> Just because Pakistan came into existence in 1947 doesn' mean the rest of the world also came into existence in 1947. By your logic every country that was colonized came into existence after the colonials left. By that logic Afghanistan hasn't even come into existence. Nor Iraq. Are these countries or Geographical expression? Even Pakistan was created in 1971. Before that it was a geographical expression of West Pakistan and present day Bangaldesh. When did Saudi Arab, Egypt, etc become nations? Or they haven't? What about Pakistan? Is it a country yet? Or are you waiting for some certificate from the British ruler?
> Silly man, do you read these kind of things in your textbooks???


 
your anger is pretty justified like living on a stolen name....entire hole being named after a river in some foreign land in central asia.....you can still change it....ganges or ghandistan dont sound bad


----------



## roadrunner

My opinion of the recent claims about the Saraswati River is that the fanatics from Hindutva who have quite a big role in the writing of Indian history, have tried to invent a river out of nowhere, in order to try and shift some aspects of the Indus Valley Civilization a little Eastwards. 

The outcome won't change, but the idea the Saraswati was a river bigger than the Indus that magically disappeared one day is quite ludicrous. 

If the Rig Veda was written around 1200 BC, the Persians would not have been calling the land after the Indus River. They would have called it something like Harasvati-Indu or something.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

amazing how many bharti trolls this forum attracts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clmeta

red_baron said:


> your anger is pretty justified like living on a stolen name....entire hole being named after a river in some foreign land in central asia.....you can still change it....ganges or ghandistan dont sound bad


 
Hey we are fine with India/Bharat/Hindustan. Dont worry. The one with the problem is the one who started this thread. If you have an identity crises why are so desperate that others have it???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## alphamale

i don't understand that why always pakistanis have problem with name of our country as india, indians have no problem with it. pakistan always complain that india has stolen the name from pakistan history as indus river flows in pak from which india is derived. i think to end this debate the best sol. is that pakistan should rename itself as india which they claim belongs to them, india will rename itself to bharat, hindustan or anything else. this will end all problems with word "india" as pakistan will get it's right & indians will be happy too.


----------



## red_baron

alphamale said:


> i don't understand that why always pakistanis have problem with name of our country as india, indians have no problem with it. pakistan always complain that india has stolen the name from pakistan history as indus river flows in pak from which india is derived. i think to end this debate the best sol. is that pakistan should rename itself as india which they claim belongs to them, india will rename itself to bharat, hindustan or anything else. this will end all problems with word "india" as pakistan will get it's right & indians will be happy too.



 best would be to try gandhi posthumously for copy-right infringement and fraud


----------



## roadrunner

alphamale said:


> i don't understand that why always pakistanis have problem with name of our country as india, indians have no problem with it.


 
That's not really surprising. India gets a history, Pakistan loses one. It's like France calling itself Gaul in the future. Then Nigeria calling itself France and claiming Napoleon's victories are part of Nigeria's history. 

But, I digress, back to the Saraswati River.


----------



## alphamale

roadrunner said:


> That's not really surprising. India gets a history, Pakistan loses one. It's like France calling itself Gaul in the future. Then Nigeria calling itself France and claiming Napoleon's victories are part of Nigeria's history.
> 
> But, I digress, back to the Saraswati River.


 
as we have told u before that there is proof that saraswati river existed in ancient times, in vedas there is talk about saptha sindu which means seven rivers in north westren area of subcontinent. of which 6 rivers are present i.e indus, satluj, ravi, beas, chenab & jhelum but only one is missing which is saraswati which dried many centuries back. but u will still not agree on that bcoz the problem is that u have made ur mind that come what may u will not accept that there existed a river named saraswati. i can only suggest u to find more abt saraswati river on internet.


----------



## arihant

roadrunner said:


> That's not really surprising. India gets a history, Pakistan loses one. It's like France calling itself Gaul in the future. Then Nigeria calling itself France and claiming Napoleon's victories are part of Nigeria's history.
> 
> But, I digress, back to the Saraswati River.


 
Did you know theory of migration of people from Sindhu river to Ganges. Thats explains a lot. River used to flow in the thar desert and dried up due to climate change. And you can see today whole area is desert.


----------



## Halwa

red_baron said:


> best would be to try gandhi posthumously for copy-right infringement and fraud


 
oh you the same person who did not know what is equator right??
i feel so pity on you that you dont have geography in your textboook

anyways instead of jealousing of India's economy,IPL, bollywood, History and now name worry about the people in Pakistan who are being blown everyday like popcorn..


----------



## aakash_2410

We didn't CHOOSE the name India! You guys are the one who SEPARATED and chose to name your country 'PAKistan' [A land of pure]!!

It's funny that these are the same Pakistanis who say 'I'd rather die than being called Indian'!! loooooool

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jayron

I think Pakistanis love the name India and want to be called Indian rather than a Pakistani. Too Bad!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

jayron said:


> I think Pakistanis love the name India and want to be called Indian rather than a Pakistani. Too Bad!




keep telling yourself that if it helps ease the pain of 1947

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

Funny to see Afghan tribals so much interested in India!

They should worry about Tajiks and Uzbeks and Kyrgyzs and so on. They are not even South Asians.

What do we care for the tribals!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## red_baron

aakash_2410 said:


> We didn't CHOOSE the name India! You guys are the one who SEPARATED and chose to name your country 'PAKistan' [A land of pure]!!
> 
> It's funny that these are the same Pakistanis who say 'I'd rather die than being called Indian'!! loooooool


 
after that movie slumdog millionaire you know what the free world now calls indians....

not much left for indians to live for....credit goes to gandhi stole the name and now 1.2 billions are left to defend his inferiority complex and theft

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halwa

red_baron said:


> after that movie slumdog millionaire you know what the free world now calls indians....
> 
> not much left for indians to live for....credit goes to gandhi stole the name and now 1.2 billions are left to defend his inferiority complex and theft


 
we are respected all over the world, just ask your uncle running Indian restaurant in western countries..

BDW after 26/11 we know what the world call you ..


----------



## LaBong

Vinod2070 said:


> Funny to see Afghan tribals so much interested in India!
> 
> They should worry about Tajiks and Uzbeks and Kyrgyzs and so on. They are not even South Asians.
> 
> What do we care for the tribals!


 
The funny thing is, they speak a language which is not even remotely related to Sanskrit, has negligible literary heritage, yet claim a stake of vedic civilization! Identity crisis galore?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Vinod2070 said:


> Funny to see Afghan tribals so much interested in India!



I cant speak for Afghan citizens, but I assume you were trying to take a cheap jab at Pakhtuns. it's actually the opposite.....even your Shahrukh Khan (an indian by nationality only) still takes pride in the fact that his papa is Pakistani from my city of Pekhawar 

ask the average person in Kohat, D.I. Khan Kurram or Khyber agency what they think of indian and you will have your answer on a warm plate.




> They should worry about Tajiks and Uzbeks and Kyrgyzs and so on. They are not even South Asians.



well now you're just being silly.....

i do agree that there are pockets of such nationality people in our tribal areas and theyre up to no good. More often than not -and rest assured, when the military comes across them they either get captured or shot when they put up any form of armed resistance




> What do we care for the tribals!



you should be more concerned about your assamese and Maoist tribals who are blowing a lot of shyte up, kidnapping and engaging in sabotage in your restive northeast!

that's what you should be devoting more time to. Don't ya think?


----------



## LaBong

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> I cant speak for Afghan citizens, but I assume you were trying to take a cheap jab at Pakhtuns. it's actually the opposite.....even your Shahrukh Khan (an indian by nationality only) still takes pride in the fact that his papa is Pakistani from my city of Pekhawar
> 
> ask the average person in Kohat, D.I. Khan Kurram or Khyber agency what they think of indian and you will have your answer on a warm plate.



You didn't get it, why would we care what they think of us? Do we(or say a han Chinese!) care what an Uzbec or Mongal think of us, those guys were zillion times more _martial_ than people of nwfp if that is what you and your friend were trying to allude!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

india the land of slums should not really lecture anyone, on pretty much anything.


----------



## aakash_2410

red_baron said:


> after that movie slumdog millionaire you know what the free world now calls indians....
> 
> not much left for indians to live for....credit goes to gandhi stole the name and now 1.2 billions are left to defend his inferiority complex and theft


 
lmao Truth hurts. right?? I can LITERALLY see the jealousy and hatred in that fake laugh of yours. If I was a Pakistani I wouldn't be laughing. :/ After Bankrupt economy, lack of food, flood damage, Drone attacks, Balochistan movements and all that. And by the way these are just few to name. 

Not much left for Indians to live for???? looool You make me laugh. It's even funnier coming from a Pakistani!! looool. And MAHATMA Gandhi a thief??!! lol Whereever you go everyone knows Gandhi as a GREAT man. Including US, UK. But you wouldn't know because you never stepped outside of your own little brain washing world. They've got Gandhi's photos and statue in big governmental buildings. I wonder if they would be happy to put your Qaid-e-Azam;s statue??

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Mayor wants to see Gandhi statue


America has its roots in India of Mahatma Gandhi: Obama - Times Of India

In UK






In US





And if you really wanna see how Indians and Pakistanis are seen outside of their countries. I'll give you a great example. Abbreviation of 'Indians' is 'Indies' used to describe Indians but and abbreviation of 'Pakistanis' is 'Pak*' which is a derogatory term even after attempts of calling them 'Pak* pride' by some Pakistani youth outside of Pakistan??!! So you can imagine about the reputation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

And indians are regarded as passive weaklings everywhere, especially Australia.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Rafi said:


> And indians are regarded as passive weaklings everywhere, especially Australia.


 
You seriously act as if Pakistanis have a good image world wide, lmao. Lets not act like a tough guy over the internet.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

what a pathetic example; Pak&#305; isnt even offensive -- it's britishers who treat is at a racist term. I encourage people to call me a Pak&#305; since the meaning behind it is more than a compliment

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## justanobserver

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> what a pathetic example; Pak&#305;* isnt even offensive* -- it's britishers who treat is at a racist term. *I encourage people to call me a Pak&#305; since the meaning behind it is more than a compliment*


 
Ok then perhaps mods here should allow the term here. I find it quite convenient than saying "Pakistani"


----------



## Rafi

Liquid said:


> You seriously act as if Pakistanis have a good image world wide, lmao. Lets not act like a tough guy over the internet.


 
At least Pakistanis are not regarded as soft, as indians clearly are.

---------- Post added at 01:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------




justanobserver said:


> Ok then perhaps mods here should allow the term here. I find it quite convenient than saying "Pakistani"


 
Probably some British origin Pakistanis would find it offensive???


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

justanobserver said:


> Ok then perhaps mods here should allow the term here. I find it quite convenient than saying "Pakistani"


 
i was just stating my own view; neither you nor I have enough sway to determine the policies of the forum

Pakistani still sounds better than the other word; I dont think patriotic elements here would care what is ''convenient'' for you or others. 

just sayin!


----------



## kingkobra

Rafi said:


> And indians are regarded as passive weaklings everywhere, especially Australia.


 
no one has forgotten how pakistani's have claimed jay sean to be a pakistani and then they fell right on their face 
weaklings or whaterver..Indians are thousand times better than pakistanis...and that is the reason why pakistani's pretend to be Indians in many countries...pakistanis work in Indian restaurants...i can give enough insight on this but who cares about what you guys think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

> At least Pakistanis are not regarded as soft, as indians clearly are.



Ha, do you even know the image of Pakistan and Pakistanis world wide? I rather be regarded as a 'soft' doctor making 100k+ a year then a suicide bomber any day.


----------



## kingkobra

Rafi said:


> At least Pakistanis are not regarded as soft, as indians clearly are.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Probably some British origin Pakistanis would find it offensive???


 
i dont like to bring this stuff again and again here but its required to show some guys the reality

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

kingkobra said:


> no one has forgotten how pakistani's have claimed jay sean to be a pakistani and then they fell right on their face
> weaklings or whaterver..Indians are thousand times better than pakistanis...and that is the reason why pakistani's pretend to be Indians in many countries...pakistanis work in Indian restaurants...i can give enough insight on this but who cares about what you guys think?


 
what a retarded troll....you fail even at trolling, that's how pathetic you come across as a person 

typical indian troll with too much time to spare


if Pakistanis pretend to be indian --then maybe you should visit Coney Island in New York (known in New York as ''Little Pakistan'') and see how many of your people are sweeping the floors at Pakistani-owned restaurants which dominate the city.

look at Australia where being an indian is the biggest liability....even Lebanese and Syrian immigrants in that country are targetting you people. And then you talk about Pakistanis pretending to be hindustani??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notsuperstitious

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> amazing how many bharti trolls this forum attracts


 
As opposed to how many pakistani whiners this forum attracts?

When one is out of arguments and the same old repeated idiotic silly internet tough guy insults become old, one is left with calling others trolls.

Sad yet funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> what a retarded troll....you fail even at trolling, that's how pathetic you come across as a person
> 
> typical indian troll with too much time to spare
> 
> 
> if Pakistanis pretend to be indian --then maybe you should visit Coney Island in New York (known in New York as ''Little Pakistan'') and see how many of your people are sweeping the floors at Pakistani-owned restaurants which dominate the city.
> 
> look at Australia where being an indian is the biggest liability....even Lebanese and Syrian immigrants in that country are targetting you people. And then you talk about Pakistanis pretending to be hindustani??


 
you call yourself professional?? huh...thats strange....
btw i dont care how i come across to anyone..especially so called "professionals" like you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## notsuperstitious

roadrunner said:


> My opinion of the recent claims about the Saraswati River is that the fanatics from Hindutva who have quite a big role in the writing of Indian history, have tried to invent a river out of nowhere, in order to try and shift some aspects of the Indus Valley Civilization a little Eastwards.
> 
> The outcome won't change, but the idea the Saraswati was a river bigger than the Indus that magically disappeared one day is quite ludicrous.
> 
> If the Rig Veda was written around 1200 BC, the Persians would not have been calling the land after the Indus River. They would have called it something like Harasvati-Indu or something.


 
My opinion about the recent attempts at claiming Indian history by pakistanis is that the fanatics trying find an identity have tried the arab, persian and other fairy tales, only to find it failing and the arabs and persians laughing their heads off. So in search of that awesome identiy, and in line with the 60 year and still continuing project to write and rewrite history, now they want to claim Indian history, well something better than nothing.

There is enough ancient material about Saraswati, to call it a modern attempt at history writing is hilarious. But then again, these are desperate times calling for desperate measures.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peshwa

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> if Pakistanis pretend to be indian --then maybe you should visit Coney Island in New York (known in New York as ''Little Pakistan'') and see how many of your people are sweeping the floors at Pakistani-owned restaurants which dominate the city.



You're actually proud of your people having a "little Pakistan" in the sh!thole that is Coney island? Though I can point you in the direction of Manhattan where every Pakistani restaurant needs the Indian label to get any business....

Sweeping the floors...LOL!
Indians are the richest most educated minorty in the US...You can quote the achievements of your people from the NYtimes June 21st, 2010 archives

Now go spread your lies to some gullible folks from your own country who will believe any nonsense that comes out of an "america return"...but wait, you already have their attention through this forum

Unfortunately, you're fooling no one else....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Rafi

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> what a retarded troll....you fail even at trolling, that's how pathetic you come across as a person
> 
> typical indian troll with too much time to spare
> 
> 
> if Pakistanis pretend to be indian --then maybe you should visit Coney Island in New York (known in New York as ''Little Pakistan'') and see how many of your people are sweeping the floors at Pakistani-owned restaurants which dominate the city.
> 
> look at Australia where being an indian is the biggest liability....even Lebanese and Syrian immigrants in that country are targetting you people. And then you talk about Pakistanis pretending to be hindustani??


 




Pakistani American's standing tall.





Pakistani's in LA having Amir Khan with an award.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

> if Pakistanis pretend to be indian --then maybe you should visit Coney Island in New York (known in New York as ''Little Pakistan'') and see how many of your people are sweeping the floors at Pakistani-owned restaurants which dominate the city.




Ha, you know Indians are the richest ethnic group in American? Look at some of the names of your Pakistani restaurants btw...

What is a name of a famous pakistani restaurant? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## Rafi

Pakistani American's are pretty rich also - 

APPNA - Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent of North America

APPNA is a charitable organization dedicated to fostering scientific development and education in the field of medicine and to delivering better health care, irrespective of race, color, creed, or gender. 

APPNA saves lives and relieves suffering through its participation in medical relief and other charitable activities at home and abroad. Established in 1976, APPNA is one of the largest ethnic medical societies in North America representing more than 15,000 physicians and health care professionals of Pakistani descent serving across the United States and Canada. APPNA with its chapters and alumni networks is the front leader of Pakistani Diaspora. 

For over a half century, Pakistani-American physicians are performing their sacred duty in places from small towns to large metropolitans and from the armed forces to the underserved areas. APPNA physicians have actively participated in the relief activities in the aftermath of tragic 9/11, Katrina, Tsunami, 2005 Pakistan Earthquake, and other natural and manmade disasters around the world.

An increasing number of Pakistani Americans work in the medical field. The Association of Physicians of Pakistani Descent of North America, APPNA, has been meeting in various locations across the United States for the past 30 years. There are more than 15,000 doctors practicing medicine in America who are from Pakistani decent.[28] Pakistan is the fourth highest source of IMG doctors in the US[29] and they are chiefly concentrated in New York, California, Florida, New Jersey and Illinois


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Peshwa said:


> You're actually proud of your people having a "little Pakistan" in the sh!thole that is Coney island?



everything is relative...the people work hard there and make an honest living. a lot of succesful people there --especially Pakistanis and Bengalis who came with nothing and made something for themself. That's what counts in the end.

You could go to Kings Highway in Brooklyn or Jackson Heights or Astoria where Pakistanis, Arabs, Russians, Jews work side by side.

i'm sure the people in the vast indian slums would find it to be heaven

again --everything is relative. By the way, Coney Island isn't a shithole. 



> Though I can point you in the direction of Manhattan where every Pakistani restaurant needs the Indian label to get any business...



i know NYC like the back of my hand kiddo..... indian label my A$$

go to W36 & 9th Avenue where a simple Pakistani restaurant (adjacent to an Azad Kashmiri owned chai/mitthai jaga) is. Based on the lines I've seen there they are pulling more weight than any ''tandoori'' or ''arvin curry house'' indian type place -- where they call it indian restaurant but still have burger and fries on their plastic menus



> Sweeping the floors...LOL!



even dalits gotta work man 




> Unfortunately, you're fooling no one else....


----------



## roadrunner

alphamale said:


> as we have told u before that there is proof that saraswati river existed in ancient times, in vedas there is talk about saptha sindu which means seven rivers in north westren area of subcontinent. of which 6 rivers are present i.e indus, satluj, ravi, beas, chenab & jhelum but only one is missing which is saraswati which dried many centuries back.



Nonsense. There's the Soan River and several other possibilities. 



> but u will still not agree on that bcoz the problem is that u have made ur mind that come what may u will not accept that there existed a river named saraswati. i can only suggest u to find more abt saraswati river on internet.


 
My mind's not made up. You just can't answer it so you accuse me of being narrow minded. 

The fact is you claim a massive river dried up. The Rig Veda was composed 1200 BC. We know the Indus River was the biggest river through maps from 500 BC by Herodotus etc. 

So by your logic what cataclysmic event happened between 1200 BC and 500 BC that caused the Saraswati to disappear? Did Atal Vajpayee drink it? Huge rivers do not magically disappear.


----------



## roadrunner

arihant said:


> Did you know theory of migration of people from Sindhu river to Ganges. Thats explains a lot. River used to flow in the thar desert and dried up due to climate change. And you can see today whole area is desert.


 
And Napoleon and all the people of France packed their bags and headed for Nigeria, all at the same time. 

It is a theory. So the Napoleonic Wars are really part of Nigeria's history. 

Do you see what I'm getting at?


----------



## roadrunner

No trolls on this thread please. Else I will call brother Huang Tsang for his opinions on what the people of Bharat are like


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Rafi said:


> Pakistani American's standing tall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistani's in LA having Amir Khan with an award.




yeah looks like these guys are also hiding behind bharti identity too!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jayron

Peshwa said:


> You're actually proud of your people having a "little Pakistan" in the sh!thole that is Coney island? Though I can point you in the direction of Manhattan where every *Pakistani restaurant needs the Indian label to get any business.*...
> 
> Sweeping the floors...LOL!
> Indians are the richest most educated minorty in the US...You can quote the achievements of your people from the NYtimes June 21st, 2010 archives
> 
> Now go spread your lies to some gullible folks from your own country who will believe any nonsense that comes out of an "america return"...but wait, you already have their attention through this forum
> 
> Unfortunately, you're fooling no one else....


 
That's right. Every pakistani restaurant has to have the Indian tag to survive here. Let him show me one Indian restaurant in US which uses Pakistan's name.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

sure here ya go...and this was just a 2 second google search.....

do ya see any hindstany name or saffron flags around? I can't seem to find any

































and wrt your specific query


----------



## Vinod2070

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> I cant speak for Afghan citizens, but I assume you were trying to take a cheap jab at Pakhtuns. it's actually the opposite.....even your Shahrukh Khan (an indian by nationality only) still takes pride in the fact that his papa is Pakistani from my city of Pekhawar



Pukhtuns have always been called Afghans throughout history. They are Afghans and the artificial and non existent Durand line created by the British doesn't change anything.

Shahrukh Khan is a proud Indian. So was his father. That they chose to reject Pakistan despite being Muslims and from that area tells us something.

That's all that matters to me. Not his religion or his ancestry.



> ask the average person in Kohat, D.I. Khan Kurram or Khyber agency what they think of indian and you will have your answer on a warm plate.



Ask me what I think of them (or other Indians). I don't even give a damn about their existence.

The tribals are supposed to be Arabs as per their own folklore/history. Or a lost Jewish tribe. In any case nothing to do with the Indian civilization and history.



> well now you're just being silly.....
> 
> i do agree that there are pockets of such nationality people in our tribal areas and theyre up to no good. More often than not -and rest assured, when the military comes across them they either get captured or shot when they put up any form of armed resistance



You didn't get the point. Let me help you here.

*



If there is an address, an exact location for the rift tearing Pakistan apart, and possibly the world, it is a spot 17 miles (28 kilometers) west of Islamabad called the Margalla Pass. Here, at a limestone cliff in the middle of Pakistan, the mountainous west meets the Indus River Valley, and two ancient, and very different, civilizations collide. To the southeast, unfurled to the horizon, lie the fertile lowlands of the Indian subcontinent, realm of peasant farmers on steamy plots of land, bright with colors and the splash of serendipitous gods. To the west and north stretch the harsh, windswept mountains of Central Asia, land of herders and raiders on horseback, where man fears one God and takes no prisoners.

Click to expand...

*
Pakistan - Photo Gallery - National Geographic Magazine

Read this in full. A fascinating read.

It is clear that the Pushtun tribals are a separate people and civilization from those East of Indus. They were at best marginal to the civilization throughout history. They share more with the other Central Asians than South Asians and should be concerned about them than India or Indian civilization which has little or nothing to do with them.



> you should be more concerned about your assamese and Maoist tribals who are blowing a lot of shyte up, kidnapping and engaging in sabotage in your restive northeast!
> 
> that's what you should be devoting more time to. Don't ya think?


 
Yes, they are of more interest to me than the Talibunnies or Pushtun tribals. For sure.


----------



## Vinod2070

Rafi said:


> Probably some *British origin Pakistanis *would find it offensive???


 
What is that!

Heard of Pakistani origin Muslims going to that kaffir land from their Dar-Ul-Islam, Is there a reverse flow as well?


----------



## Vinod2070

Peshwa said:


> You're actually proud of your people having a "little Pakistan" in the sh!thole that is Coney island? Though I can point you in the direction of Manhattan where every Pakistani restaurant needs the Indian label to get any business....
> 
> Sweeping the floors...LOL!
> Indians are the richest most educated minorty in the US...You can quote the achievements of your people from the NYtimes June 21st, 2010 archives
> 
> Now go spread your lies to some gullible folks from your own country who will believe any nonsense that comes out of an "america return"...but wait, you already have their attention through this forum
> 
> Unfortunately, you're fooling no one else....


 
These people feel they can hoodwink anyone with their lies and falsehoods. Doesn't work!

We all know the reality of these martial people who are being very well taken care by the *non martial Muhajirs *within Karachi and other places. 

They try to be martial on the net, one knows the reality how thousands of them are being killed by the Talibunnies and a few foreigners in their own tribal areas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Vinod2070 said:


> Pukhtuns have always been called Afghans throughout history. They are Afghans and the artificial and non existent Durand line created by the British doesn't change anything



Leading up to partition and subsequently, they officially became Pakistanis.....kind of like your tribals and other people throughout your country officially became indian




> Shahrukh Khan is a proud Indian. So was his father.



it's interesting because when he was doing his little stand up show for Afridi, Gul and gang he told the audience that his father was from Peshawar Pakistan.

Regardless, I wont delve into it much because he isnt a Pakistani citizen nor does he really represent Pakhtun Pakistanis....the guy doesnt even speak Pashto for God's sakes.



> That they chose to reject Pakistan despite being Muslims and from that area tells us something.



his own prerogative....he was keen to visit Pakistan but as usual those underfed malnourished hindutva activists managed to scare him into not visiting our great country. Again, not my problem or concern.




> The tribals are supposed to be Arabs as per their own folklore/history. Or a lost Jewish tribe. In any case nothing to do with the Indian civilization and history.



factually incorrect; some do have some distant Arab lineage but there are dozens --perhaps hundreds of different tribes and sub-tribes. However they all speak the same language and share the same customs and honour codes. And like myself and some of the other members on this forum from those areas, we are fiercely proud Pakistani peoples.




> You didn't get the point. Let me help you here.



damn proud of that fact; not gonna lie

but South Asia is a huge and loosely worded term. I think that initially yes there was some culture shocks or lack of exposures but due to trade, jobs, entertainment and other factors there is a strong sense of nationhood and in fact Pakhtun or Baloch or Kashmiri or Punjabi and Sindhi have many bonds together that cannot be broken. Of course majority being Muslim it's another aspect that ties us all together and in Islam ethnicity or tribe are not important.




> Yes, they are of more interest to me than the Talibunnies or Pushtun tribals. For sure.


 
good -- so spend more time focusing on those and less time yapping away needlessly on * Pakistan* Defence Forum


----------



## Vinod2070

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Leading up to partition and subsequently, *they officially became Pakistanis*.....kind of like your tribals and other people throughout your country officially became indian



That is the operative word. That doesn't change history.

They became Pakistanis yes, no one is denying that.

They are also Afghans (ethnically). I am not calling them Afghanistanis!

Not sure what you want to argue here.



> it's interesting because when he was doing his little stand up show for Afridi, Gul and gang he told the audience that his father was from Peshawar Pakistan.
> 
> *Regardless, I wont delve into it much because he isnt a Pakistani citizen nor does he really represent Pakhtun Pakistanis....the guy doesnt even speak Pashto for God's sakes.
> *
> his own prerogative....he was keen to visit Pakistan but as usual those underfed malnourished hindutva activists managed to scare him into not visiting our great country. Again, not my problem or concern.



You seem confused here. You brought him into the discussion and now are trying to dismiss him.

Yes, some of us don't want our celebrities to have anything to do with Paksitan. Nothing wrong, our prerogative.

BTW, funny to see the talk of backwardness coming from primitive tribals. Those who think that Polio drops are a Jewish conspiracy.

The tribals would have some of the worst social indicators in the world.



> factually incorrect; *some do have some distant Arab lineage but there are dozens --perhaps hundreds of different tribes and sub-tribes*. However they all speak the same language and share the same customs and honour codes. And like myself and some of the other members on this forum from those areas, we are fiercely proud Pakistani peoples.



Do all of them have different lineage! I assume they share a common lineage, if not show us the proof.



> damn proud of that fact; not gonna lie
> 
> but South Asia is a huge and loosely worded term. I think that initially yes there was some culture shocks or lack of exposures but due to trade, jobs, entertainment and other factors there is a strong sense of nationhood and in fact Pakhtun or Baloch or Kashmiri or Punjabi and Sindhi have many bonds together that cannot be broken. *Of course majority being Muslim it's another aspect that ties us all together and in Islam ethnicity or tribe are not important*.



OK. 

Trying to convince me or yourself. 

Tell it to someone who doesn't know what is happening in Karachi and elsewhere in Pakistan for decades. Who has not seen those Pushtun videos talking ever so lovingly about Pakistan.

I am sure you don't want me to post all that here.



> good -- so spend more time focusing on those and less time yapping away needlessly on * Pakistan* Defence Forum


 
I spend much more time with them. In real life, they are all around me in my city.

You are not the owner of this forum, so take it easy. Don't try and behave like one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Total fail breakdown there by Jayron


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Vinod2070 said:


> That is the operative word. That doesn't change history.
> 
> They became Pakistanis yes, no one is denying that.
> 
> They are also Afghans (ethnically). I am not calling them Afghanistanis!



there's no such thing as "Afghan" ethnicity but I wouldnt expect a dolt to fully fathom that




> You seem confused here. You brought him into the discussion and now are trying to dismiss him.



hey numb nuts, read what i stated. I said he takes pride in the fact that his father originated from Peshawar, Pakistan --i'm just regurgitating what he said



> BTW, funny to see the talk of backwardness coming from primitive tribals. Those who think that Polio drops are a Jewish conspiracy.



you fail to convince; especially when many doctors on their own initiative have given (free) polio vaccines to the people there and in other areas....i think backwardness comes from your country where widows get burnt alive as per customs



> The tribals would have some of the worst social indicators in the world.



some of them just choose to live very simply...but yes, the indicators do need to improve and that's where I see a role for the newer generations of people since the present lot of politicians are failed



> Do all of them have different lineage! I assume they share a common lineage, if not show us the proof.



I don't need to prove or show you anything when you can just do some google searches. A lot of tribes have different ancestry --but we are talking generations, centuries. You have Qizilbashis who originally hail from C.A.R.s; you have Turris who are of Turkic heritgage; you have some Afridis and Khattaks who are rumoured to have some distant Greek origins....it's difficult to trace every tribes heritage but in the end theyre all Pakhtun Pakistanis. 

I suggest you read the book "Khyber Rifles"



> Trying to convince me or yourself.



i'm just stating facts; i don't need to convince anybody anything because I damn care whether you or your people take or leave what I am saying; makes absolutely no difference to me



> Tell it to someone who doesn't know what is happening in Karachi and elsewhere in Pakistan for decades. Who has not seen those Pushtun videos talking ever so lovingly about Pakistan.



such people will exist here and there; misguided people. No representation of the majority

Lord knows how many videos there are of Sikhs, Assamese, and other groups in your country who talk "ever so lovingly" about the hindstany federation



> I spend much more time with them. In real life, they are all around me in my city.



good for you




> You are not the owner of this forum, so take it easy. Don't try and behave like one.


----------



## Bang Galore

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> it's interesting because when he was doing his little stand up show for Afridi, Gul and gang he told the audience that his father was from Peshawar Pakistan.
> 
> Regardless, I wont delve into it much because he isnt a Pakistani citizen nor does he really represent Pakhtun Pakistanis....the guy doesnt even speak Pashto for God's sakes.


 
Since you brought Up Shah Rukh Khan, it might interest you to note that his parents moved in the opposite direction of partition.


> Khan was born in 1965 to Muslim[6] parents of Pathan descent in New Delhi, India.[7] His father, Taj Mohammed Khan, was an Indian independence activist from Peshawar, British India. According to Khan, his paternal grandfather was originally from Afghanistan.[8] His mother, Lateef Fatima, was the adopted daughter of* Major General Shah Nawaz Khan* of the Janjua Rajput clan, who served as a General in the Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose.[9] Khan's father came to New Delhi from Qissa Khawani Bazaar in Peshawar before the partition of India,[10] while his mother's family came from Rawalpindi, British India





> *Shahnawaz Khan *(24 January 1914 &#8211; 9 December 1983) was an Indian soldier who is remembered as an officer who served in the Second Indian National Army during World War II and later came to be one of the three defendants in the first of the INA trials in 1946.
> 
> Born in the village of Matore, Kahuta, Rawalpindi District, British India, (now Pakistan) Khan initially volunteered to join the British Indian Army in 1940, in the opening stages of the war in Asia. He saw action in the Battle of Singapore before being taken prisoner after the surrender of the city. Although initially reluctant to join the INA under Mohan Singh, Shah Nawaz Khan joined the second INA after the arrival of Subhash Chandra Bose in South-East Asia. He later led the INA forces that participated in the Japanese offensive at Imphal and Kohima, and subsequently rose to be the commander of the second division. Khan also saw action against allied forces in the latter's second Burma Campaign, and surrendered to British troops in Burma. In November 1946, Khan, along with G.B.S. Dhillon and P.K. Sehgal faced trial and was convicted for charges of treason at the Red Fort in Delhi, but intense public support and overwhelming nationalist sympathies forced General Auchinleck to discharge Khan and his co-defendants with forfeiture of pay.
> 
> *In Independent India, Khan joined the Indian National Congress and came to be a minister for state in Nehru's First Cabinet*. Hailing from the Janjua Rajput clan of Matore. His adopted daughter Lateef Fatima was Shah Rukh Khan's mother.
> 
> Shahnawaz Khan joined the Congress party after dissolution of the I.N.A. and was invited by Jawaharlal Nehru to join his cabinet for minister Railways and transport (1952-1956) (1957-1964), minister of food and agriculture (1965), minister of labour and employment and rehabilitation (1966), minister of steel and mines and minister of petroleum and chemical (1971-1973), minister of petroleum and chemical and minister of agriculture and irrigation (1974-1975), minister of Agriculture and irrigation (1975-1977), chairman of National Seeds Corporation Ltd, concurrently was the Chairman, Food Corporation of India . He was elected four times to the Lok Sabha from Meerut constituency in 1951, 1957, 1962 and 1971.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jayron

roadrunner said:


> Total fail breakdown there by Jayron


 































Note: Most of them have Indian first and then Pakistani. Just in case any one misses the Indian part

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Vinod2070

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> there's no such thing as "Afghan" ethnicity but I wouldnt expect a dolt to fully fathom that



I wouldn't expect a primitive tribal to know even basic history. Check any literature of 19th century and see what these tribals were called.



> hey numb nuts, read what i stated. I said he takes pride in the fact that his father originated from Peshawar, Pakistan --i'm just regurgitating what he said



Hey dumbo, his father rejected that primitive backward land to come to India.



> you fail to convince; especially when many doctors on their own initiative have given (free) polio vaccines to the people there and in other areas....i think backwardness comes from your country where widows get burnt alive as per customs



But they don't blow up worshippers in mosques, girl schools, slit throats of Pakistani policemen and soldiers and so on.

A tribal talking of backwardness is indeed height of optimism.



> some of them just choose to live very simply...but yes, the indicators do need to improve and that's where I see a role for the newer generations of people since the present lot of politicians are failed







> I don't need to prove or show you anything when you can just do some google searches. A lot of tribes have different ancestry --but we are talking generations, centuries. You have Qizilbashis who originally hail from C.A.R.s; you have Turris who are of Turkic heritgage; you have some Afridis and Khattaks who are rumoured to have some distant Greek origins....it's difficult to trace every tribes heritage but in the end theyre all Pakhtun Pakistanis.
> 
> I suggest you read the book "Khyber Rifles"



I will try and read the book. In any case, they have little or nothing to do with Indian history and civilization and should keep their noses away from the topic.



> i'm just stating facts; i don't need to convince anybody anything because I damn care whether you or your people take or leave what I am saying; makes absolutely no difference to me



I know the facts! I know that after a thousand years of Islam, the Arabs have still not gotten past their tribal loyalties.

Don't make absurd claims that everyone can see through.



> such people will exist here and there; *misguided people*. No representation of the majority
> 
> Lord knows how many videos there are of Sikhs, Assamese, and other groups in your country who talk "ever so lovingly" about the hindstany federation



They think the same for you. May be they also think of you as wajib0ul-qatl.



> good for you



So predictable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

jayron said:


> Note: Most of them have Indian first and then Pakistani. Just in case any one misses the Indian part


 
They should not be allowed to use the "Indian" name. They should be sued and packed off.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Well hmmmm gee whiz.....let's recall an earlier post:



jayron said:


> That's right. Every pakistani restaurant has to have the Indian tag to survive here. Let him show me one Indian restaurant in US which uses Pakistan's name.


 


Appears we have ourselves a double-FAIL 



maybe ya ought to step out and enjoy some fresh air and a cool glass of water and stop making yourself look like a bigger idiot


----------



## roadrunner

this is off topic, trolls. But how do you know they're not co-owned by Pakistanis and Indians?


----------



## jayron

Vinod2070 said:


> They should not be allowed to use the "Indian" name. They should be sued and packed off.


 
I like their food. They are friendly people(most of them). So I don't complain.


----------



## jayron

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Well hmmmm gee whiz.....let's recall an earlier post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appears we have ourselves a double-FAIL
> 
> 
> 
> maybe ya ought to step out and enjoy some fresh air and a cool glass of water and stop making yourself look like a bigger idiot


 
I live in the Bay Area and I haven't seen one Pakistani restaurant without using "Indian" in their name boards. Pretty shameful eh? I know right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Even if that's true, it doesn't mean anything. 

They might well be Indian restaurants trying to get Pakistani customers. Or Pakistani restaurants trying to get Indian ones. 

Do you understand the basics of business?


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Vinod2070 said:


> I wouldn't expect a primitive tribal to know even basic history. Check any literature of 19th century and see what these tribals were called.



i think the milk you are drinking is primitive and its having some certain negative effects on your brain and thinking; Afghanistan is a diverse and heterogenous country. That is a fact. Like Iran; like Pakistan; and even like your india



> Hey dumbo, his father rejected that primitive backward land to come to India.



call it whatever you want; still doesnt change the fact that he mentioned the city and country from which his father hailed.....it's sad to see the treatment meted out to him despite the services to bharat which he had rendered





> But they don't blow up worshippers in mosques, girl schools, slit throats of Pakistani policemen and soldiers and so on.



again, youre talking about a small minority of people who dont represent the tens of millions of normal people who despise and loathe their actions. Actions which are NOT the customs or part of the culture incidentally. I would hope the same can be said about the tribals of Jharghand, Orissa and the other parts of northeast which are currently a warzone. 



> A tribal talking of backwardness is indeed height of optimism.



height of optimism perhaps for some non-self-sufficient slum dweller who knows what real misery is





> I will try and read the book. In any case, they have little or nothing to do with Indian history and civilization and should keep their noses away from the topic.



as mentioned earlier, I'm damned proud of that fact! 



> They think the same for you. May be they also think of you as wajib0ul-qatl.



doesnt affect me at all what they think. I'm not a person who wastes time worrying what others think; though I'm definitely not known as a person who responds well to threats.


anyways, at this point i have no further interest to deal with you. Come back with something useful to argue and yap about. Until then, go take a lil break.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

jayron said:


> I live in the Bay Area and I haven't seen one Pakistani restaurant without using "Indian" in their name boards. Pretty shameful eh? I know right?


 
Bay Area of fag-cisco?? 

Good luck even finding more than a handful of Pakistanis there. Isnt it mostly East Asian immigrants? And i already demonstrated to you that your little theory is wrong --which you had asked me to prove. 


a restaurant is a business.....nationalism in such an industry is almost sure not to guarantee you a broadened customer base. Truth be told, I'm happy to see my people do well no matter where it is in the world that they are.

I think what's "pretty shameful" is that we still have bharti twits like yourself, polluting this forum the way you pollute the ganges and apparently the fishermans wharf too!


----------



## jayron

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Bay Area of fag-cisco??
> 
> Good luck even finding more than a handful of Pakistanis there. Isnt it mostly East Asian immigrants? And i already demonstrated to you that your little theory is wrong --which you had asked me to prove.
> 
> 
> a restaurant is a business.....nationalism in such an industry is almost sure not to guarantee you a broadened customer base. Truth be told, I'm happy to see my people do well no matter where it is in the world that they are.
> 
> I think what's "pretty shameful" is that we still have bharti twits like yourself, polluting this forum the way you pollute the ganges and apparently the fishermans wharf too!


 
I honestly don't care what name they have in their board as long as the food is good. I am just showing dimwits like you how your false pride doesn't work anywhere else. 

And yes I used to live in the Gay San Francisco when I studied. The very first Pakistani I met was an Gay guy who came to the hotel I was working in. Wondering if thats you. Heard of internalized homophobia?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

jayron said:


> I honestly don't care what name they have in their board as long as the food is good. I am just showing dimwits like you how your false pride doesn't work anywhere else.
> 
> And yes I used to live in the Gay San Francisco when I studied. The very first Pakistani I met was an Gay guy who came to the hotel I was working in. Wondering if thats you.



i dont know what's funnier....the fact that you KNEW he was gay or the fact that you worked in a brothel...........excuse me, hotel.


chalo khair hai; humein kya..... I hope at least he tipped you for the hot towel and the other hospitality you provided

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KS

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> ask the average person in Kohat, D.I. Khan Kurram or Khyber agency what they think of indian and you will have your answer on a warm plate.


 
I have also seen what the Afghans think of the average Pakistani Punjabi or even the Pak Pathans....So is that true ? And I'm not even going to what I think of them. It will come only as a series of "*" 



Peshwa said:


> Indians are the richest most educated minorty in the US...You can quote the achievements of your people from the NYtimes June 21st, 2010 archives


 
Faisal Shehzad ? Actually that man was a primary reason for this

Funnily if you see the contrasting reaction of Pakistanis you will get an idea - while Ajmal Shehzad hit that six which helped England tie against India (even though it was Strauss who hit a magnificient century) they will celebrate him as a Pakistani but when his namesake Faisal Shezsad was caught for terrorism he immediately became an American and not a Pakistani. 



Abu Zolfiqar said:


> and wrt your specific query


 
Someone spot the "Pakistani and Indi..." and the big Taj Mahal in that name board for Abu. Looks like in his hurry he did not properly see the name board.Is this what they call a FAIL ?

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Rafi

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> i dont know what's funnier....the fact that you KNEW he was gay or the fact that you worked in a brothel...........excuse me, hotel.
> 
> 
> chalo khair hai; humein kya..... I hope at least he tipped you for the hot towel and the other hospitality you provided


 
This is friggin hilarious  

These indian's are trying to steal our civilization, it belongs to Pakistan, - our Pashtun have more right on than the Indus Valley Civilization than these indians. I praise the Lord thousands of times, that he did not make me a indian.


----------



## jayron

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> i dont know what's funnier....the fact that you KNEW he was gay or the fact that you worked in a brothel...........excuse me, hotel.
> 
> 
> chalo khair hai; humein kya..... I hope at least he tipped you for the hot towel and the other hospitality you provided


 
Its San Francisco not Heera Mandi of Lahore where burqa and prostitution go together neither is it Peshawar where pedophelia(bachche bazhi is a part of your culture). He was one of the flamboyant Pakistanis dressed up and came to the city for the gay pride. Here in US, if you express your homophobia openly, it means you have just come out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

No Pakistani convert has any right to any pre Jahiliyah civilization.

Their sordid history starts from that invader Bin Qasim, who died a well deserved painful death, rolling in a drum of nails inside. Must have had some fun rolling like that.


----------



## mjnaushad

jayron said:


> Its San Francisco not Heera Mandi of Lahore where burqa and prostitution go together neither is it Peshawar where pedophelia(bachche bazhi is a part of your culture). He was one of the flamboyant Pakistanis dressed up and came to the city for the gay pride. Here in US, if you express your homophobia openly, it means you have just come out.


 
Why are you so angry... .Did that bad Pakistani gay did something to you.... Damn bacha baaz


----------



## KS

Rafi said:


> This is friggin hilarious
> 
> These indian's are trying to steal our civilization, it belongs to Pakistan, - our Pashtun have more right on than the Indus Valley Civilization than these indians. *I praise the Lord thousands of times, that he did not make me a indian.*


 
Say a couple of thousands on my behalf too .

And Pashtuns claiming IVC - a *Vedic* civilization , next what Australian aborigines ? . 
Surely they too have equal rights as Afghans - NOTHING.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

jayron said:


> Its San Francisco not Heera Mandi of Lahore where burqa and prostitution go together neither is it Peshawar where pedophelia(bachche bazhi is a part of your culture). He was one of the flamboyant Pakistanis dressed up and came to the city for the gay pride. Here in US, if you express your homophobia openly, it means you have just come out.


 
you seem to take a lot of interest in the subject....are you..... a fag???


----------



## notsuperstitious

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> you seem to take a lot of interest in the subject....are you..... a fag???



He's not a kid, why do you want to know?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

in order to determine whether a stricter ''regime'' is required here in order to weed out unpures as well as other f&#305;lth which more often than not comes in saffron colours

oh by the way, i wasn't even talking to you i dont know where you popped up from


----------



## metro

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> in order to determine whether a stricter ''regime'' is required here in order to weed out unpures as well as other saffron f&#305;lth which more often than not comes from your country and pollutes an otherwise good forum
> 
> oh by the way, i wasn't even talking to you i dont know where you popped up from



Come on.. tough guy.
Why whining like a girl now. Didnt like the shaheen tikka house kebab ..??


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

metro said:


> Come on.. tough guy.
> Why whining like a girl now. Didnt like the shaheen tikka house kebab ..??


 
i've always been partial to Ravi Kebab

every time i go there i feel right at home; best Pakistani food in DC/VA area....


funny thing about Shaheen restaurant --- it's owned by a couple indian Muslims. They use name ''Shaheen'' and call it Pakistani/indian. 


nice touch with the taj mahal poster


----------



## metro

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> i've always been partial to Ravi Kebab
> 
> every time i go there i feel right at home; best Pakistani food in DC/VA area....
> 
> 
> funny thing about Shaheen restaurant --- it's owned by a couple indian Muslims. They use name ''Shaheen'' and call it Pakistani/indian.
> 
> 
> nice touch with the taj mahal poster


 
Oh.. and this occurred to you all of a sudden only after being busted in the public.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

busted in public????

it's me vs. a hundred tiny malnourished rodents on a web forum and I have yet to be ''busted''

your friend gayron asked for picture evidence which I provided; if you cannot prove that I am wrong or mistaken but I can -- it means


I > all hundred of you tiny malnourished rodents 



hope it cleared things out for you


----------



## Bhairava

Shaheen Tikka Kabab is having its intended effect.

What was provided as n evidence for a Pakistani restaurant NOT using Indian name now becomes an Indian rest.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Claims that Pakistani restaurants all use indian name were totally rubbished

Claims that indian owned restaurants dont use Pakistani name were also rubbished.


you have go to be some of the stupidest people i have ever interacted with. What a miserable bunch of degenerates. I'm really at a loss for words.


----------



## Bhairava

Pakistanis pose as Indians after NY bomb scare | Reuters

'Nuff said 

Any Western Airport you go - the moment they find that you are a Pakistani or is coming from Pakistan you are given 'special' treatment taking them to the private checking area while at the same time they see you are coming from India - the first question unmistakably is Do you know Amitabh and the confession I love Bollywood.

So much for being Pakistanis.


----------



## aakash_2410

Rafi said:


> And indians are regarded as passive weaklings everywhere, especially Australia.


 
Well it's better to be regarded as passive weaklings rather than a 'suicide bomber or dirty terrorist'. looool.
And as long as 1 pakistani = 10 Indians theory of martial race has been concerned, it's been put through some serious tests in the three wars and whole world knows the results.


----------



## aakash_2410

And as long as the Indian cuisine is concerned. There is one restaurant called 'Poppadum' owned by Pakistanis in Southampton and they call it 'Indian restaurant'. They've got all the Shlokas and Mantras written in Sanskrit and Ganpati's statues and all that to make it look Indian. I'm not even making this up this is quite famous restaurant if you don't believe me just google it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> everything is relative...the people work hard there and make an honest living. a lot of succesful people there --especially Pakistanis and Bengalis who came with nothing and made something for themself. That's what counts in the end.



You're right....it is relative....
For Indians Coney Island is a sh!thole....
Not for you ...no problems...But dont try to polish a turd and call it gold...LOL!




> i'm sure the people in the vast indian slums would find it to be heaven



I think we have already established the fact that living in a sh!thole is not a problem for you...in fact you're proud that your community thrives there (Not sure why)....
So the above coming from you is only laughable....
Maybe you can rent some of our slums in Mumbai which might seem like a 5 star hotel to you..LOL!



> again --everything is relative. By the way, Coney Island isn't a shithole.



Depends on which side of the fence you're looking from....





> i know NYC like the back of my hand kiddo..... indian label my A$$



Im sure driving taxis is a great way of exploring the city...I dont doubt it one bit



> *go to W36 & 9th Avenue where a simple Pakistani restaurant (adjacent to an Azad Kashmiri owned chai/mitthai jaga*) is. Based on the lines I've seen there they are pulling more weight than any ''tandoori'' or ''arvin curry house'' indian type place -- where they call it indian restaurant but still have burger and fries on their plastic menus



LOL...When the place caters to the scum of NYC (drug addicts and bums from Penn Station), I wouldnt be surprised that it attracts a huge crowd....

There is an abundance of scum in NYC anyways....and seems you're proud that they love the food at this Pakistani place..








[/QUOTE]

Awwww....Someone is sensitive...
Its ok.....Im sure its been hard for you living here...Ill stop

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Peshwa

Rafi said:


> This is friggin hilarious
> 
> These indian's are trying to *steal our civilization*, it belongs to Pakistan, - our Pashtun have more right on than the Indus Valley Civilization than these indians. I praise the Lord thousands of times, that he did not make me a indian.


 
You have to own something for it to be stolen....LOL!

I dont believe anybody outside of this forum believes your version of history....So keep trying champ!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Peshwa said:


> You're right....it is relative....
> For an Indians Coney Island is a sh!thole....



there are indians living in Little Pakistan too....a lot of them sweep floors for a living, like their ''untouchable'' comrades back home

are you one of those people? 




> Not for you ...no problems...But dont try to polish a turd and call it gold...LOL!



no i'll leave that job for you...and besides, we all know how holy dung is to indians --especially cow dungs.



> I think we have already established the fact that living in a sh!thole is not a problem for you...in fact you're proud that your community thrives there (Not sure why)....



of course I would be happy; if theyre fellow Pakistanis why shouldnt I be happy for them? What kind of question is that



> Maybe you can rent some of our slums in Mumbai which might seem like a 5 star hotel to you..LOL!



I'm good...thanks

i dont think one even needs to rent those slums......people just squat there like rodents




> Im sure driving taxis is a great way of exploring the city...I dont doubt it one bit



one just walks a lot in the city and observes...

great city, actually...



> LOL...When the place caters to the scum of NYC (drug addicts and bums from Penn Station), I wouldnt be surprised that it attracts a huge crowd....



that would be Jamaica/Bronx

Penn Station are you kidding me? That is prime real estate. 




> There is an abundance of scum in NYC anyways....



it's also the financial capital of the U.S. The GDP of NYC alone is equivalent to the GDP of hindstan, incidentally.




> and seems you're proud that they love the food at this Pakistani place..



again, why shouldnt I be? In fact i put a lot of energy into promoting Pakistan and its food, music, dance --even diplomatic and political position. Everthing -- while I am here in U.S. among all my friends. And I'm happy to see that such efforts are warmly received. I think all Pakistanis overseas have a mission to be good ambassadors to their great nation.



> Its ok.....Im sure its been hard for you living here...Ill stop



life is more than great. Alhamdolillah. And I'm not rich, I live quite modestly; paying my own rent, bills, grad school tuition, car, food, clothing etc. 

so if you decide to 'stop', it would only be because you realize you are out of juice


we have a saying in Pashto which I think best applies to you and your fellow hindstany troll brigage:


Maarbey laandy, ghora-ay yaady

The slave is down
but his vaunting is up


----------



## Peshwa

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> you seem to take a lot of interest in the subject....are you..... a fag???


 
Please take your personals to Craigslist...This forum aint the venue for what you're into...


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Peshwa said:


> Please take your personals to Craigslist...This forum aint the venue for what you're into...


 
what YOU'RE into, I suspect

it is a PAKISTAN Defence forum however and it's interesting to see how you are online 24/7. So you always log into PDF when you have 4-5 indian options --- and then you try to bash on Pakistan.

not only are you a fag....seems you suffer from moderate to severe retardation as well.


even God Himself couldnt save you....


----------



## metro

Peshwa said:


> You have to own something for it to be stolen....LOL!
> 
> I dont believe anybody outside of this forum believes your version of history....So keep trying champ!


 
Thsi is what the ancient one said on another thread.



Rafi said:


> Not ancient Pakistan - ancient poor starving india, and a sandwich on it's way to you, my hungry friend.


http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/105662-khalistan-diaries-67.html


----------



## aakash_2410

Peshwa said:


> You have to own something for it to be stolen....LOL!
> 
> I dont believe anybody outside of this forum believes your version of history....So keep trying champ!


 
So they're now claiming Indus Valley Civilisation?? looooooool

So let me get this straight first they say they're not Indians [residents of Indus Valley Civilisation] but they're from Central Asia/ Arabs??!! And also claim Indus Valley Civilisation?? hahaha Bro I don't blame them, it's their brain washing and biased Education system. If I was brought up my whole life being told some next level propaganda lies like 'Pakistanis ruled on India for 1000 years', 'Equator passes through India so they're black' and 'Indus Valley Civilisation' then I'd behave in the similar manner as well. They just can't accept the fact that everything they were taught in the madressa their entire life is lies and REAL world is something else. loool











Watch these videos if you really wanna know what was Indus Valley Civilisation. It tells you that Residents of Indus Valley Civilisation moved at the banks of river Ganges [Ganga] following the drought. So river Ganges became holy for these residents [Hindus] and here they met with Central Asians [Aryans] and had babies who are called Indo-Aryans [like me and other 800 million Indians.] 

And by the way this is not some propaganda videos this is BBC documentary.  But I should also warn you that after watching this you might question whole fake belief system that you've been fed since you were a little kid and the rest of the world thinks quite differently from that.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Peshwa

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> busted in public????
> 
> it's me vs. a hundred tiny malnourished rodents on a web forum and I have yet to be ''busted''
> 
> your friend gayron asked for picture evidence which I provided; if you cannot prove that I am wrong or mistaken but I can -- it means
> 
> 
> I > all hundred of you tiny malnourished rodents
> 
> 
> 
> hope it cleared things out for you


 
Yaar...Somebody tell this fellow that this aint the script for 300...

LOL....One Pakistani vs 100 malnutritioned Indians....

Where can I get the copyrights for this flop buddy?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Yeah, feeling a bit............genocidal......... today.

not gonna lie.


----------



## Abhishek_

the chic fights are amusing indeed


----------



## aakash_2410

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Yeah, feeling a bit............genocidal......... today.
> 
> not gonna lie.


 
Like suicide bombing?? loooooool

It's not even surprising when Pakistanis talk about genocidal? loool

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Roby

Entertaining thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

aakash_2410 said:


> Like suicide bombing?? loooooool
> 
> It's not even surprising when Pakistanis talk about genocidal? loool


 
something along the lines of what your (late) defence attache in Kabul (briefly) witnessed


i guess he proved that human heads can fly higher than Sialkoty footballs


----------



## aakash_2410

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> something along the lines of what your (late) defence attache in Kabul (briefly) witnessed
> 
> 
> i guess he proved that human heads can fly higher than Sialkoty footballs


 
LMAO we sincerly care about common people of Afghanistan. and if that was the price we had to pay, we don't mind. But Indian image in Afghan is crystal clear though. 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...s-india-most-favoured-pakistan-unpopular.html
BBC NEWS | South Asia | India: Afghanistan's influential ally

And btw the last attack on India was on 26/11 and some certain country got spanking from whole world. Whereas last attack on Pakistani civillians was yesterday [which happens on daily basis] and yeah not to mention an average drone attack which kills 18 innocent civilians. aur tum log 'oof' bhi nahi kar sakate. :/

BBC News - Pakistan: Karachi naval bus bomb kills five


----------



## Vinod2070

And what the tribals witness daily in Peshawar and other places. Some seem to have run to kaffir lands however due to fear.

Or may be like the beheadings by the Talibunnies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peshwa

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> there are indians living in Little Pakistan too....a lot of them sweep floors for a living, like their ''untouchable'' comrades back home



So no different than what the majority of Pakistanis do in NYC anyways....
Chalo...at least now we can say that some Indians have things in common with most Pakistanis in NYC..LOL!



> are you one of those people?



Maybe...Maybe not....Why does it matter...Either way I can tell you that I dont live in a sh!thole called Coney Island and dont share the job description of most Pakistanis in NYC as stated above...LOL




> no i'll leave that job for you...and besides, we all know how holy dung is to indians --especially cow dungs.



Aye Im not the one living in it....even if it is holy...




> i dont think one even needs to rent those slums......people just squat there like rodents



So what you're saying is it would be your dream house AND ITS FREE....LOL!




> one just walks a lot in the city and observes...
> 
> great city, actually...



Ill Cheers to that.....The city is an addiction....




> that would be Jamaica/Bronx
> 
> Penn Station are you kidding me? That is prime real estate.



Prime Real estate for restaurants??? I mean theres a bloody soup kitchen right next to the restaurant...LOL
Seeing how you know NYC "Like the back of your hand"...not surprised by this comment at all..





> it's also the financial capital of the U.S. The GDP of NYC alone is equivalent to the GDP of hindstan, incidentally.



And the GDP on my hometown Mumbai is more than that of Pakistan....Whats your point?



> again, why shouldnt I be? In fact i put a lot of energy into promoting Pakistan and its food, music, dance --even diplomatic and political position. Everthing -- while I am here in U.S. among all my friends. And I'm happy to see that such efforts are warmly received. I think all Pakistanis overseas have a mission to be good ambassadors to their great nation.



Agree on this....Good for you...
Though you're leaving a lot of room for improvement...





> so if you decide to 'stop', it would only be because you realize you are out of juice



So quick to jump the gun...



> we have a saying in Pashto which I think best applies to you and your fellow hindstany troll brigage:
> 
> 
> Maarbey laandy, ghora-ay yaady
> 
> The slave is down
> but his vaunting is up



Like anyone gives a sh!t about what saying is popular about your kind in Pushto...

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## aakash_2410

@Peshwa

Bruv go on easy on them. You are giving them more truth than they can take in. They're not used to such things. They're getting hysterical. lool


----------



## Rafi

aakash_2410 said:


> @Peshwa
> 
> Bruv go on easy on them. You are giving them more truth than they can take in. They're not used to such things. They're getting hysterical. lool


 
and another paragon of inferiority complex appears.


----------



## Peshwa

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> what YOU'RE into, I suspect



What a comeback...Im floored...

Yaar change your name to Leonidas or something....You're too good...



> it is a PAKISTAN Defence forum however and it's interesting to see how you are online 24/7. So you always log into PDF when you have 4-5 indian options --- and then you try to bash on Pakistan.



Sue me!
What Im doing is public service... At least people can see both sides of the coin as opposed to you brainwashed folks spreading senseless propoganda against my country...




> not only are you a fag....seems you suffer from moderate to severe retardation as well.



Judging by the anger and resentment at the mere reference of you being a homo....I can say you're definitely internalizing some "unnatural" tendencies....
Bite any pillows lately? LOL

NYC must be a tough place for you....with all those hot dog carts and all that....HAHAHAHA!




> even God Himself couldnt save you....


 
Allah has blessed me with everything and more....Its time for you to question your maker...

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Bhairava

^ Bolo Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki jai

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The HBS Guy

Gounder said:


> ^ Bolo Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki jai


 
*Chidiyaan naal je Baaz ladawaan, taan Govind Singh naa dharawaan*


----------



## Rafi

Thank the Almighty that our Ancient Pakistani Civilization is separate from the indian.


----------



## Marwari

Rafi said:


> Thank the Almighty that our Ancient Pakistani Civilization is separate from the indian.


 
Lolzz here this one goes again  

Can't stay away from Indian topics. His inferiority complex is so obvious.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Marwari said:


> Lolzz here this one goes again
> 
> Can't stay away from Indian topics. His inferiority complex is so obvious.


 
You are sneaky my little indian friend - and your inferiority complex, allows you to glow in the dark.


----------



## harshad

Rafi said:


> Thank the Almighty that our Ancient Pakistani Civilization is separate from the indian.


 
invaders trying to steal our history,feeling inferior to accept your own history

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

harshad said:


> invaders trying to steal our history,feeling inferior to accept your own history


 
We are sons of the soil, and last time I checked the vast majority of the Indus Valley Civilization is in Pakistan.


----------



## Vinod2070

Pakistani history starts from Bin Qasim as stated by their leaders.


----------



## Vinod2070

harshad said:


> invaders trying to steal our history,feeling inferior to *accept your own history*


 
They don't have any. They are forced to do it.


----------

