Stone Age Soanian Culture (Ancient Pakistan II)

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

There's no such thing as pure race in the subcontinent you halfwit.

You speak for bengalis and your race whatever that maybe. Whatever "subcontinent" races are......lol...... You may be the proud minions of the hindu indians, we however are NOT. We are different to you people racially, genetically, culturally etc. It's not your right, authority or prerogative to tell the Pakistanis about our racial origins.

 

[DarkPrince]

You speak for bengalis and your race whatever that maybe. Whatever "subcontinent" races are......lol...... You may be the proud minions of the hindu indians, we however are NOT. We are different to you people racially, genetically, culturally etc. It's not your right, authority or prerogative to tell the Pakistanis about our racial origins.

I speak for myself. You do understand Hinduism was founded in Punjab right?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I speak for myself. You do understand Hinduism was founded in Punjab right?

Yes we created it but no longer follow it. We gave it to the gangalanders who have ALWAYS been racially different to us, before Islam and even before hinduism.

 

[Hamza913]

If there was no Islam coterminous Pakistan would still be different to Bharat save the British India bit....Just like France and Germany are different or Germany and Poland....

Also how can I be be informed on an article or video if one has not read it?

I agree that ethnic nationalism is a bad thing but learning Pakistani history is not the same thing...and if someone thinks it is well then he is going out of touch....

Yes, we would still be different, but not as different as we are now. We also wouldn't be our own independent nation.

I'm informed on the topic.

I never said it's wrong to learn history, I'm just getting annoyed with these ethnic nationalists.

Under his plan Bengal would have gained independence too, but not as part of Pakistan. And just as he predicted, they are now independent.

Right, but his idea did not go through, the Muslim League still decided to incorporate Bangladesh as part of Pakistan, and his other Muslim states that he envisioned never came through. This shows just how much influence he had.

 

[UnitedPak]

We also wouldn't be our own independent nation.

Pure speculation, but the subcontinent had rarely ever been united, maybe for a total of less than 90 years before the British arrived. Individual regions like Indus were usually invaded or conquered as a whole by foreigners even before Islam arrived (Central Asian Steppe tribes, Persians, Greeks, Kushans, Arabs). Nationalism is however a modern concept. We cannot compare the past empires to modern nations.

Right, but his idea did not go through, the Muslim League still decided to incorporate Bangladesh as part of Pakistan, and his other Muslim states that he envisioned never came through. This shows just how much influence he had.

Incorporating Bengal into Pakistan had nothing to do with Pakistan being a "homeland for Muslims". Bengal saw an opportunity and took it. A Hindu majority democracy was completely new territory and phase in the history of South Asia which had seen Muslim rule for the previous 1000 years. The Muslim majority states wanted to protect their identities and did what was necessary.

The name Pakistan would have been completely illogical if what you are suggesting was true.

 

[TMA]

Yes, we would still be different, but not as different as we are now. We also wouldn't be our own independent nation.

I'm informed on the topic.

I never said it's wrong to learn history, I'm just getting annoyed with these ethnic nationalists.



Right, but his idea did not go through, the Muslim League still decided to incorporate Bangladesh as part of Pakistan, and his other Muslim states that he envisioned never came through. This shows just how much influence he had.

One can argue if it weren't for British India there would be no Pakistan...

 

[Hamza913]

Pure speculation, but the subcontinent had rarely ever been united, maybe for a total of less than 90 years before the British arrived.



Incorporating Bengal into Pakistan had nothing to do with Pakistan being a "homeland for Muslims". Bengal saw an opportunity and took it. A Hindu majority democracy was completely new territory and phase in the history of South Asia which had seen Muslim rule for the previous 1000 years. The Muslim majority states wanted to protect their identities and did what was necessary.

The name Pakistan would have been completely illogical if what you are suggesting was true.

Right, but once the British left we would have joined Hindustan if we weren't Muslim. It was called the Muslim League for a reason.

Yes, it does. It proves ethnicity meant very little. I'll admit, Bangladesh was more of a glorified colony than an actual integral part of the Pakistani nation, but that doesn't change the fact that they were still SUPPOSED to be a part of Pakistan, as a province as equal as all the others.

 

[UnitedPak]

Right, but once the British left we would have joined Hindustan if we weren't Muslim. It was called the Muslim League for a reason.

No chance. Do you see Nepal or Sri Lanka joining them?
I have already explained to you what the objectives of the original Muslim league were. You are far too obsessed with references to "Muslim" or "Islam", that you cannot accept reality.

If you want to consider Pakistan a homeland for Muslims, then fine. It's not like we ever deny help to those around us. But don't trash the heritage of Pakistani people in the process. It's not against your Islamic identity in any way. It's the past and you should accept it.

 

[Hamza913]

No chance. Do you see Nepal or Sri Lanka joining them?
I have already explained to you what the objectives of the original Muslim league were. You are far too obsessed with references to "Muslim" or "Islam", that you cannot accept reality.

If you want to consider Pakistan a homeland for Muslims, then fine. It's not like we ever deny help to those around us. But don't trash the heritage of Pakistani people in the process. It's not against your Islamic identity in any way. It's the past and you should accept it.

Sri Lanka is separated by sea, but Nepal is a good point.

Our history is that of the Muslims in the region. There's a reason Muhammad Bin Qasim is referred to as the first Pakistani. All this other stuff is ethnic history, not national history.

 

[UnitedPak]

Sri Lanka is separated by sea, but Nepal is a good point.

Our history is that of the Muslims in the region. There's a reason Muhammad Bin Qasim is referred to as the first Pakistani. All this other stuff is ethnic history, not national history.

I will tell you the same thing I tell the Hindu nationalists on here. Your religion/ideology inspired discussions can take place in the relevant threads. Stay out of the history threads as they are clearly not for you.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Sri Lanka is separated by sea, but Nepal is a good point.

Our history is that of the Muslims in the region. There's a reason Muhammad Bin Qasim is referred to as the first Pakistani. All this other stuff is ethnic history, not national history.

Ok so your history started with Muhammad bin qasim. This may be true for you, but not true for the rest of us.

We have great interest about the ways our ancestors lived in the IVC, Gandhara, Persian, Alexander the Great, Scythia, Kushan, White Hun eras.

 

[TMA]

Ok so your history started with Muhammad bin qasim. This may be true for you, but not true for the rest of us.

We have great interest about the ways our ancestors lived in the IVC, Gandhara, Persian, Alexander the Great, Scythia, Kushan, White Hun eras.

Well said/written!

 

[my2cents]

Sri Lanka is separated by sea, but Nepal is a good point.

Our history is that of the Muslims in the region. There's a reason Muhammad Bin Qasim is referred to as the first Pakistani. All this other stuff is ethnic history, not national history.

Nepal had a treaty with Qing dynasty of China from the fall out of Sino-Nepal war of 1800's. British wanted to avoid confrontation with Qing dynasty. It is also one of the reasons that they did not conquer Kashmir, Nepal, Sikkim and Burma.

 

[Hamza913]

We have great interest about the ways our ancestors lived in the IVC, Gandhara, Persian, Alexander the Great, Scythia, Kushan, White Hun eras.

As do I, but that's ethnic history, not national history.

The fact is we owe our country's existence to the Muslims in the region that existed prior to us.

I will tell you the same thing I tell the Hindu nationalists on here. Your religion/ideology inspired discussions can take place in the relevant threads. Stay out of the history threads as they are clearly not for you.

This is relevant. You're denying history by claiming Pakistan was founded on a basis other than Islam.

 

[UnitedPak]

This is relevant. You're denying history by claiming Pakistan was founded on a basis other than Islam.

Forget the blatant disregard you have for actual written manuscripts by Pakistan's founders who suggest otherwise, but then you insist on repeating stuff which sounds like borderline shirk.

Islam was never in danger. Islam does not need a country. Pakistan's founders never "saved" Islam. They certainly never claimed to have saved Islam. To suggest that we have saved Islam is synonymous with claiming that the founders were heavenly inspired, or achieved prophethood. None of this ever happened and these views are worryingly self-important.

Protecting the Islamic identity of people is very different from protecting Islam.