Alexander the Great/ Mauryans/ Graeco-Bactrians

[Republic]

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

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

Understand it in the following context...

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

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

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

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

Elephants are first mentioned in Rig Veda as Vaarana, then it's mentioned as Hastinamriga which may simply relates to the trunk, and correction, when in Sanskrit, हस्तिनमृग is Hastina-mriga. Not the Hindi Hastin Mrig. Lord Ganapati is also mentioned as Hastimugha means Elephant headed and not "Hand headed"

Can you please quote those verses or mention the Mandala and number where they are written ?
A screen shot would be sufficient for my further study.

Regards.

 

[Pakistani E]

Understand it in the following context...

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

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

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

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

Wrong analogy. People of Lahore and Amritsar are not very different. Same people, just different religions.

Second point, re-read what I wrote. Unless you're saying that the whole population east of the IVB is descended from a small number people leaving this area. The likelihood of someone from Chittagong of people descended from IVC people is nearly 0, whilst the locals here are more likely to be.

Everywhere you look for example of culture changing migrations, the founding groups are always small. Pakistani population is just layered with each migratory group. With "aboriginal" component making up a plurality for the vast majority of Pakistanis.

My gripe has always been with people like you, who seek to deny Pakistanis of their heritage. I wouldn't have had a problem with your post if you had stated that most Pakistanis and a lot of North-western Indians shared a lot of history etc.

 

[Nilgiri]

My gripe has always been with people like you, who seek to deny Pakistanis of their heritage.

Yes heritage is something to be shared to fullest extent afforded by the long histories of the regions.....rather than divvied up and partitioned "clean cut" as well. These lines drawn in sand did not eternally exist in such fashion like they do today....and who really knows how they will exist in the future.

History is one of the most humbling fields of study if you truly go into it with open mind....I put it 2nd place to Astronomy (thus outranking even Philosophy which I put 3rd)....that is pretty darn high up in the ladder.

 

[Republic]

all of this history belongs to all Pakistanis. And those pesky no bodies who constantly steal other peoples histories to feel good about themselves should have some shame.

An Alien culture has no right to usurp our history.

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

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

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

These are your comments. Now tell me where have you talked about shared History ???
You categorically said that IVC belong to Pakistan only and India has nothing to do about it.

Wrong analogy. People of Lahore and Amritsar are not very different. Same people, just different religions.

Second point, re-read what I wrote. Unless you're saying that the whole population east of the IVB is descended from a small number people leaving this area. The likelihood of someone from Chittagong of people descended from IVC people is nearly 0, whilst the locals here are more likely to be.

Everywhere you look for example of culture changing migrations, the founding groups are always small. Pakistani population is just layered with each migratory group. With "aboriginal" component making up a plurality for the vast majority of Pakistanis.

My gripe has always been with people like you, who seek to deny Pakistanis of their heritage. I wouldn't have had a problem with your post if you had stated that most Pakistanis and a lot of North-western Indians shared a lot of history etc.

Look at your posts and of Pan Islamic Pakistan. It is you people who were saying that it is not shared but only Pakistan''s history.
It is me who said in my first comment that it is shared.
When you arrogantly refused my comments, then I showed you people the mirror with DNA evidence of Rakhigadhi skeletons.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Oh boy... another thread where insecure Pakistanis show their identity crisis by trying to show how different they are from Indians while bashing India in every post. Lots of garbage posted here, hopefully I can address it all. Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.

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

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

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

Lol Chandragupta Maurya was not a Punjabi, he was a Bihari. Maurya is a caste of peacock tamers native throughout Northern India. For a nation that supposedly has such an ancient history, you sure love to shamelessly steal Indian history. Ashoka never revolted against "Brahmanism" he simply adopted Buddhism because he became disillusioned after the brutal war with Kalinga. And although Mauryan rule over Pakistan was relatively short, the Mauryans arguably had a greater impact on Pakistan than any other civilization at the time. It was the Mauryans who introduced Buddhism, a religion created in Bihar, to modern-day Pakistan. It was also the Mauryans under Ashoka who created a major urbanized civilization in modern Pakistan for the first time since the IVC. The only city in Pakistan that comes anywhere near as close as the cities of the Gangetic Plains is Peshawar, and that only became a major urban center during the rule of Ashoka. Of course, we all know how hard it is for Indus Nationalists to admit that most of their "great civilization" was actually imported from the Ganga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Indus Pakistan I respect your vast historical knowledge and agree with you on many points, but posts like that do nothing to advance your cause. You claimed that everything good from South Asia comes from Indus Pakistan. I disagree. If anything it is the other way around. Let's look at it objectively. What are South Asia's contributions?

Buddhism- Buddhism was created in Bodh Gaya Bihar, and the first Buddhist sermon was delivered in Varanasi. Buddhism was spread to Southeast Asia through the scholars at 'Nalanda University, where it is still the dominant religion today. In fact, Buddhism was only introduced to Pakistan because it was conquered by Ashoka. a Bihari. obviously the Ganga wins here.

Mathematics- The decimal system, as well as the numerical and place value system we use today, were invented by Aryabhata, a mathematician born in Pataliputra. And although there is still some debate on the origin of the zero, it was Brahmagupta who first discovered its rules, including the basic rule that subtracting a number from itself results in zero. Brahmagupta was born in India and worked under the Gupta Empire. Brahmagupta was also the first to describe the quadratic equation among other things. All these accomplishments go to the Ganges region.

Medicine- The first surgeries were performed in Varanasi by Sushruta. The first Rhinoplasty operations were also perfomed in modern India, and India was the first place where anesthesia was used during surgeries.

Art, Culture, architecture- modern India is the only place in South Asia that is home to ancient works of indigenous architecture. Can you name any place in Pakistan as old and famous as the Ajanta caves, the Konark Sun Temple, or the ancient Chola temples?

literature- Two of the world's longest and most complex works of epic literature, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, were written in India. India is also home to the Brahmi script, which is the mother of most modern scripts in Southern and Southeast Asian countries today. Pakistan meanwhile is home to the Kharosthi script, which is extinct. It is pretty obvious which one is superior. India is also home to Tamil, which is the oldest language still spoken today.

And aside from the IVC sites in India, ancient sites have also been unearthed in places such as Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, and Bengal, some of which are potentially as old and as large as the most famous IVC sites.

Oh, and chess and yoga were also invented in modern-day India.

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

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

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

You are aware that historically, no Empire native to the Indus ruled the Ganges or the Deccan? Rather it was the other way around. For most of history, the Indus could barely rule itself considering its relatively harsh landscape did not allow for easy consolidation of power and the creation of a strong, centralized state like what happened in the Gangetic Plains. As a result, the Indus region was historically ruled by small kingdoms and city states that were easily ruled by foreign powers such as the Scythians, Gandharans, Huns, Mauryans, etc. That is why Alexander was eventually able to defeat King Porus, but he was forced to turn back after mere rumors of the strength and power of the Gangetic based Nanda Empire.

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

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

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

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

Your map only shows that the Ancestral North Indian population invaded Pakistan first before they invaded India. Which means they subjugated you guys first before they subjugated us. Don't see how that is something to e proud of. According to the Aryan Invasion theory, the ancestor of the population that would become the Ancestral North Indians originated somewhere between Ukraine and the Caucuses, and your map seems to show that. I am also curious to know what is so good about Central Asians and Iranians. If your civilization was so advanced, why are you proud of having foreign ancestry? There are plenty of ethnic groups in modern India that have that ancestry, but they do not obsess over it as much as you. Instead, they are proud of their own culture and achievements. This includes the brahmins that you supposedly admire. Oh well, to each their own. Although, if you think that Central Asian ancestry makes you racially distinct from most Indians, I am afraid you are off. The difference in the ratio of "aboriginal to Aryan" as you put it between most Indians and Pakistanis is not large enough to create a striking gap in phenotypes.

Anyway, I personally do not see much of a difference in terms of civilization between the aboriginal hunter gathers of Central and Southeastern India and the nomadic goat f**king desert tribes of KP and Punjab. But that could just be my own bias showing.

@Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @VCheng @Jackdaws

Best regards sir.

 

[Jackdaws]

Oh boy... another thread where insecure Pakistanis show their identity crisis by trying to show how different they are from Indians while bashing India in every post. Lots of garbage posted here, hopefully I can address it all. Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.

Lol Chandragupta Maurya was not a Punjabi, he was a Bihari. Maurya is a caste of peacock tamers native throughout Northern India. For a nation that supposedly has such an ancient history, you sure love to shamelessly steal Indian history. Ashoka never revolted against "Brahmanism" he simply adopted Buddhism because he became disillusioned after the brutal war with Kalinga. And although Mauryan rule over Pakistan was relatively short, the Mauryans arguably had a greater impact on Pakistan than any other civilization at the time. It was the Mauryans who introduced Buddhism, a religion created in Bihar, to modern-day Pakistan. It was also the Mauryans under Ashoka who created a major urbanized civilization in modern Pakistan for the first time since the IVC. The only city in Pakistan that comes anywhere near as close as the cities of the Gangetic Plains is Peshawar, and that only became a major urban center during the rule of Ashoka. Of course, we all know how hard it is for Indus Nationalists to admit that most of their "great civilization" was actually imported from the Ganga

@Indus Pakistan I respect your vast historical knowledge and agree with you on many points, but posts like that do nothing to advance your cause. You claimed that everything good from South Asia comes from Indus Pakistan. I disagree. If anything it is the other way around. Let's look at it objectively. What are South Asia's contributions?

Buddhism- Buddhism was created in Bodh Gaya Bihar, and the first Buddhist sermon was delivered in Varanasi. Buddhism was spread to Southeast Asia through the scholars at 'Nalanda University, where it is still the dominant religion today. In fact, Buddhism was only introduced to Pakistan because it was conquered by Ashoka. a Bihari. obviously the Ganga wins here.

Mathematics- The decimal system, as well as the numerical and place value system we use today, were invented by Aryabhata, a mathematician born in Pataliputra. And although there is still some debate on the origin of the zero, it was Brahmagupta who first discovered its rules, including the basic rule that subtracting a number from itself results in zero. Brahmagupta was born in India and worked under the Gupta Empire. Brahmagupta was also the first to describe the quadratic equation among other things. All these accomplishments go to the Ganges region.

Medicine- The first surgeries were performed in Varanasi by Sushruta. The first Rhinoplasty operations were also perfomed in modern India, and India was the first place where anesthesia was used during surgeries.

Art, Culture, architecture- modern India is the only place in South Asia that is home to ancient works of indigenous architecture. Can you name any place in Pakistan as old and famous as the Ajanta caves, the Konark Sun Temple, or the ancient Chola temples?

literature- Two of the world's longest and most complex works of epic literature, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, were written in India. India is also home to the Brahmi script, which is the mother of most modern scripts in Southern and Southeast Asian countries today. Pakistan meanwhile is home to the Kharosthi script, which is extinct. It is pretty obvious which one is superior. India is also home to Tamil, which is the oldest language still spoken today.

And aside from the IVC sites in India, ancient sites have also been unearthed in places such as Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, and Bengal, some of which are potentially as old and as large as the most famous IVC sites.

Oh, and chess and yoga were also invented in modern-day India.

You are aware that historically, no Empire native to the Indus ruled the Ganges or the Deccan? Rather it was the other way around. For most of history, the Indus could barely rule itself considering its relatively harsh landscape did not allow for easy consolidation of power and the creation of a strong, centralized state like what happened in the Gangetic Plains. As a result, the Indus region was historically ruled by small kingdoms and city states that were easily ruled by foreign powers such as the Scythians, Gandharans, Huns, Mauryans, etc. That is why Alexander was eventually able to defeat King Porus, but he was forced to turn back after mere rumors of the strength and power of the Gangetic based Nanda Empire.

Your map only shows that the Ancestral North Indian population invaded Pakistan first before they invaded India. Which means they subjugated you guys first before they subjugated us. Don't see how that is something to e proud of. According to the Aryan Invasion theory, the ancestor of the population that would become the Ancestral North Indians originated somewhere between Ukraine and the Caucuses, and your map seems to show that. I am also curious to know what is so good about Central Asians and Iranians. If your civilization was so advanced, why are you proud of having foreign ancestry? There are plenty of ethnic groups in modern India that have that ancestry, but they do not obsess over it as much as you. Instead, they are proud of their own culture and achievements. This includes the brahmins that you supposedly admire. Oh well, to each their own. Although, if you think that Central Asian ancestry makes you racially distinct from most Indians, I am afraid you are off. The difference in the ratio of "aboriginal to Aryan" as you put it between most Indians and Pakistanis is not large enough to create a striking gap in phenotypes.

Anyway, I personally do not see much of a difference in terms of civilization between the aboriginal hunter gathers of Central and Southeastern India and the nomadic goat f**king desert tribes of KP and Punjab. But that could just be my own bias showing.

@Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @VCheng @Jackdaws

Best regards sir.

You think it matters to them?

 

[Hamza913]

Buddhism

Kanishka, one of the greatest Buddhist rulers in history, was from Peshawar. Some of the oldest manuscripts of Buddhist texts also come from Pakistan, as do some of Buddhisms greatest pieces of architecture (cough cough Gandharan architecture). Taxila itself was a major centre of Buddhism.

Mathematics

The Bakhshali zero comes from KPK, and Taxila itself was a very prominent centre of learning (as we all know).

Medicine

Some of the earliest forms of Dentistry come from Mergarh.

https://www.nature.com/articles/440755a

Art, Culture, architecture

Again, we have Gandhara, as well as beautiful Masajid such as Badhshahi Masjid, Wazir Khan Masjid, Faisal Masjid, etc. In terms of culture, our diversity is what makes it so strong.

literature

Panini came from (what is now) Pakistan, as did Masud Saad Salman, Allama Iqbal, Fairduddin Masud, Khushal Khan Khattak, and Faiz Ahmad Faiz among many others.

And aside from the IVC sites in India, ancient sites have also been unearthed in places such as Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, and Bengal, some of which are potentially as old and as large as the most famous IVC sites.

Oh, and chess and yoga were also invented in modern-day India.

Ok and?

You are aware that historically, no Empire native to the Indus ruled the Ganges or the Deccan?

Rofl what? Kanishka was from Peshawar, Mihirakula was from Sialkot (then known as Sagala), Akbar was from Umerkot, Shah Jahan was from Lahore, the Muslim Mysoreans originally came from the Punjab, etc.

And geography doesn't determine ethnicity/ancestry. There have been numerous Pashtuns (don't forget that Pakistan has the world's largest Pashtun population) that ruled over India, as well as plenty of Rajputs (another major community in Pakistan) among others that did the same.

That is why Alexander was eventually able to defeat King Porus, but he was forced to turn back after mere rumors of the strength and power of the Gangetic based Nanda Empire.

It would be fairer to say that his bad luck in the Indus is what made his army start crapping bricks at the mere thought of fighting a much larger, unified army. You still have to thank Porus for striking terror into the hearts of Alexander's army.

Which means they subjugated you guys first before they subjugated us.

The Indo-Aryans synthesised with the people of the Indus to form early Vedic culture. It was afterwards that they spread:

Anyway, I personally do not see much of a difference in terms of civilization between the aboriginal veggie-boy dot-head monkeys of Central and Southeastern India

Fixed it for you.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Kanishka, one of the greatest Buddhist rulers in history, was from Peshawar. Some of the oldest manuscripts of Buddhist texts also come from Pakistan, as do some of Buddhisms greatest pieces of architecture (cough cough Gandharan architecture). Taxila itself was a major centre of Buddhism.



The Bakhshali zero comes from KPK, and Taxila itself was a very prominent centre of learning (as we all know).



Some of the earliest forms of Dentistry come from Mergarh.

https://www.nature.com/articles/440755a



Again, we have Gandhara, as well as beautiful Masajid such as Badhshahi Masjid, Wazir Khan Masjid, Faisal Masjid, etc. In terms of culture, our diversity is what makes it so strong.



Panini came from (what is now) Pakistan, as did Masud Saad Salman, Allama Iqbal, Fairduddin Masud, Khushal Khan Khattak, and Faiz Ahmad Faiz among many others.




Ok and?



Rofl what? Kanishka was from Peshawar, Mihirakula was from Sialkot (then known as Sagala), Akbar was from Umerkot, Shah Jahan was from Lahore, the Muslim Mysoreans originally came from the Punjab, etc.

And geography doesn't determine ethnicity/ancestry. There have been numerous Pashtuns (don't forget that Pakistan has the world's largest Pashtun population) that ruled over India, as well as plenty of Rajputs (another major community in Pakistan) among others that did the same.



It would be fairer to say that his bad luck in the Indus is what made his army start crapping bricks at the mere thought of fighting a much larger, unified army. You still have to thank Porus for striking terror into the hearts of Alexander's army.



The Indo-Aryans synthesised with the people of the Indus to form early Vedic culture. It was afterwards that they spread:

Fixed it for you.

Please understand the context of my post. I never said Pakistan has no civilization, I just countered that member's post about Pakistan supposedly being the center of civilization, which is untrue. Yes I know that last part was a bit harsh, but it simply matched the tone of the poster to whom I was replying.

Yes, I know about Kansika, but that does not change the fact buddhism was created in Bihar and spread to Pakistan by Ashoka after the Mauryans conquered Pakistan. And I said no empire NATIVE to the Indus ruled large parts of the Ganges. The Mughals were not NATIVE to Pakistan. Tipu Sultan was a native of the Deccan, even if he had some Punjabi ancestry. And yes, some Pushtoon empires may have ruled parts of India for short amounts of time, but those areas were mostly limited to the North-west(Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat) that constitute the Indus Region, not the Ganges region. And for the most part, no foreign empire ruled large parts of the Gangetic Plains for long periods of time with the exception of the Kushans and Scythians, who were not native to Pakistan. Neither of those Empires lasted long in North India anyway.

Yes Bakshali is important, but as I said it was Brahmagupta who discovered the rules and properties of zero. And as for art, literature, and architecture, I should have specified that while Pakistan does have some impressive stuff from the Mughal era, there is not much that comes before. Also Pakistan's(and India's) Mughal architecture is inspired from Persian and Central Asian architecture. By indigenous I mean Hindu and Buddhist architecture. Are there any famous Buddhist and Hindu temples in Pakistan built prior to 1000 CE? India has the Ajanta caves, the Chola Temples, and the Konark sun temple among others.

As for literature, when most people think of ancient South Asian literature, they think of the Mahabharat and Ramayana. And Chess and Yoga are some of the most widespread inventions to come from South Asia, so I included them. Both have definitely boosted India's soft power and image in the world.

And yes, I definitely respect Porus for the David vs Goliath type fight he put up against Alexander the tyrant. considering he was outnumbered and his forces lacked Alexander's discipline and organization, what he did was amazing. But then again, organization is the most important part of warfare. Chandragupta Maurya showed that in his subsequent war with Selucious Nikator. I think we can agree that Alexander definitely made a mistake in invading South Asia. His bloody and expensive South Asia campaign likely facilitated the fall of his empire, similar to Aurangzeb's war against the Marathas much later.

Oh, and spread, assimilated, whatever you call it... the fact is, according to the AIT, the Aryan people from the Caucuses at one point successfully invaded and subjacated the peoples of South Asia. Obviously Pakistan, being the Northwesternmost part of the subcontinent, got invaded first.

 

[Hamza913]

And I said no empire NATIVE to the Indus ruled large parts of the Ganges. The Mughals were not NATIVE to Pakistan. Tipu Sultan was a native of the Deccan, even if he had some Punjabi ancestry.

Your concept of "native" is a strange one. I named people born and raised in what is now Pakistan, but that did not suffice for you since their lineages did not originate from Pakistan (but by that logic, many Pakistanis aren't real Pakistanis either since so many of our lineages came from outside of the region in the past 1000 years). But when I named people whose lineages came from Pakistan, that did not suffice because they were not born in what is now Pakistan.

And I don't know why empires from what is now the Republic of India should make us sore, since as per you we are pretty similar (I agree to some extent, see my thread on this surge of Indus nationalism) as well as the fact that we have so many migrants from India from partition.

Yes Bakshali is important

Then we do not need to discuss the topic further.

I should have specified that while Pakistan does have some impressive stuff from the Mughal era, there is not much that comes before.

Umm, Gandhara? IVC?

By indigenous I mean Hindu and Buddhist architecture.

AKA not Muslim. Which is rather silly since we are a Muslim country. Do you expect to find much else besides Masajid?

Are there any famous Buddhist and Hindu temples in Pakistan built prior to 1000 CE?

There are a few IIRC, but we destroyed most of them when we embraced Islam and joined the Muslim lashkars (or came with them, depending on one's family origins).

As for literature, when most people think of ancient South Asian literature,

What most people think is irrelevant to the facts.

His bloody and expensive South Asia campaign likely facilitated the fall of his empire

No, his empire fell because he did not effectively designate a successor.

Oh, and spread, assimilated, whatever you call it... the fact is, according to the AIT, the Aryan people from the Caucuses at one point successfully invaded and subjacated the peoples of South Asia. Obviously Pakistan, being the Northwesternmost part of the subcontinent, got invaded first.

It was a mix of migration/war. Those that assimilated nicely joined the higher castes, those that didn't were designated to form the lower castes.

The same thing happened with subsequent invaders/migrants to the region, e.g the Jats became peasants because they didn't find the varna system agreeable to their ethics.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Your concept of "native" is a strange one. I named people born and raised in what is now Pakistan, but that did not suffice for you since their lineages did not originate from Pakistan (but by that logic, many Pakistanis aren't real Pakistanis either since so many of our lineages came from outside of the region in the past 1000 years). But when I named people whose lineages came from Pakistan, that did not suffice because they were not born in what is now Pakistan.

And I don't know why empires from what is now the Republic of India should make us sore, since as per you we are pretty similar (I agree to some extent, see my thread on this surge of Indus nationalism) as well as the fact that we have so many migrants from India from partition.



Then we do not need to discuss the topic further.



Umm, Gandhara? IVC?



AKA not Muslim. Which is rather silly since we are a Muslim country. Do you expect to find much else besides Masajid?



There are a few IIRC, but we destroyed most of them when we embraced Islam and joined the Muslim lashkars (or came with them, depending on one's family origins).



What most people think is irrelevant to the facts.



No, his empire fell because he did not effectively designate a successor.

the Mughal Empire was started by an Uzbek. There were Mughal Emperors born in both India and Pakistan. Aurangzeb was born in India for example.

Your concept of "native" is a strange one. I named people born and raised in what is now Pakistan, but that did not suffice for you since their lineages did not originate from Pakistan (but by that logic, many Pakistanis aren't real Pakistanis either since so many of our lineages came from outside of the region in the past 1000 years). But when I named people whose lineages came from Pakistan, that did not suffice because they were not born in what is now Pakistan.

And I don't know why empires from what is now the Republic of India should make us sore, since as per you we are pretty similar (I agree to some extent, see my thread on this surge of Indus nationalism) as well as the fact that we have so many migrants from India from partition.



Then we do not need to discuss the topic further.



Umm, Gandhara? IVC?



AKA not Muslim. Which is rather silly since we are a Muslim country. Do you expect to find much else besides Masajid?




There are a few IIRC, but we destroyed most of them when we embraced Islam and joined the Muslim lashkars (or came with them, depending on one's family origins).



What most people think is irrelevant to the facts.



No, his empire fell because he did not effectively designate a successor.



It was a mix of migration/war. Those that assimilated nicely joined the higher castes, those that didn't were designated to form the lower castes.

The same thing happened with subsequent invaders/migrants to the region, e.g the Jats became peasants because they didn't find the varna system agreeable to their ethics.

When did I say empires from India should make you sore? And I never said we are the same. I just simply think it is funny how some Pakistanis think they are fair and lovely compared to Indians. Obviously, people are not similar because they look the same. Looks are literally the most superficial characteristics of a people.

 

[Hamza913]

the Mughal Empire was started by an Uzbek.

Whose successors were FAR from Uzbek. Just look at Akbar, does he look like an Uzbek to you?

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Whose successors were FAR from Uzbek. Just look at Akbar, does he look like an Uzbek to you?

Akbar got assimilated into Pakistan just like Tipu Sultan got assimilated into Karnataka. The difference is the Mughal empire cannot exclusively be claimed by Pakistan as there were Mughal emperors born in India such as Aurangzeb, whereas Mysore was entirely contained within India.

 

[Hamza913]

When did I say empires from India should make you sore?

You seem to imply that they should.

And I never said we are the same

No, you said we are similar.

Akbar got assimilated into Pakistan just like Tipu Sultan got assimilated into Karnataka.

So then why doesn't Akbar count as an individual from the Indus who ruled over the Ganges?

The difference is the Mughal empire cannot exclusively be claimed by Pakistan as there were Mughal emperors born in India such as Aurangzeb,

Pakistan itself is the literal successor state to the Muslim dynasties that ruled over the geographical unit of British India. We have pretty strong grounds to claim them as our heritage.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

You seem to imply that they should.



No, you said we are similar.



So then why doesn't Akbar count as an individual from the Indus who ruled over the Ganges?



Pakistan itself is the literal successor state to the Muslim dynasties that ruled over the geographical unit of British India. We have pretty strong grounds to claim them as our heritage.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. And yes we are similar, but we are also different, and it is pretty obvious our differences outweigh our similarities. And of course both India and Pakistan have different ethnicities. For example a paukhtoon and a Tamil have about as much in common ethnically as a Turk and a Sweed, so it is important not to generalize when comparing India and Pakistan. But overall, the Indo-Aryan populations which constitute the majority of both countries do share some similarities.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Oh boy... another thread where insecure Pakistanis show their identity crisis by trying to show how different they are from Indians while bashing India in every post. Lots of garbage posted here, hopefully I can address it all. Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.

Lol Chandragupta Maurya was not a Punjabi, he was a Bihari. Maurya is a caste of peacock tamers native throughout Northern India. For a nation that supposedly has such an ancient history, you sure love to shamelessly steal Indian history.

@Cobra Arbok

It seems that you are owed an apology. You have the right to ask why the questions that you have raised have not been raised before, why these obvious holes in the narrative have not been pointed out, corrected and the narrative itself strengthened by such action.

The most self-exculpatory reason would be that there was an intense fear of being guilty of what has been called Les Trahison des Clercs, by Julien Benda in his short book of that name. In that book, he pointed to the treachery of both French and German intellectuals in abandoning the true quest of the intellectual, des Clercs, as he termed them, the quest of a search for the objective truth independent of national spirit. We now know that such an objectivity is impossible; that the observer, in a social situation, is a part of the observation, that even the partial distancing possible in the physical sciences is not possible. But that is all clear and visible in the light of hindsight, in its perfect placement of events and personalities as they should have been placed at the time of any event.

At that time, it seemed that all of us should put aside national and nationalistic fervour and seek the truth. Stupid mistake; putting aside the distortion due to national fervour is possible, at the cost of a compensatory effort that pushes the observer in the opposite direction.

Speaking in general, one of the most difficult things for any of the young and uninformed acolytes of our own @Indus Pakistan to understand is the very different nature of religious conflict in India before the arrival of the Abrahamic religions. But let us go step at a time.

Volumes have been written about the ancestry of the Mauryas, and none of the references even hint at a Punjabi origin. How on earth did our pocket propagandist come to that conclusion? Quite simply,

Ashoka never revolted against "Brahmanism" he simply adopted Buddhism because he became disillusioned after the brutal war with Kalinga.

One of the most common mistakes made by Pakistani revisionists of history is to assume that there was a clash of religions in 600 BC. It is also assumed that what happened elsewhere in the world when Abrahamic religions collided was repeated in the sub-continent when Indic religions 'collided' (an extremely violent verb for a philosophical and social confrontation that never took to prosecuting the followers of the other).

And although Mauryan rule over Pakistan was relatively short, the Mauryans arguably had a greater impact on Pakistan than any other civilization at the time. It was the Mauryans who introduced Buddhism, a religion created in Bihar, to modern-day Pakistan. It was also the Mauryans under Ashoka who created a major urbanized civilization in modern Pakistan for the first time since the IVC. The only city in Pakistan that comes anywhere near as close as the cities of the Gangetic Plains is Peshawar, and that only became a major urban center during the rule of Ashoka. Of course, we all know how hard it is for Indus Nationalists to admit that most of their "great civilization" was actually imported from the Ganga