An Indo-Arab blunder?

[al-Hasani]

@Armstrong

Thanks for that post but I was actually aware of most of that hence why I only mentioned Punjabis and Sindhis specifically and some took that for me claiming that Pakistanis and Indians are the same which is ridiculous. I am well aware of the very big diversity found in India for instance which is even much bigger than in Pakistan which is not that surprising considering the size and population of india!

 

[Armstrong]

@Armstrong

Thanks for that post but I was actually aware of most of that hence why I only mentioned Punjabis and Sindhis specifically and some took that for me claiming that Pakistanis and Indians are the same which is ridiculous. I am well aware of the very big diversity found in India for instance which is even much bigger than in Pakistan which is not that surprising considering the size and population of india!

Dude even Punjabis & Sindhis aren't the same !

Punjab is further divided into 6 predominant groups - those that have traditionally come to be called as Punjabis, the Saraikis, the Pukhtoons, the Baluch, the Hindkowans, the Potowharis ! A Punjabi may have some overlap with an Indian Punjab & yes they do...there are similarities but there are also differences but what in the world would be common between an Indian & a Pukhtoon from Mianwali or Attock (Punjab) or an Indian & a Saraiki from Multan (Punjab) or a Baluch from Rahim Yar Khan (Punjab) or a Hindkowan from Rawalpindi (second most populous city of Punjab) or a Potowhari from Jhelum (Punjab) ?

And I haven't even included minor ethnic groups like myself living in Punjab !

What Indians & some Pakistanis make the mistake is that they look at the city centers of Lahore or Karachi & then say - Pakistan & India are pretty much the same !

Heaven's knows for what reason why more than half of Punjab (Lahore being the capital of Punjab) & half of Sindh (Karachi being the capital of Sindh) gets missed out completely while Baluchistan, Khyber-Pukhtoonkhwa, Azad Kashmir & Giglit-Baltistan don't even find a mention !

Don't get me wrong - I have no qualms accepting that yes there are similarities between Indians & Pakistanis & I'd love it if they'd be exploited to the mutual benefit of both.

In fact our Founding Father said it himself that he'd wish India & Pakistan to be like Canada & the United States because our histories can't be written without each other !

But I dunno why people end up painting us both with the same brush !

 

[al-Hasani]

@Armstrong

It's just that it is very difficult to tell apart for us outsiders. I mean for me and most other Arabs and Middle Eastern people it would be close to impossible to tell an Pakistani Punjabi and Sindhi apart from his Indian counterpart. As I imagine it would be for an outsider to the ME region to tell some of us apart without knowing all the details that mostly locals know.

That's why most people tend to group all South Asians into one big group at least initially.

Anyway we are off-topic but I appreciate your posts.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

@Armstrong

It's just that it is very difficult to tell apart for us outsiders. I mean for me and most other Arabs and Middle Eastern people it would be close to impossible to tell an Pakistani Punjabi and Sindhi apart from his Indian counterpart. As I imagine it would be for an outsider to the ME region to tell some of us apart without knowing all the details that mostly locals know.

That's why most people tend to group all South Asians into one big group at least initially.

Anyway we are off-topic but I appreciate your posts.

Bro we don't have problem with ''South Asia'' word. Other word (which i will not write now because its ramazan and i am trying to keep myself pure) is indeed very insulting.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Bro we don't have problem with ''South Asia'' word. Other word (which i will not write now because its ramazan and i am trying to keep myself pure) is indeed very insulting.

Come on, we are not that bad.

 

[al-Hasani]

Bro we don't have problem with ''South Asia'' word. Other word (which i will not write now because its ramazan and i am trying to keep myself pure) is indeed very insulting.

LOL, mate. That's ok. In any case we should get back to topic or let this thread die a silent death. Something tells me that your latest comment will create some answers of some kind very soon.

There was the first one!

 

[Psycho Pakistani]

LOL, mate. That's ok. In any case we should get back to topic or let this thread die a silent death. Something tells me that your latest comment will create some answers of some kind very soon.

There was the first one!

The problem between pakistan and india is no different than debate of persian gulf vs. arabian gulf, for one people it is persian gulf while for the other it is arabian gulf and remains a matter of contention.

 

[Levina]

Neither did India. .

Brace up Mambyyy....

This letter is dated 1333, by lord Macaulay.
And in the first few lines you will see the name INDIA.
That should prove my point that Pakistan didnt exist prior to the independence decalration in '47.I am not saying this to hurt your ego, its just a fact. The present day Pakistan or states of Baluchistan,Sindh, parts of punjab were all part of India.

Sirjee before they started calling the jangli ancestors of the modern day India as Indians they used to refer to the Indus valley and its people as Indians.

Jangli???

The letter that I have posted proves you wrong...once again.

 

[Armstrong]

Brace up Mambyyy....

View attachment 38297

This letter is dated 1333, by lord Macaulay.
And in the first few lines you will see the name INDIA.
That should prove my point that Pakistan didnt exist prior to the independence decalration in '47.I am not saying this to hurt your ego, its just a fact. The present day Pakistan or states of Baluchistan,Sindh, parts of punjab were all part of India.

Auntie Jee.... @KingMamba was referring to India - the country; not India - the geographical entity !

Pre the British conquest of India....India was a sub-continent of Nations not a Nation !

 

[SamantK]

Even if india does nor support Israel what's that gona change?- Nothing-

India will still be a silent entity in the face of attriocitie committed against the Palestinians-

As India has been a silent entity in the face of atrocities committed against Shias in Pakistan. Why should we care when the whole Arab world can just shout and cry about Palestine but not do shit when whole countries are run over by Jihadis?

 

[Levina]

Auntie Jee.... @KingMamba was referring to India - the country; not India - the geographical entity !

Pre the British conquest of India....India was a sub-continent of Nations not a Nation !

UNCLE jee
I understand that its hard to drill sense into your vacuum filled brain.
Did you read the letter that I have posted????
It doesnt talk of the provinces or the smaller IndiaS.

 

[acid rain]

Well, after the shitload of cr@p in the last 2-3 pages, I hope we get back to the topic at hand.

@Contrarian, nice thread bro. Puts into perspective why we took the stand that we did.

 

[Armstrong]

UNCLE jee
I understand that its hard to drill sense into your vacuum brain.
Did you read the letter that I have posted????
It doesnt talk of the provinces or the smaller IndiaS.

It doesn't have to because it isn't talking about a 'state' of India but India as a geographic entity which they conquered to make One Country; were the author travelling the length & breadth of Africa would he need to elucidate that hes talking about Africa - the continent & not Africa - a country ?

No because its self-understood; you guys have the habit of super-imposing the idea of a geographic India just as there has been a geographic Americas, the Africas etc., onto the State of India as if to speak of one is to speak of the other !

 

[Psycho Pakistani]

Brace up Mambyyy....

View attachment 38297



This letter is dated 1333, by lord Macaulay.
And in the first few lines you will see the name INDIA.
That should prove my point that Pakistan didnt exist prior to the independence decalration in '47.I am not saying this to hurt your ego, its just a fact. The present day Pakistan or states of Baluchistan,Sindh, parts of punjab were all part of India.

Jangli???

The letter that I have posted proves you wrong...once again.

Punjab was at that time an independent kingdom under ranjeet singh and had nothing to do with india. And what a Britisher thought about the status of of punjab (being part of india) was his own problem not of punjab or punjabis.

Brace up Mambyyy....

View attachment 38297



This letter is dated 1333, by lord Macaulay.
And in the first few lines you will see the name INDIA.
That should prove my point that Pakistan didnt exist prior to the independence decalration in '47.I am not saying this to hurt your ego, its just a fact. The present day Pakistan or states of Baluchistan,Sindh, parts of punjab were all part of India.

Jangli???

The letter that I have posted proves you wrong...once again.

Beggars and thieves have always existed in punjab not just in 1833 but centuries before that so it is clear he never travelled to punjab because punjab was a separate entity.

 

[SamantK]

It doesn't have to because it isn't talking about a 'state' of India but India as a geographic entity which they conquered to make One Country; were the author travelling the length & breadth of Africa would he need to elucidate that hes talking about Africa - the continent & not Africa - a country ?

No because its self-understood; you guys have the habit of super-imposing the idea of a geographic India just as there has been a geographic Americas, the Africas etc., onto the State of India as if to speak of one is to speak of the other !

India was referred to a set of people as along as the history goes and that most often than not has been the basis of forming a country. India would have remained as is, if not for the British who pitted Muslims against Hindus to further thier interests.

The Indian geography was integrated maybe partially at one time but completely over time under one ruler or another.