An Indo-Arab blunder?

[Levina]

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.

The letter clearly talks of the majority.
And India was once called the golden bird for some reason, Europeans decided to trade with India for a reason.And the reason was that India was super rich back then. And the letter succinctly talks about it.

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.

 

[Armstrong]

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.

India was never referred to as a set of people but only as a geographic entity - a subcontinent of nations !

And more often than not the 'basis for forming a country' along popular lines (involving people) is a common ethnicity or a common linguistics - There is none to be had !

A Punjabi from Lahore has nothing in common with a Tamil from Tamil Nadu except maybe a romanticized notion of a country that never was !

And barring disjointed empires that crumbled as soon as the conqueror died - India has never been united !

 

[Psycho Pakistani]

The letter clearly talks of the majority.
And India was once called the golden bird for some reason, Europeans decided to trade with India for a reason.And the reason was that India was super rich back then. And the letter succinctly talks about it.

I don't care what india was, golden bird or piece of crap, but punjab was not any golden bird in those days when this british chap visited most probably bhayya areas of south asia.

 

[SamantK]

India was never referred to as a set of people but only as a geographic entity - a subcontinent of nations !

And more often than not the 'basis for forming a country' along popular lines (involving people) is a common ethnicity or a common linguistics - There is none to be had !

A Punjabi from Lahore has nothing in common with a Tamil from Tamil Nadu except maybe a romanticized notion of a country that never was !

My dear Armstrong,

India was the name given by foreigners, We knew it by many names it was the land which was most important.

We are bound by the land and the legends, in Tamil literature we have mention of Aryavarta and the importance it holds. One temple I cannot remember is modeled in the way of the region where our oldest cities are located Varanasi I believe. There are many references to the sacred land through out this geography. The concept of Dharma through out India was present much before British even came and it was not just in the north India. I as a north-Indian living in south know that we share the same religion we share the legends, the books are filled with the same gods, the customs have an un-mistakable similarity with people of other religions too.

Now a Punjabi from Lahore has nothing in common with Tamil Nadu because that Punjab is mostly Muslim. Ask Hindus who revere the rivers that flow in India, the Rama Setu mentioned in our books.. He will identify, he cannot deny it, the Muslims in Pakistan have turned to separate themselves with the history and the land.

And to form a country there has never been a pre-requisite that they be united for most of their history. What seems to have mattered is how well they relate to the land.

 

[Armstrong]

My dear Armstrong,

India was the name given by foreigners, We knew it by many names it was the land which was most important.

We are bound by the land and the legends, in Tamil literature we have mention of Aryavarta and the importance it holds. One temple I cannot remember is modeled in the way of the region where our oldest cities are located Varanasi I believe. There are many references to the sacred land through out this geography. The concept of Dharma through out India was present much before British even came and it was not just in the north India. I as a north-Indian living in south know that we share the same religion we share the legends, the books are filled with the same gods, the customs have an un-mistakable similarity with people of other religions too.

Now a Punjabi from Lahore has nothing in common with Tamil Nadu because that Punjab is mostly Muslim. Ask Hindus who revere the rivers that flow in India, the Rama Setu mentioned in our books.. He will identify, he cannot deny it, the Muslims in Pakistan have turned to separate themselves with the history and the land.

Whatever name one calls it is irrelevant; what is however relevant is the fact that India has never been united as one country barring brief periods as a conquered people except as part of some romanticized notion stemming from Hindu Mythology that can neither be confirmed nor denied as is the case with all mythologies - Thats why your sharing of the same 'legends', 'books filled with the same gods', 'customs' & the notion of it being a 'sacred land' appeals to Hindus North & South; it does not however make it any more factual than the notion of a Greater Israel or a Greater Russia !

If myths were to give birth to countries than quite a few European States that fell under the category of Germania, Scandinavia & Celtic Lands would never be born just as Africa would've remained a single unified country !

A Punjabi from Lahore doesn't need to separate himself from the history & the land - whatever the hell that means anyway - because hes a scion of that land but after Islam he evolved into a different direction he isn't any more or any less unoriginal than the Hindus of modern-day India evolving differently to Vedic religions or even the Indus Valley Civilization before that because cultures, traditions & reference points in life are not-static & no one has bragging rights over its originality or any such absurd notion !

 

[Levina]

I don't care what india was, golden bird or piece of crap, but punjab was not any golden bird in those days when this british chap visited most probably bhayya areas of south asia.

Your words suit you best.

 

[INDIC]

If you keep insulting us like this then i promise this time your ban will be 6 months at least.

You calling rescue team, I have a life outside this forum.

A Punjabi from Lahore has nothing in common with a Tamil from Tamil Nadu except maybe a romanticized notion of a country that never was !

Its true for everyone in west of Radcliffe line which is so divine, ancient Tamil like their North Indian counterparts considered themselves people of Bharatavarsha, you are only bringing your ignorance here.

 

[SamantK]

Whatever name one calls it is irrelevant; what is however relevant is the fact that India has never been united as one country barring brief periods as a conquered people except as part of some romanticized notion stemming from Hindu Mythology that can neither be confirmed nor denied as is the case with all mythologies - Thats why your sharing of the same 'legends', 'books filled with the same gods', 'customs' & the notion of it being a 'sacred land' appeals to Hindus North & South; it does not however make it any more factual than the notion of a Greater Israel or a Greater Russia !

If myths were to give birth to countries than quite a few European States that fell under the category of Germania, Scandinavia & Celtic Lands would never be born just as Africa would've remained a single unified country !

A Punjabi from Lahore doesn't need to separate himself from the history & the land - whatever the hell that means anyway - because hes a scion of that land but after Islam he evolved into a different direction he isn't any more or any less unoriginal than the Hindus of modern-day India evolving differently to Vedic religions or even the Indus Valley Civilization before that because cultures, traditions & reference points in life are not-static & no one has bragging rights over its originality or any such absurd notion !

It is totally relevant, not for you but you cannot force your belief on us. For us it is relevant. Does not matter if it was united or not before it is now and we feel it was destined to be like this. You can discard each of those things cause you took a different way and that was your choice, not ours. Please don't tell us that it is just a romanticized notion, it is more than that and as a Pakistani most probably would never understand.

They did not but are coming together as European Union and who know what will happen in the future.

Pakistan and Pakistanis harp on the Ummah which is not even from this land so yes, Pakistan distanced itself from the history of this land. No one is saying you do not belong to this land, all we are saying is you guys do not feel the way we do and many of the Muslims who stayed back.

 

[INDIC]

It is totally relevant, not for you but you cannot force your belief on us. For us it is relevant. Does not matter if it was united or not before it is now and we feel it was destined to be like this. You can discard each of those things cause you took a different way and that was your choice, not ours. Please don't tell us that it is just a romanticized notion, it is more than that and as a Pakistani most probably would never understand.

They did not but are coming together as European Union and who know what will happen in the future.

Pakistan and Pakistanis harp on the Ummah which is not even from this land so yes, Pakistan distanced itself from the history of this land. No one is saying you do not belong to this land, all we are saying is you guys do not feel the way we do and many of the Muslims who stayed back.

You too know why is he saying all this otherwise in classical Indian literature the land until Indus river is India and entire land from Gandhara in North to Dravida in South is considered as Bharat.

 

[Armstrong]

It is totally relevant, not for you but you cannot force your belief on us. For us it is relevant. Does not matter if it was united or not before it is now and we feel it was destined to be like this. You can discard each of those things cause you took a different way and that was your choice, not ours. Please don't tell us that it is just a romanticized notion, it is more than that and as a Pakistani most probably would never understand.

They did not but are coming together as European Union and who know what will happen in the future.

Pakistan and Pakistanis harp on the Ummah which is not even from this land so yes, Pakistan distanced itself from the history of this land. No one is saying you do not belong to this land, all we are saying is you guys do not feel the way we do and many of the Muslims who stayed back.

No one is forcing their beliefs on anyone - You can claim that India was populated by Martians for all its worth...it makes no difference to me; what makes a difference is that when people claim that Pakistanis are Indians & provide myth as factual evidence for it !

Coming together as a Union or not is irrelevant to a question of history !

There is no history of a 'land' otherwise whatever history the Subcontinent had would've been written by the Indo-Aryans who inhabited these lands or the citizens of the Indus Valley Civilization before them or the ones who came before them & so on & so forth by the first person who claimed these lands for his own when he evolved from the caveman into 'man' & came from Africa to these lands - If we are revisionists because we don't buy into your myths of what was & what it should be then you too are revisionist for not buying into what the ones before you said & they for not buying into what the ones before them said & so on & so forth !

Its true for everyone in west of Radcliffe line which is so divine, ancient Tamil like their North Indian counterparts considered themselves people of Bharatavarsha, you are only bringing your ignorance here.

Thats because their notion of a Bharatvarshas isn't rooted in history....its rooted in origin myths stemming out of their religion !

I never knew that religious myths passed for historical evidence in India !

 

[INDIC]

@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.

Now after you heard the different between Indians and Pakistanis from Pakistanis, let me add something too Hindi/Urdu sounds very identical to Punjabi. No two Indian languages are as much identical as Hindi/Urdu and Punjabi are identical to each other. I speak Hindi but can still watch Punjabi movies and can understand most of it. But I still expect, people will come to deny this too.

 

[SamantK]

No one is forcing their beliefs on anyone - You can claim that India was populated by Martians for all its worth...it makes no difference to me; what makes a difference is that when people claim that Pakistanis are Indians & provide myth as factual evidence for it !

Coming together as a Union or not is irrelevant to a question of history !

There is no history of a 'land' otherwise whatever history the Subcontinent had would've been written by the Indo-Aryans who inhabited these lands or the citizens of the Indus Valley Civilization before them or the ones who came before them & so on & so forth by the first person who claimed these lands for his own when he evolved from the caveman into 'man' & came from Africa to these lands - If we are revisionists because we don't buy into your myths of what was & what it should be then you too are revisionist for not buying into what the ones before you said & they for not buying into what the ones before them said & so on & so forth !

Paksitan was part of this land and hence it would be India if not for some people who did not want to be ruled by Hindu Baniya

There was no other justification other than this, not about the history nor that they were not part of India, religion and so called religious freedom nothing else. You can twist it any way you like but all this BS of India not being a country and Pakistan not part of India was simply an invention of identity crisis Pakistanis face to this day.

 

[INDIC]

Thats because their notion of a Bharatvarshas isn't rooted in history....its rooted in origin myths stemming out of their religion !

I never knew that religious myths passed for historical evidence in India !

Right, I can see you know nothing about ancient Indian culture but still distributing wisdom. Bharatavarsha is the name of the landmass and we have always believed ourselves as the people of Bharatavarsha, how can the name of a landmass be a myth. There are ancient Tamil poems in the praise of the land of Bharatam their homeland. moreover, both Gurmukhi Script and Tamil script are the descendents of common Brahmi script.

 

[Armstrong]

Paksitan was part of this land and hence it would be India if not for some people who did not want to be ruled by Hindu Baniya

There was no other justification other than this, not about the history nor that they were not part of India, religion and so called religious freedom nothing else. You can twist it any way you like but all this BS of India not being a country and Pakistan not part of India was simply an invention of identity crisis Pakistanis face to this day.

If there was no India as a country how can Pakistan be part of it ?

If the only evidence that one can furnish are origin myths extracted from religion how am I the one in a state of identity crisis ?

Clearly we're going to go in circles & you're going to continue on with your wise-crack patronizations without providing a shred of evidence beyond Hindu religious texts so - Good Day....I'm Done !

Right, I can see you know nothing about ancient Indian culture but still distributing wisdom. Bharatavarsha is the land of the landmass and we have always believed ourselves as the people of Bharatavarsha, how can the name of a landmass be a myth. There are ancient Tamil poems in the praise of the land of Bharatam their homeland. moreover, both Gurmukhi Script and Tamil script are the descendents of common Brahmi script.

You have always 'believed' it yourselves & thus written poems about it - How can I refute such an argument exuding historical evidence with its every syllable ?

Thank You for your corrections - I'll take my leave now !

 

[Contrarian]

Jinnah was furious because Nehru was trying to say Pakistan would collapse indirectly, before that everyone thought they would use the name Hindustan officially but Nehru backed out last second and chose India then he withheld Pakistan's payment trying to force its collapse but it backfired and now they are a country named after a river in another country.

Did not know you were weak in geography as well?
Does Indus not flow in India?
If it does, it is an Indian river.

If India wants to put up a dam on the river Indus, it can. That should answer the questions.