Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Vinod2070]

By the same logic would you say that the current Turkish people are the inheritors of the history of the Greco-Roman empire! Because Constantinople was the capital of that empire. Obviously no-one ever can say so. The current Turkish people may live in that land, but they own only the history of their ancestors, not the land where they happen to live now.

Now let's see the same situation from Pakistan's POV. Almost 70% people (as per the some articles I have read written by Pakistani authors) claim to be Arabs or other ethnicities. Anything but native to Pakistan (or then India). How can they lay any claim to the history of this land which happened thousand years before they came here.

So we are left with the 30 % who are natives of the land (India + now Pakistan). How many of them are Muhajirs? So how does a person who migrated from UP become an inheritor of the history in that land but his erstwhile neighbours don't.

Again, the currently discovered sites leave out the NWFP areas AFAIK, so all Pashtuns are left out as also the Balochis? And I am not even talking about the Bangladeshis who were the majority of Pakistanis at the time of independence and two more decades!

And what about the millions of refugees who exchanged countries in the Punjab. How do you allocate the history between them. Between the Sindhis in both countries? Between the numerous Chaudharis, Bhattis, Jats, Rajputs in the two countries.

The ones who converted and are in Pakistan inherit the history while the others don't!

 

[Vinod2070]

Complete silence!

Yes. No. May be.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

By the same logic would you say that the current Turkish people are the inheritors of the history of the Greco-Roman empire! Because Constantinople was the capital of that empire. Obviously no-one ever can say so. The current Turkish people may live in that land, but they own only the history of their ancestors, not the land where they happen to live now.

Now let's see the same situation from Pakistan's POV. Almost 70% people (as per the some articles I have read written by Pakistani authors) claim to be Arabs or other ethnicities. Anything but native to Pakistan (or then India). How can they lay any claim to the history of this land which happened thousand years before they came here.

So we are left with the 30 % who are natives of the land (India + now Pakistan). How many of them are Muhajirs? So how does a person who migrated from UP become an inheritor of the history in that land but his erstwhile neighbours don't.

Again, the currently discovered sites leave out the NWFP areas AFAIK, so all Pashtuns are left out as also the Balochis? And I am not even talking about the Bangladeshis who were the majority of Pakistanis at the time of independence and two more decades!

And what about the millions of refugees who exchanged countries in the Punjab. How do you allocate the history between them. Between the Sindhis in both countries? Between the numerous Chaudharis, Bhattis, Jats, Rajputs in the two countries.

The ones who converted and are in Pakistan inherit the history while the others don't!

I have expressed multiple POV's on this, one of which is the view expressed in my past post.

However in another thread (do Muslim monuments belong to Pakistanis,or some such thing) I argued initially that the history of South Asia belongs to all South Asians, and indeed the world (we also interacted with Afghanistan, Persia, Central Asia etc.), because there was so much interaction and overlap.

The point you raise applies throughout the world.

Populations and civilizations have migrated, changed, interbred, gone extinct etc.

No country can claim most ancient history in that case, since most countries today never existed in ancient days, and neither were there populations static.

India, and many other countries, does much the same, claiming history for the modern political entity created in 1947.

Why should Pakistan be any different?

 

[Vinod2070]

I have expressed multiple POV's on this, one of which is the view expressed in my past post.

However in another thread (do Muslim monuments belong to Pakistanis,or some such thing) I argued initially that the history of South Asia belongs to all South Asians, and indeed the world (we also interacted with Afghanistan, Persia, Central Asia etc.), because there was so much interaction and overlap.

The point you raise applies throughout the world.

Populations and civilizations have migrated, changed, interbred, gone extinct etc.

No country can claim most ancient history in that case, since most countries today never existed in ancient days, and neither were there populations static.

India, and many other countries, does much the same, claiming history for the modern political entity created in 1947.

Why should Pakistan be any different?

It seems to me that we are on the same side!

Yes, my point is also that the ancient civilization is not the "Bapauti" (crude slang for inheritance) of any one nation. In fact it belongs to whoever feels part of that.

But then this was exactly what was sought to be challenged by claiming the IVC and even Rigveda, Buddhism and Sanskrit as exclusively Pakistani!

My post is not to say that they are not shared heritage, just to say that they are certainly not exclusively Pakistani.

The demography of Pakistan does not support that claim as much as the demography of Turkey does not support their inheritance of Greco-Roman empire's heritage.

Nor should there be any need for that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It seems to me that we are on the same side!

Yes, my point is also that the ancient civilization is not the "Bapauti" (crude slang for inheritance) of any one nation. In fact it belongs to whoever feels part of that.

But then this was exactly what was sought to be challenged by claiming the IVC and even Rigveda, Buddhism and Sanskrit as exclusively Pakistani!

My post is not to say that they are not shared heritage, just to say that they are certainly not exclusively Pakistani.

The demography of Pakistan does not support that claim as much as the demography of Turkey does not support their inheritance of Greco-Roman empire's heritage.

Nor should there be any need for that.

However, while the two of us may agree that history belongs to all peoples, nations do not work that way, and unless nations get together and agree to teach and project their history in a non-nationalistic light, the "hoarding" of history on the basis of geographical boundaries will continue.

I expressed the view that India and Pakistan (and possibly other South Asian nations) should get together and "re-brand" the history of the sub-continent as "South Asian history".

I was surprised at the extent of hostility that opinion garnered, from people whose posts are generally quite logical - being accused of "not recognizing India", and "seeking to deny its existence throughout ancient history" (well yes I do, but thats not the point).

Some even said that it shouldn't happen because modern India does have a claim to that history, and Pakistan's, its only Pakistan that is a subset.

So long as those kinds of attitudes exist, and honestly Vinod, you know that nationalism with respect to a retroactive claiming of history is on the rise in India, expect the equivalent effort in Pakistan and from Pakistanis (including myself, who would ideally want to support the position we agree upon).

 

[Vinod2070]

However, while the two of us may agree that history belongs to all peoples, nations do not work that way, and unless nations get together and agree to teach and project their history in a non-nationalistic light, the "hoarding" of history on the basis of geographical boundaries will continue.

I expressed the view that India and Pakistan (and possibly other South Asian nations) should get together and "re-brand" the history of the sub-continent as "South Asian history".

I was surprised at the extent of hostility that opinion garnered, from people whose posts are generally quite logical - being accused of "not recognizing India", and "seeking to deny its existence throughout ancient history" (well yes I do, but thats not the point).

Some even said that it shouldn't happen because modern India does have a claim to that history, and Pakistan's, its only Pakistan that is a subset.

So long as those kinds of attitudes exist, and honestly Vinod, you know that nationalism with respect to a retroactive claiming of history is on the rise in India, expect the equivalent effort in Pakistan and from Pakistanis (including myself, who would ideally want to support the position we agree upon).

I feel that there is little stomach to face the truth about our history in South Asia.

Many of us feel the need to validate some theories and make the history a tool to achieve that. Till the time that continues, we will continue to have opposing views of the same events in history.

There is little or no tradition of honest analysis of even great events in our recent history. It still takes westerners to provide that account.

Recently I just flipped through the "The Last Mughal" (again written by an Englishmen). It was an eye opening book about the state of affairs at the point with superb research and great honesty.

I am sure no history books in India or Pakistan provide an honest and broad based account of our history though for different reasons. In India it is because the leftist "intellectuals" control what is taught as history, and in Pakistan for some other reasons.

 

[Vinod2070]

And I am afraid even I do not agree with your formulation (of denying India as a historical entity). But I don't grudge you that opinion.

I am sure there is no other way Jinnah or Iqbal (for most part of their lives) or the Mughal rulers (especially Akbar onwards) would describe themselves except as Indians or Hindustanis.

And India (as a nation) carries on the torch of the Pre-Independence "India" (courtesy Vish) as Russia does it for the USSR.

This is not to undermine the other parts that came out of the "re-organization" (your term), just to say the facts as I (and most people) see them.

Other parts are significant and important in themselves but there is only one that carries the torch.

 

[Vinod2070]

Mr. 23 March, instead of snide private remarks like "go away" why don't you reply to my post openly?

Let everyone know your views openly.

 

[UnitedPak]

And I am afraid even I do not agree with your formulation (of denying India as a historical entity). But I don't grudge you that opinion.

I am sure there is no other way Jinnah or Iqbal (for most part of their lives) or the Mughal rulers (especially Akbar onwards) would describe themselves except as Indians or Hindustanis.

What about Punjabis, Sindhis, Mughals, Afghans, Pathan? There was no such thing as "India".

And India (as a nation) carries on the torch of the Pre-Independence "India" (courtesy Vish) as Russia does it for the USSR.

Pre British India was the Mughal Empire, which was split up into 100s of smaller countries which are now the provinces of South Asia. And it was a Muslim empire so who carries what "torch"?

"India" was simply a geographical term during British rule (as Churchill put it). It was clear as daylight to everybody that the people of the subcontinent were very different, so to claim the history of the entire subcontinent for modern India is nonsensical. You are simply abusing the term India and all the meanings it has had.

This is not to undermine the other parts that came out of the "re-organization" (your term), just to say the facts as I (and most people) see them.

Most people dont see it like you, thats why we have a problem.

Other parts are significant and important in themselves but there is only one that carries the torch.

Again, you cant carry the "torch" if you are not the descendants of the people you claim you carry the "torch" of.

There is a reason why Pakistanis dont claim to be the descendants of the Assamese people of India. Why do Indians then claim to be the descendants of Pakistani ethnic groups?

 

[QuickSilver]

Pre British India was the Mughal Empire, which was split up into 100s of smaller countries which are now the provinces of South Asia. And it was a Muslim empire so who carries what "torch"?

Pre mughal empire it was Hindu and Buddhist dominated
dint the Islamic descendents claim the same history now? I mean if I go by your argument then I should say 'Muslims claiming a rigvedic history??' doesnt hold good in both cases!!

"India" was simply a geographical term during British rule (as Churchill put it). It was clear as daylight to everybody that the people of the subcontinent were very different, so to claim the history of the entire subcontinent for modern India is nonsensical. You are simply abusing the term India and all the meanings it has had.

Churchill is not a historian he is a politician. Imagine 100 years from now people quoting Mr.Zardari or Mr.Musharraf or even Mr.Bal Thackeray and taking their words to be the truth!!(gives a smile to me!!)

Most people dont see it like you, thats why we have a problem.

its called difference of opinion and its quite normal. And that is why we have a debate here or elsewhere!!

Again, you cant carry the "torch" if you are not the descendants of the people you claim you carry the "torch" of.

It is not established that we are not the descendants of that people so you cannot say 'you are not the decedents' the debate is still on and I dont think it has been solved even in scientific/archeological circles

There is a reason why Pakistanis dont claim to be the descendants of the Assamese people of India.

good. we seem to agree on this here. in fact, neither am I a descendant of the assamese origin (i think so because i dont seem to have any features that their ethnicity has!!)

Why do Indians then claim to be the descendants of Pakistani ethnic groups?

because IVC is not exclusive to Pakistani ethnic groups.

Cheers.

 

[Vinod2070]

What about Punjabis, Sindhis, Mughals, Afghans, Pathan? There was no such thing as "India".

Then why the famous Iqbal song?

"Saare Jahan se achchha Hindustan hamara".

Just think about it.

And by your logic, even Pakistan is not a nation, as it still has those ethnicities!

Pre British India was the Mughal Empire, which was split up into 100s of smaller countries which are now the provinces of South Asia. And it was a Muslim empire so who carries what "torch"?

"India" was simply a geographical term during British rule (as Churchill put it). It was clear as daylight to everybody that the people of the subcontinent were very different, so to claim the history of the entire subcontinent for modern India is nonsensical. You are simply abusing the term India and all the meanings it has had.

Churchill may have put it that way and it does not mean it is true. Churchill was an imperialist with contempt for India and Indians (and that included all Indians even Muslims) as well as Islam (I bet you didn't know this else you won't quote him.).

Just try to find his views on Islam and you will never quote him again as if he was a supreme authority.

Again your assumption that Pakistan is the sole inheritor of Islamic legacy in India is flawed, as you have just 1/3 pf the Muslims of undivided India.

Also we are discussing here about ancient history. The pre-Islamic period, so again this argument does not hold water.

Most people dont see it like you, thats why we have a problem.

Again, you cant carry the "torch" if you are not the descendants of the people you claim you carry the "torch" of.

There is a reason why Pakistanis dont claim to be the descendants of the Assamese people of India. Why do Indians then claim to be the descendants of Pakistani ethnic groups?

I answered that in my post about the demography of Pakistan.

OK, tell me. Do you think Turks inherit the legacy of the Greco-Roman empire by virtue of having their capital in Istanbul (erstwhile Constantinople)?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pre mughal empire it was Hindu and Buddhist dominated
dint the Islamic descendents claim the same history now? I mean if I go by your argument then I should say 'Muslims claiming a rigvedic history??' doesnt hold good in both cases!!

Not religious groups - people. It is the people of Pakistan claiming that history which occurred largely within the borders of Pakistan.

Churchill is not a historian he is a politician. Imagine 100 years from now people quoting Mr.Zardari or Mr.Musharraf or even Mr.Bal Thackeray and taking their words to be the truth!!(gives a smile to me!!)

Churchill's comments serve to highlight the truth about the nature of the subcontinent at that time - a region composed of many peoples and many nations, that the British unified into one colony after conquering it.

It is not established that we are not the descendants of that people so you cannot say 'you are not the decedents' the debate is still on and I dont think it has been solved even in scientific/archeological circles

Perhaps, but as Vinod and I agreed above, almost in any modern nation one cannot claim that the residents of that nation are all one hundred percent descendants of the ancient inhabitants of that area.

Yet nations and modern peoples still claim the ancient history of those lands as their own. I think that the most likely explanation currently is that the peoples inhabiting the lands comprising Pakistan are descendent's of the ancient peoples of Pakistan - the onus would be on those that disagree to show some cataclysmic event that wiped out the population entirely from Pakistan - mass migration, disease, famine etc.

Bar that, the simplest explanation is that the IVC people are the ancestors of Pakistanis.

because IVC is not exclusive to Pakistani ethnic groups.

At this point in time, the majority of the IVC falls in Pakistan. The area it covers in Pakistan, also happens to be the most densely populated in Pakistan, and contributes to about 70 percent of Pakistan's total population.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Then why the famous Iqbal song?

"Saare Jahan se achchha Hindustan hamara".

Just think about it.

And by your logic, even Pakistan is not a nation, as it still has those ethnicities!

We are nations now because the peoples comprising Pakistan and India have chosen to unite under the banner of a single nation.

I thin Iqbal's song represented a time when Modern Indian nationalism and nationhood was forming. Of course in time a competing nationalism and sense of nationhood in the form of Pakistan came around to which Iqbal ended up subscribing to.

I think a lot of that sense of nationhood arose from the sense of being an occupied people, and in a way Modern India has to thank the British for unifying such a disparate region, and uniting it first against a common foe, and then in pursuit of nationhood.

Churchill may have put it that way and it does not mean it is true. Churchill was an imperialist with contempt for India and Indians (and that included all Indians even Muslims) as well as Islam (I bet you didn't know this else you won't quote him.).

Just try to find his views on Islam and you will never quote him again as if he was a supreme authority.

As I said above, Churchill's comments serve to highlight the political nature of the subcontinent, which has nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity, but is merely an observation of the political status of the region - myriad nations.

 

[Vinod2070]

Yet nations and modern peoples still claim the ancient history of those lands as their own. I think that the most likely explanation currently is that the peoples inhabiting the lands comprising Pakistan are descendent's of the ancient peoples of Pakistan - the onus would be on those that disagree to show some cataclysmic event that wiped out the population entirely from Pakistan - mass migration, disease, famine etc.

Bar that, the simplest explanation is that the IVC people are the descendants.

And that is the reason, I started with the facts about the demography of the Pakistani population. That proves that the vast majority of the current population is not of the IVC descent. And the people who could be of IVC descent in Pakistan are almost impossible to separate from their Indian counterparts (except may be their religious identity).

Many cataclysmic events did take place, not the least of which was the partition. This land was repeatedly attacked from the western side and the consequent hardships of the people there could have forced migration. Obviously we have no facts and figures but the demography does tell that story.

We are nations now because the peoples comprising Pakistan and India have chosen to unite under the banner of a single nation.

I thin Iqbal's song represented a time when Modern Indian nationalism and nationhood was forming. Of course in time a competing nationalism and sense of nationhood in the form of Pakistan came around to which Iqbal subscribed ended up subscribing to.

I think a lot of that sense of nationhood arose from the sense of being an occupied people, and in a way Modern India has to thank the British for unifying such a disparate region, and uniting it first against a common foe, and then in pursuit of nationhood.

As I said above, Churchill's comments serve to highlight the political nature of the subcontinent, which has nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity, but is merely an observation of the political status of the region - myriad nations.

While there is no doubt that India was divided into smaller provinces for most of the history (and the lack of unity is the reason for the sad history of long occupations by outsiders), this is no different from many other nations. Large nations were difficult to administer in earlier days and people did not have that much consciousness of the nation state worldwide.

I have been quoting only Muslim examples so as not to be accused of pushing a Hindutva agenda. But our history talks of the idea of "Bharat" since the "Mahabharat" days. That would be thousands of years old.

Churchill: The less said about him the better. He was a bigot in these matters. If we go down a little in history even his country could be called what he called India.

 

[Vinod2070]

You seem to think Pakistani genes changed when they converted to Islam?

Islam is a way of thinking and living, doesnt change who Pakistanis used to be.

You have a very limited view if you ask me. But what to expect from a bunch of phoney people with nothing better to do.

Actually, I feel the shoe is on the other foot.

Indians have nothing to do with what you mention here. It is a theme common to all converts to Islam that they start denying (and hating) their original identity. True for Persians, Egyptians, Pakistanis (and many other Indian converts) and even SE Asian converts. Everyone starts to ape Arabs.

Arabs call their pre-Islamic history as Jahiliyah and all (or most) converts too do that. Look at this issue within Pakistan and you will find all the answers. Indians never said that you don't belong to that history, it's you who said that and said your history starts with when a foreigner invaded your land and showed you the "right way". Now if you want to return back and agree that it was not Jahiliyah before Bin Qasim invaded your land, you are welcome to do that.

In fact I feel good about this change. It is basically an internal matter for you. You need to convince your fellow countrymen about this. Indians never felt that their pre-Islamic history was Jahiliyah. In fact that is a most proud history.