Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Flintlock]

Vinod has a point, the same one I had made earlier:

How many Pakistanis are actually of Persian/Afghan/Arab descent?

If the majority of Pakistanis are foreign migrants, then they cannot claim the history of the people they replaced.

I had written earlier that there is evidence to show the migration of the Indus people eastward into the Gangetic plains. This is testified by the fact that small harappan settlements have been discovered in central and south-western India which had flourished after Harappa and Mohenjodaro declined

 

[Vinod2070]

I somehow see the current thread as stage two in a three stage evolution of Pakistani thinking. This is a bit over simplified obviously.

Stage 1: Totally dissociate from the past. call it Jahiliyah. Don't even accept that you are native to the land. Call yourself Arab origin etc. Basically totally dissociate from your pre-conversion identity. Hate others who shared that identity with you.

Stage 2: Start to discover your pre-Islamic identity but violently deny that you share that with any non-Muslims. Try to claim that exclusively. This is still limited to a very small section of the population. Most folks are in stage 1.

Stage 3: Be totally comfortable with your Muslim identity as well as with your pre-Islamic history. No problem in accepting that the ancient history is a shared heritage and being able to take pride in it without necessarily having to first appropriate that exclusively. this stage has even lesser people than stage 2. But there are some who are here and many of the stage 2 people can gradually progress to this with a little more broadening of their horizons.

 

[Vinod2070]

And a little digression here.

What is more important to the Pakistani friends here?

To have pride in their ancient history and accept it and get it accepted by the country at large by giving its due place in history books, national discourse etc.

OR

First making sure that this history is identified as an exclusively Pakistani history with no links to India whatsoever.

Sadly I see most people (certainly one honorable member with a lot of prejudices included) more interested in the 2nd part. It gives the feeling that more than actually being interested in any ancient history some people just want to make sure that it is denied to India.

While I am sure such an effort just can not succeed (because I don't think it really has legs to stand on. The ancient history is not nearly as cut and dry as the 60 years old Radcliffe line), it would be good to see some members trying to honestly discover the answers instead of coming through as the know-alls they pretend to be.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vinod has a point, the same one I had made earlier:

How many Pakistanis are actually of Persian/Afghan/Arab descent?

If the majority of Pakistanis are foreign migrants, then they cannot claim the history of the people they replaced.

I had written earlier that there is evidence to show the migration of the Indus people eastward into the Gangetic plains. This is testified by the fact that small harappan settlements have been discovered in central and south-western India which had flourished after Harappa and Mohenjodaro declined

Are the majority of Pakistanis foreign immigrants?

People migrate all the time. Small settlements are not proof of a mass exodus of the IVC people Eastwards.

A mass exodus or extinction could occur if you had a famine, sever drought or other cataclysmic event.

Barring such an event, it is not reasonable to postulate that a majority of the IVC people simply packed their bags and left an extremely fertile land.

Their is a similar mystery over what happened to the Mayan City States in Latin America. Many historians have postulated that the Cities grew too large and concentrated too many people placing a larger demand on local resources than was possible to sustain over a long period.

In addition, the thriving city States proved to be attractive targets for plunder and attack, which could have in conjunction with the drying up of resources, contributed to an exodus from the City States into the surrounding countryside. You would have also seen some people migrating East or West, who would have carried the knowledge of the IVC with them.

 

[Flintlock]

Are the majority of Pakistanis foreign immigrants?

In the context of IVC, it would seem that way.

A simple wikipedia search reveals that most of Pakistan's population is either Indo-Aryan or Iranian/Afghan/Central Asian/Arab in descent.

The indigenous people who would have populated the IVC have long disappeared.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the context of IVC, it would seem that way.

A simple wikipedia search reveals that most of Pakistan's population is either Indo-Aryan or Iranian/Afghan/Central Asian/Arab in descent.

The indigenous people who would have populated the IVC have long disappeared.

What genetic pool did the IVC belong to?

Assuming thousands of years of migration from surrounding regions into the fertile Indus Valley, would that not dilute the IVC people?

Modern Pakistanis would still possibly be descendants of the IVC (if they weren't wiped out by some cataclysmic event).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the context of IVC, it would seem that way.

A simple wikipedia search reveals that most of Pakistan's population is either Indo-Aryan or Iranian/Afghan/Central Asian/Arab in descent.

The indigenous people who would have populated the IVC have long disappeared.

What genetic pool did the IVC belong to?

Assuming thousands of years of migration from surrounding regions into the fertile Indus Valley, would that not dilute the IVC people?

Modern Pakistanis would still possibly be descendants of the IVC (if they weren't wiped out by some cataclysmic event).

 

[Vinod2070]

Again a little digression on the topic of how much do people really identify with the civilization being talked about here.

Anyone who identifies with a civilization typically relishes its spread. Like most Indians will like it when they see the "Samudra Manthan" scene at the Bangkok airport or on knowing about the "Angkor Wat" or on knowing about the fact that the Indian civilization had an impact as far as Korea (with links since the days of Ramayana) in the east and Afghanistan or may be beyond in the west and central Asia in the north. Same for the spread of Buddhism.

Every culture wants to spread itself. True for Germany about its "Kultur", true for France or Britain or USA or Islam.

I know Muslims everywhere including Pakistanis feel happy when they hear about conversions to Islam anywhere.

But in this particular case, we have people who are determined to somehow prove that the civilization was limited in scope to a particular geography.

And if it was limited, what is it that you can so perceptibly see across vast swathes of Asia? As far across as Cambodia and Korea?

Wonder why!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

I was reading back over the posts and came across this, and you are wrong here.

Russia carries the torch of the USSR perhaps, which was a unified political entity whose ruling elite and power was derived from modern Russia. There is a huge difference here between the Indian subcontinent which was never a political union like the USSR, and even when large tracts were unified, it was under conquest and empire.

The second flaw in your analogy is that Russia is not the "torch bearer" of the culture and history of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or any of the other newly formed republics, and rightly so. Tajik culture and history is their own not Russian, as is Pakistani history.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I somehow see the current thread as stage two in a three stage evolution of Pakistani thinking. This is a bit over simplified obviously.

Stage 1: Totally dissociate from the past. call it Jahiliyah. Don't even accept that you are native to the land. Call yourself Arab origin etc. Basically totally dissociate from your pre-conversion identity. Hate others who shared that identity with you.

Stage 2: Start to discover your pre-Islamic identity but violently deny that you share that with any non-Muslims. Try to claim that exclusively. This is still limited to a very small section of the population. Most folks are in stage 1.

Stage 3: Be totally comfortable with your Muslim identity as well as with your pre-Islamic history. No problem in accepting that the ancient history is a shared heritage and being able to take pride in it without necessarily having to first appropriate that exclusively. this stage has even lesser people than stage 2. But there are some who are here and many of the stage 2 people can gradually progress to this with a little more broadening of their horizons.

I would argue that Indians are in their own "stage 2".

Making statements like "India is the sole torch bearer", or that it has "a larger claim to subcontinental history" or statements akin to "Pakistan is a subset of India" are indicative of a superior claim.

They are not indicative of "history belongs to everyone in South Asia".

So to throw back at you your question to Pakistanis:

What is more important to Indians - that they claim that modern India has a larger claim to Subcontinental history, and is the sole or greater torch bearer, or that they realize that Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are all Torch bearers of South Asian history?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

You mentioned some articles you read which seem to be articulating "opinions" not facts.

Whether most Pakistanis believe they are descendant from Arabs or whatnot is not relevant to the discussion. That is merely opinion.

With respect to proving that the vast majority are not IVC through your arguments, you have not done so.

Over thousands of years the IVC people would have interbred with all sorts of peoples migrating to the fertile lands of the Indus - there would also have been migration out of the region to some extent (as happens with any society - people move and resettle).

So it is quite clear that modern Pakistanis would not be "pure IVC", but that does not in any way "prove", as you say, that they are not the descendants of the IVC people.

Even the migration that occurred during partition only resulted in a very small percentage of the original population of the region resettling in India. That to is not "proof" that modern Pakistanis are not descendants of the IVC.

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.

It was not divide into smaller provinces - they were independent nations, kingdoms, States and empires.

You cannot look at South East Asia today and claim that it is one entity. And therefore it would be just as flawed if 200 years in the future there was a united nation called ASEAN, and they tried to claim that the region it was comprised of was always one nation.

The same with Europe. If one day the EU does become a complete political union, that does not mean that it was always one nation. When it does become a union in every sense of the word, it will be because all the nations and peoples that are part of it chose to go that route, but it will not take away from the fact that Europe was always comprised of multiple nations and peoples, all fiercely independent.

And those nations that refuse to become a part of the EU will not then automatically lose their history to a larger entity that purports to represent Europe, nor will they be considered "partitioned" from the EU.

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.

Yes but even Muslim thinkers and history speak of a pan-Islamic Caliphate, and to an extent such a union even existed in varying degrees, but we do not look at the entire history of the regions under such Caliphates as being part of Saudi Arabia' history or Turkish History. The history of each region and peoples belongs to them.

 

[Vinod2070]

I would argue that Indians are in their own "stage 2".

Making statements like "India is the sole torch bearer", or that it has "a larger claim to subcontinental history" or statements akin to "Pakistan is a subset of India" are indicative of a superior claim.

They are not indicative of "history belongs to everyone in South Asia".

So to throw back at you your question to Pakistanis:

What is more important to Indians - that they claim that modern India has a larger claim to Subcontinental history, and is the sole or greater torch bearer, or that they realize that Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are all Torch bearers of South Asian history?

Personally, I have no issues with your last statements and most Indians on this thread have also expressed similar sentiments.

I guess the discussion is too subjective for us to come to a consensus but was worth having nevertheless.

 

[Vinod2070]

You mentioned some articles you read which seem to be articulating "opinions" not facts.

Whether most Pakistanis believe they are descendant from Arabs or whatnot is not relevant to the discussion. That is merely opinion.

With respect to proving that the vast majority are not IVC through your arguments, you have not done so.

Over thousands of years the IVC people would have interbred with all sorts of peoples migrating to the fertile lands of the Indus - there would also have been migration out of the region to some extent (as happens with any society - people move and resettle).

So it is quite clear that modern Pakistanis would not be "pure IVC", but that does not in any way "prove", as you say, that they are not the descendants of the IVC people.

Even the migration that occurred during partition only resulted in a very small percentage of the original population of the region resettling in India. That to is not "proof" that modern Pakistanis are not descendants of the IVC.

You are right. I have not "proved" the % of actual Arabs in Pakistani population. I doubt there is any such authentic data available, nor about the IVC descendants in India or Pakistan. Much of this thread is subjective and should be treated as such.

I feel it does not matter what the actual Arab percentage is. The point is you can't claim to be of Arab descent and at the same time claim the IVC or any other ancient civilization before the Arabs came here.

Again I feel that we are ignoring the many quirks of history which went into shaping the modern boundaries of Pakistan (may be India too but that is not the point right now). e.g. Pashtuns are a part of Pakistan only because Maharaja Ranjit Singh conquered a large part of that land. Otherwise it is reasonable to assume that they would be part of Afghanistan! So if my assumption that Mr. RR is a Pashtun is correct, he would be having an Afghan nationality and won't be defending the "IVC belongs to Pakistan" line. Especially because no part of IVC would have fallen in that land.

The modern boundaries of Pakistan are contested by Afghanistan from the west and were a topic of hot discussions on the east in 1947 with tempers being raised on both sides on this or that area.

We tend to accord the modern boundaries far more sanctimony than they have had throughout history, and so to assume that the ancient history followed the restrictions of the modern Radcliffe and Durand lines is something I find difficult to swallow, especially when they are not respected by many people even now.

I am getting the feeling that there are two separate issues at discussion here, which are getting intertwined and creating the confusion.

Ancient history not respected by Pakistanis (as the title says)

And

Is it an exclusive Pakistani history that religiously and miraculously followed the boundaries which M/s Radcliffe and Durand were to create thousands of years later! (This is what 95 % of the discussion has been about)

I am not sure I have made myself very clear or proven anything at all. But then such is the topic of this thread!

 

[Vinod2070]

I would argue that Indians are in their own "stage 2".

Making statements like "India is the sole torch bearer", or that it has "a larger claim to subcontinental history" or statements akin to "Pakistan is a subset of India" are indicative of a superior claim.

They are not indicative of "history belongs to everyone in South Asia".

So to throw back at you your question to Pakistanis:

What is more important to Indians - that they claim that modern India has a larger claim to Subcontinental history, and is the sole or greater torch bearer, or that they realize that Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are all Torch bearers of South Asian history?

I will not contest which state Indians are in. Some may feel that Pakistanis have abrogated the right to the ancient civilization by virtue of embracing (in their opinion) the Arabian civilization (and also forgetting the ancient common civilization for a thousand years or more). But no one denies that many of our historically significant events occurred within the current Pakistani boundaries. Whether they could be characterized as Pakistani (when Pakistan was thousands of years into the future) is altogether a separate discussion.

AM, are you contesting the point that the sole basis of partition was religious and the communal politics as it played out during the last few decades of independence?

If yes, I would love to understand how.

If no, what is the reason to now talk about the ancient civilization? It was never the basis of partition and why do people want to partition the ancient civilization now?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I feel it does not matter what the actual Arab percentage is. The point is you can't claim to be of Arab descent and at the same time claim the IVC or any other ancient civilization before the Arabs came here.

Vinod,

Why not? If the Arabs intermarried with the locals, lets assume the locals were IVC descendants, then some Pakistanis would be absolutely correct in claiming that they were descendent's of the Arabs, but that does not take away the part of their identity that belongs to the lands of Pakistan.

I personally do not know of any part of my family that is Arab, maternal or paternal side.

Both sides of the family are Rajput, though not related.

There are many, many more people in Pakistan with similar family history's - that do not have any recollection of Arab ancestry (which does not mean it may not exist). So just because of people like myself and others who claim no Arab ancestry or claim both Arab and local ancestry, we have a right to claim the IVC.

So if my assumption that Mr. RR is a Pashtun is correct, he would be having an Afghan nationality and won't be defending the "IVC belongs to Pakistan" line. Especially because no part of IVC would have fallen in that land.

Yes, but by that same argument India could have become a dozen nations after the British left as well, and then those in the South would not be claiming the history of the North, and neither would be claiming the history of the East.

Pakistanis who speak Punjabi, Pushto, Sindhi, Urdu, Balochi or whatever are claiming the IVC as Pakistanis, not on the basis of individual ethnicities - just as Modern Indians are claiming Modern India's history regardless of their individual ethnicities, or whether their particular region had anything (or very little) to do with that history.

The modern boundaries of Pakistan are contested by Afghanistan from the west and were a topic of hot discussions on the east in 1947 with tempers being raised on both sides on this or that area.

The various peoples comprising Pakistan, including the Pashtun who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for Pakistan, decided that they subscribed to a sense of shared nationhood and nationalism and chose to join Pakistan. The fact that they chose this new idea over the long established idea of an Afghan nation is indicative of how powerful that sense of nationhood was.

In the end, it does no matter whether Afghanistan or India covet Pakistani territory, or whether China covets Indian territory - it is the fact that the people decided what their nation was, what it meant, and what their destiny was - and they roundly rejected Afghanistan and the idea of joining India.

AM, are you contesting the point that the sole basis of partition was religious and the communal politics as it played out during the last few decades of independence?

Quite honestly I don't think it matters what basis India and Pakistan were created on. Any way you look at the idea behind nations, they are formed on the basis of divisiveness.

Whether the justification is shared "culture", "race", "ethnicity", "history" or faith, it is ultimately a divisive rationalization: "I want a nation separate from everyone else because of XYZ."

But just to answer your question, Pakistan was formed because the sense of being a separate identity, and therefore not getting fair treatment in India was too strong. It doesn't matter what the reason was, ultimately wanting a separate nation boils down to a fear of not having a particular community's interests being taken care of.

That is why the peoples under the control of the British, including those in the colony of British India, chose to separate from the British empire.

Continuously trying to cast the creation of Pakistan as some sort of horrible communal event is a very intellectually dishonest canard.