What's new

Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If one individual claims so, and another doesn't, then do you go and count how many support position X vs position Y? Of course not.

There are Pakistanis who claim their history and ancestry, that is obvious. Whether other Pakistanis do or do not claim their history or ancestry has no bearing on the issue.

You are focusing solely on the latter group of people.

Actually it is based on my understanding that a large majority of Pakistanis claim foreign roots based on Pakistani newspaper editorials. If this is not correct and can be proven, I stand corrected.

I am not taking the second group of people as a reference here. What I mean is that you can't claim to be a non-Pakistani native and at the same time claim the history of the land that occurred much before you came here. I agree that intermixing would make the person belong to this land over a period but then the claim of foreign descent should also get progressively diluted. You can't eat the cake as well as have it, right?

This won't be an issue if they claimed that they have become part of the heritage of this land. Trying to claim it exclusively is another matter.
 
How can the Ghandara Grave culture be classified as one of three major phases that developed out of the IVC, as did teh Cemetery H, if it did not have links to the IVC.

"The Gandhara grave people have been associated by most scholars with early Indo-Aryan speakers, and the Indo-Aryan migration into India, that, fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization (OCP, Cemetery H), gave rise to the Vedic civilization.

Its a successor in terms of time period - i.e. it appeared after the end of the IVC. However, the people appeart obe central-asian Migrants, not the IVC people.

The Ghandara Grave culture people shared biological affinities with the population of Neolithic Mehrgarh, which suggests a "biological continuum" between the ancient populations of Timargarha and Mehrgarh.[1]"

So, if Mehrgarh people were the predecessors of IVC, then it would seem that the GGC people and the Mehrgarh people might have common ancestor, or possibly the IVC people migrated Northwest?

If we look at the history of Mehrgarh, the civilization apparently died out around 2600 BC and its inhabitants migrated to the IVC. So did they migrate North to harsher climates?

It would appear then that this is more evidence that the land comprising Pakistan was not abandoned by the IVC people - they migrated North, North West, and likely remained in the Indus plains as well, since there is no evidence of any major catastrophe that would have wiped them out.

I'm not too sure about them migrating northwest (possible but not probable), but yes they did of course remain in the Northeastern parts of Pakistan (as shown in the Cemetary-H maps) and further east into the Gangetic plains.
 
Last edited:
The IVC itself largely existed and died in what is today Pakistan, though the descendants of the IVC people possibly live on in Pakistan and India.

True, but significant sites exist in India as well (Lothal, Rakhigarhi, Banawali, Ropar, Dholavira etc). A couple of major sites haven't been excavated either.

The ratio of sites would be around 70-30 or 60-40 depending on which source you consider.

Again, if you claim that IVC is a Pakistani civilization based on the fact that the land occupied is the same, its a Nationalist claim isn't it?

I suppose it would be akin to a Greek American claiming that ancient Greek history is US history. The Greek Americans would have a claim on an individual level, but the US would not.

Not really, because firstly the US is situated on another continent - it never had a single Greek historical site on its territory.

The Greek American however, can personally claim that Greek history is belongs to him (and his family). Though that claim would be based on descent.
 
Last edited:
Actually it is based on my understanding that a large majority of Pakistanis claim foreign roots based on Pakistani newspaper editorials. If this is not correct and can be proven, I stand corrected.

I am not taking the second group of people as a reference here. What I mean is that you can't claim to be a non-Pakistani native and at the same time claim the history of the land that occurred much before you came here. I agree that intermixing would make the person belong to this land over a period but then the claim of foreign descent should also get progressively diluted. You can't eat the cake as well as have it, right?

This won't be an issue if they claimed that they have become part of the heritage of this land. Trying to claim it exclusively is another matter.

It depends on the clan like Syyed is a clan in Pakistan that do have Arab roots. Moghals also have foreign roots. I think Gujjars, Jatts, Rajputs, Raos exist in both Pakistan and India. I think there are some Sindhi Hindus in India too. Most Pakistanis dont claim foreign roots, but there have been lots of invasions in our land throughout history so who knows.
 
It depends on the clan like Syyed is a clan in Pakistan that do have Arab roots. Moghals also have foreign roots. I think Gujjars, Jatts, Rajputs, Raos exist in both Pakistan and India. I think there are some Sindhi Hindus in India too. Most Pakistanis dont claim foreign roots, but there have been lots of invasions in our land throughout history so who knows.

I actually read (by Pakistani writers) that the majority of Pakistanis claim foreign descent. That there are more Quraishis (fake or real) in Pakistan than in Arabia!

Then all those Turks, Persians and other exotic locations. I am not sure what is the fact. I have not seen any real scientific data.

But personally I would think that after over a 1000 years they should either start considering themselves as the people of this land or.... Well I leave it to them.

You know some people here are so happy with Babur's tasteless comments about their own motherland and their own forefathers! Can those guys still come back and claim any kind of heritage of this land, pre-Islamic heritage!

Seriously, people need to make up their minds once and for all.
 
You know some people here are so happy with Babur's tasteless comments about their own motherland and their own forefathers!

So true. And very funny at the same time.
 
Pakistan has very little Arab influence.

Can we get over this?

It is proven through studies, that the Arab influence is very minor throughout.

Which studies? Give some proof.

Can you deny that there are more people in Pakistan who call themselves Quraishis than in Arabia?
 
I actually read (by Pakistani writers) that the majority of Pakistanis claim foreign descent. That there are more Quraishis (fake or real) in Pakistan than in Arabia!

Then all those Turks, Persians and other exotic locations. I am not sure what is the fact. I have not seen any real scientific data.

But personally I would think that after over a 1000 years they should either start considering themselves as the people of this land or.... Well I leave it to them.

You know some people here are so happy with Babur's tasteless comments about their own motherland and their own forefathers! Can those guys still come back and claim any kind of heritage of this land, pre-Islamic heritage!

Seriously, people need to make up their minds once and for all.
claiming lineage doesn't mean anything unless they have solid proof to back it up. trust me, the majority of people living in Pakistan are not of arab descent. only a small handful claim to be of arab descent, a few hundred thousand at most. An even smaller portion of that minority is truly of arab descent. Believe me, these people have no proof of their lineage, not even a single family tree. When people migrated from india to Pakistan during partition, a large number of people magically became "quraishi" or "sayyid". the point is, they're all liars. I know a person that changed their name over and over again, they became "Siddiqui" and then later on a "Sayyid". :lol: it's all a bunch of bullsh!t. there's equally the same amount of muslims in India claiming to be of arab lineage
 
@Vinod and Flintlock

Why are you so concerned that some Pakistanis consider themselves Arabs and not the people of the land, when you have been arguing all week that Pakistanis are invaders in the region, and that Indus natives really moved to Ganges plains?

Pakistanis are the natives, always have been. Some uninformed people in Pakistan, and agenda driven Indian nationalists do not change facts.

Here is an interesting quote from Professor Wei Chuyu from Xu Beihing, Fine Arts College of China:

‘Pakistan’s ancient sites need to be preserved properly’
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
ISLAMABAD: There is a need to properly preserve Pakistanís ancient sites and cultural heritage to keep the national iden-tity alive, said Professor Wei Chuyu from Xu Beihing, Fine Arts College of China here on Monday.

Lauding the efforts of the government for establishing museums like Ethnology Museum of Lok Virsa and Lahore Museum, he said the government and people of Pakistan should also make efforts to preserve the sites of Taxila in its true form.

Prof Wei Chuyu is a visiting delegate from China, who is an artist by profession and currently visiting various cities of Pakistan to collect the countryís culture and traditions on his canvas and exhibiting them at China for introducing Pakistani art and culture worldwide.

Working in the field of art for past 35 years, Prof Chuyu paints human nature, landscapes and calligraphy while he has also created a portrait PPPís founder, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. “Pakistan has a diversity of ancient heritage and, if preserved properly, these sites can become a hub of tourists from across the world,” the artist remarked at a dinner hosted by Culture Ministry in honour of the visiting delegates from China.

Secretary Ministry of Culture, Shahid Rafi, Additional Secretary, Akram Shaheedi, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan and the Chinese Embassy officials were present on the occasion. Prof Chuyu presented his calligraphic works to the ministry while Secretary Culture, Sahid Rafi gave him Pakistani art pieces and books regarding heritage.
‘Pakistan’s ancient sites need to be preserved properly’

Note the word, Heritage.
 
claiming lineage doesn't mean anything unless they have solid proof to back it up. trust me, the majority of people living in Pakistan are not of arab descent. only a small handful claim to be of arab descent, a few hundred thousand at most. An even smaller portion of that minority is truly of arab descent. Believe me, these people have no proof of their lineage, not even a single family tree. When people migrated from india to Pakistan during partition, a large number of people magically became "quraishi" or "sayyid". the point is, they're all liars. I know a person that changed their name over and over again, they became "Siddiqui" and then later on a "Sayyid". :lol: it's all a bunch of bullsh!t. there's equally the same amount of muslims in India claiming to be of arab lineage

I tend to agree that most are fakes. Neither here nor there.

In the context of this thread, I meant they are also the people who can't claim any pre-Islamic heritage. Most likely vast majority of them will not bother as they will consider that period as jahiliyah.

I am sure there are many such people in India. The whole Ashraf thing, the superiority complex from claiming foreign origins!

Boggles the mind especially when the religion is supposed to be egalitarian!
 
I tend to agree that most are fakes. Neither here nor there.

In the context of this thread, I meant they are also the people who can't claim any pre-Islamic heritage. Most likely vast majority of them will not bother as they will consider that period as jahiliyah.

I am sure there are many such people in India. The whole Ashraf thing, the superiority complex from claiming foreign origins!

Boggles the mind especially when the religion is supposed to be egalitarian!

Yes, but when you bring those arguments into a thread that quite obviously has Pakistanis arguing from the opposite spectrum - Pakistanis that claim their ancient heritage and history - then it is quite tasteless.

I think that the fact that the GoP has claimed this history as part of Pakistani heritage, has sponsored the archaeological department to preserve it and research it (though nowhere close to where it should be, but what else is new) indicates that there is a recognition of our heritage at both the individual and official level.

People who reject this obviously exist, but for you to merely take their claims and bandy them about as representative of Pakistanis is disingenuous.

I think this issue should be dead and buried, its insulting to those of us who claim our history for you to keep harping on that theme. Raise it with a poster who claims only Arab heritage, not with those who do not.
 
True, but significant sites exist in India as well (Lothal, Rakhigarhi, Banawali, Ropar, Dholavira etc). A couple of major sites haven't been excavated either.

The ratio of sites would be around 70-30 or 60-40 depending on which source you consider.

Again, if you claim that IVC is a Pakistani civilization based on the fact that the land occupied is the same, its a Nationalist claim isn't it?

Claim it as Pakistani based on the fact that both Mehrgarh, the predecessor to the IVC, the IVC itself, and good chunk of the Cemetery H plus the Gandhara Grave Cultures existed in the lands comprising Pakistan, and being descendants of the IVC people, along with the other migrants to the region.

Thats a strong argument on several levels, not just on the basis of having the majority of sites including the major centers of the civilization.


Not really, because firstly the US is situated on another continent - it never had a single Greek historical site on its territory.

The Greek American however, can personally claim that Greek history is belongs to him (and his family). Though that claim would be based on descent.

The distinction you made is valid - I suppose Macedonia and Greece woudl be better examples. But my argument for the Pakistani claim I made above.
 
Please understand that I am only countering those who want to claim any king of exclusive copyright over a shared history (from Indian perspective) and in that context it is not unfair to point out this argument if it is applicable to a large number of Pakistanis.

People who don't feel so are obviously excluded from this logic. But again when you talk of ancient "Pakistani" civilization, you are not talking of individuals but about the country as a whole.

But I agree that this issue doesn't need to be stretched any further. Let's bury it.
 
I've missed much of the discussion, but let me counter something that flintock suggested a few pages back. The Harappan/IVC people were no nomads, and civilisation begins when the nomadic way of life is replaced by urban society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom