Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[TheStrantrunCurve]

Yes they are martial races because they sold themselves to British and killed their own people while Bengalis fought back. You killed Bangladeshis because you felt intellectually inferior to them.

The army responsible for invading punjab and sindh was made mostly from bengali recruits followed by central indians and bombay presidency. It were the slave soldiers from bengal that helped british occupy our land.

I ask why?
Whole of present day India and Bangladesh was already under brits for decades why did you people had to help those brits occupy our lands.

The indus valley people have always acted as a bullwark against invaders, We defeated 3 superpowers of their time, Alexander the great empire and Mongol Empire were defeated by the ancestors of present day pakistanis, Babur, Timur and Ghazni all were given tough times in indus valley and Ghauri was killed by punjabis. We saved you so many times from north west invaders but it was the first time that an empire from the east invaded pakistan and you helped them defeat us.

The punjabi an pushtun only joined the brits to take the revenge against bengalis who mutinied

 

[Developereo]

Unfortunately, modern day Egyptians, Iraqis, Cambodians and Englishmen don't face similar dilemma as modern day Pakistanis. IVC had a lot of characteristics which go directly against the ideology of formation of Pakistan, ie, Islam. For example, Idol Worshiping.

There is no dilemma.
Pakistan was formed as a safe haven for Muslims; it was never meant to be exclusively Islamic.

Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.

 

[Developereo]

The problem comes when a balancing act has to be played ,with on one hand the "2 nation theory" and on the other the "the pre-Islamic history"

Again, the two nation theory was the belief that Muslims would be discriminated against by the majority Hindus.
It has no bearing on any pre-Islamic history of Pakistan.

 

[LaBong]

The army responsible for invading punjab and sindh was made mostly from bengali recruits followed by central indians and bombay presidency. It were the slave soldiers from bengal that helped british occupy our land.

I ask why?
Whole of present day India and Bangladesh was already under brits for decades why did you people had to help those brits occupy our lands.

The indus valley people have always acted as a bullwark against invaders, We defeated 3 superpowers of their time, Alexander the great empire and Mongol Empire were by the ancestors of present day pakistanis, Babur, Timur and Ghazni all were given tough times in indus valley and Ghazni was killed by punjabis. We saved you so many times from north west invaders but it was the first time that an empire from the east invaded pakistan and you helped them defeat us.

The punjabi an pushtun only joined the brits to take the revenge against bengalis who mutinied

But Bengalis don't take pride on defeating you, while Bengalis shed the Bahadur off the Roy, you shameless lots flaunt your Khan Bahadurs around and claim yourself martial race and what not!

Where were pashtuns before 10th century. Except Sher Shah's brief period Pashtuns never conquered anyone but badly got hammered by Babur(It was said he made mold of pashtuns sculls!). The only Punjabi empire was that of Ranjit's Singhs, present day Pakistan has been the hinterland of subcontinent for most of the history.

 

[Ignited Mind]

There is no dilemma.
Pakistan was formed as a safe haven for Muslims; it was never meant to be exclusively Islamic.

Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.

Fair enough. Pakistanis can very well claim the IVC heritage but what they cannot or rather should not do is claim the IVC people as a part of their ancestry.

You can admire the IVC and you can claim the heritage of the IVC but you cannot expect to be called the heirs of IVC people.

You just happen to dwell on a part of the land where IVC flourished and that's it.

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

There is no dilemma.
Pakistan was formed as a safe haven for Muslims; it was never meant to be exclusively Islamic.

Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.

Of course Pakistan was never meant to be exclusively Islamic. But the concept of Islamic superiority and the Islamisation of everything persued by Zia directly contradicted acknowledgement of non-Islamic people as your ancestors.

 

[Developereo]

You can admire the IVC and you can claim the heritage of the IVC but you cannot expect to be called the heirs of IVC people.

Where is the genetic proof of this claim?

Of course Pakistan was never meant to be exclusively Islamic. But the concept of Islamic superiority and the Islamisation of everything persued by Zia directly contradicted acknowledgement of non-Islamic people as your ancestors.

That's Zia and his supporters. They don't speak for all Pakistanis.
I still repeat my claim that admiring IVC does not make one less Muslim.
Just because I admire the beauty of an idol or sculpture does not mean I will start worshipping it as a god.

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

As far as I know, IVC was achnowledged in Pakistani textbooks before Zia came into power. After that, Pakistani history started in 1947. Soeone please correct me if I'm wrong.

@Webmaster: Please delete thestrantruncurve's offensive post.

 

[Ignited Mind]

Where is the genetic proof of this claim?

The IVC did not survive. Don't you know that?

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Again, the two nation theory was the belief that Muslims would be discriminated against by the majority Hindus.
It has no bearing on any pre-Islamic history of Pakistan.

Agreed!
I take back what i said based on the explanation given in the previous post .

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well,

First of all, let me tell u I'm a Brahmin my self though not Tamil.

yes, ancestors of most Brahmins came from Northwest of India(after crossing todays pakistan), not recently but thousands of yrs ago.And there is nothing like native Brahmin population of south india ...

At the cost of looking like a racist to some, i must say atleast 50% of Brahmins are fair looking(gora chitta) even by socalled pakistani(RR's) standards...hell whats the argument here, we all know brahmins are of Indo-Aryans origins the same to which major chunk of pakistani population belongs...

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but Indo-Aryan is not a race, it's a language system. Brahmins can't be descended from a language system.

One of these days, I'll write a book on fake Brahmins and how they pass themselves off. Nagar Brahmins in Bengal being one; another famous sect of SIBs being another.

 

[Developereo]

As far as I know, IVC was achnowledged in Pakistani textbooks before Zia came into power. After that, Pakistani history started in 1947. Soeone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I was abroad during the Zia years, but the IVC and Ashoka, Buddha, etc. were definitely in the textbooks before Zia.

The IVC did not survive. Don't you know that?

Yes, but who says the people were exterminated?
Indus Valley Civilization: The Demise of Utopia

 

[Bang Galore]

Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.

True but no one can claim exclusive rights merely because they now happen to live in the geographical area & deny it to those whose culture derives from that. I also find it amusing that many Pakistanis see no irony in claiming inheritance from actions of Islamic rulers not related to present day Pakistan on cultural similarity grounds yet denying the same to Indians on IVC.

P.S. I know that you agree that it is common inheritance but just making a general point and preferring to use your post than that of others to make my point.

 

[Ignited Mind]

Yes, but who says the people were exterminated?
Indus Valley Civilization: The Demise of Utopia

Like Joe also mentioned in one of his posts, at most what can be presumed is that a minor fraction (a very small one) of today's Pakistani population are ancestors of the IVC people.

A very very small fraction and even that is a far drawn conclusion.

Anyways, even if I assume your assertion that a majority of current day Pakistanis are the heirs of IVC guys, can you explain the following discrepancy arising from the abject lack of continuity and similarity while moving from IVC to current day Pakistan vis a vis the lungual and cultural dissimilarities?

 

[Developereo]

True but no one can claim exclusive rights merely because they now happen to live in the geographical area & deny it to those whose culture derives from that. I also find it amusing that many Pakistanis see no irony in claiming inheritance from actions of Islamic rulers not related to present day Pakistan on cultural similarity grounds yet denying the same to Indians on IVC.

P.S. I know that you agree that it is common inheritance but just making a general point and preferring to use your post than that of others to make my point.

OK. I think it is generally believed that IVC had an influence on the rest of the subcontinent, although I vaguely remember a post by some Indian highlighting the differences between IVC and contemporary Gangetic religions.