What's new

"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India.

Okay - We have truce ! :cheers:

As long as you tell @levina Apaa that I - a pure blooded Aryan - and she a - - can never be the siblings ! :pissed:
Do you even know that there 're small groups of Dravidan speaking ppl in Pakistan and Afghanistan??? :coffee:
Brahui language is isolated from all of the other members of tDravidan family, that goes on to prove that you and me might have something in common...infact our chink eyes 're a proof. :P

upload_2015-4-23_21-15-9.png

Tell her that just because we both have east-asian eyes, love food more than life itself and would want cricket to be banned in South Asia doesn't mean that we're related ! :mad:
No way, we just have chink eyes and long fringes in common :haha:. I'm very choosy when it comes to food.
chubby Dravidian
Did you call me chubby??:butcher:
I'm anything but chubby...:confused:
I dont mind being called a brown south Indian auntieee. lol
 
.
Do you even know that there 're small groups of Dravidan speaking ppl in Pakistan and Afghanistan??? :coffee:
Brahui language is isolated from all of the other members of tDravidan family, that goes on to prove that you and me might have something in common...infact our chink eyes 're a proof. :P

View attachment 217321

No way, we just have chink eyes and long fringes in common :haha:. I'm very choosy when it comes to food.
Did you call me chubby??:butcher:
I'm anything but chubby...:confused:
I dont mind being called a brown south Indian auntieee. lol

I am not a Barahui ! o_O
 
. .
Prove it!!!
:coffee:


You're my long lost brahui chink-eyed baby elephant. :bunny:

I am not from Baluchistan for starters ! :cheesy:

I am a Kashmiri of Punjab for another ! :mod:

Its alright....I know because we Aryans defeated you Dravidians so badly....battle after battle...your inferiority complex forces you to be more like us hence the 'long lost brother' tag ! :tongue:
 
.
Its alright....I know because we Aryans defeated you Dravidians so badly....battle after battle...your inferiority complex forces you to be more like us hence the 'long lost brother' tag ! :tongue:
Agreed!
Your aryan ancestors defeated my dravidan ancestors, and destroyed everything which had a Dravidan stamp on it, just like the ISIS vandals who 're destroying the greatest sites in ancient Mesopotamia. The future generation of Iraq would be taught a skewed version of history.

I am not from Baluchistan for starters ! :cheesy:
What if one of your ancestors had brahui connection??

I am a Kashmiri of Punjab for another ! :mod:
Reminds me of my trainee :sick:
 
.
The conclusion comes from the fact that Darius claimed he had conquered India and made it a province. Also as shown in the post 21 both the Greeks and the Persians thought that there was emptiness beyond the India they knew. What Herodotus was referring to was the cultural diversity in the parts of India they knew about.

Of course he did not see it but what he knew about, was from what he learned from the exchange between Persians and Greeks. That is not an argument at all, and yes as invaders proceeded eastward and discovered more lands they expanded the idea of India. This I have neither disputed and in fact mentioned myself.
Pretty selective map reading actually. Herodotus drew a map based upon his Persian sources and there river Indus flows eastward to the ocean. It is difficult to imagine that the source he was relying could see the desert but could not identify the direction of such a mighty river. I will take his description with a pinch of salt here. What seemed more plausible to me that the Persians on the bank of Jhelum (which actually falls on the ancient route to central Asia) must have been more accurately aware what lay beyond it than those sources who were wandering near Thar desert and gave Herodotus their version of story.
 
Last edited:
.
Agreed!
Your aryan ancestors defeated my dravidan ancestors, and destroyed everything which had a Dravidan stamp on it, just like the ISIS vandals who 're destroying the greatest sites in ancient Mesopotamia. The future generation of Iraq would be taught a skewed version of history.

Yeh kaafiii fazoool baaat key aaap neiii !

Take a joke as a joke !
 
.
Yeh kaafiii fazoool baaat key aaap neiii !

Take a joke as a joke !
Enhhh?? Ab kya hua?
What did I do to earn your ire....again???
I was just saying that Brahui are a relict population of Dravidians, surrounded by speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, remaining from a time when Dravidian was more widespread (and may be later they were ousted from the region by the so called Aryans). Just FYI- There's no proof of Dravidian languages being related to any other language family. So presence of Brahui in Pakistan is not a mere co-incidence.
 
.
Enhhh?? Ab kya hua?
What did I do to earn your ire....again???
I was just saying that Brahui are a relict population of Dravidians, surrounded by speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, remaining from a time when Dravidian was more widespread (and may be later they were ousted from the region by the so called Aryans). Just FYI- There's no proof of Dravidian languages being related to any other language family. So presence of Brahui in Pakistan is not a mere co-incidence.

Post # 140
 
.
No Doubt Pakistan indeed is the successor state of the true ancient india.
 
.
Post # 140
Unfortunately thats the bitter truth.
Lets take another example, when muslim invaders under the leadership of Mohammad Khilji attacked Nalanda. He killed lots of Buddhists and demolished the University. Over 9 million books and manuscripts were burnt down. Nalanda university was the world's first residential university. And around the same time the buddhists were attacked by orthodox Brahmins, countless Buddhist monasteries and pagodas were destroyed, thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns were massacred. And the man responsible for it was Brahmin Hindu king Pushyamitra Sunga.
And today nothing is left of the Nalanda university.
Since time immorial this is how civilisations thrived, and then became obscure.
Why're you offended?
 
.
Unfortunately thats the bitter truth.
Lets take another example, when muslim invaders under the leadership of Mohammad Khilji attacked Nalanda. He killed lots of Buddhists and demolished the University. Over 9 million books and manuscripts were burnt down. Nalanda university was the world's first residential university. And around the same time the buddhists were attacked by orthodox Brahmins, countless Buddhist monasteries and pagodas were destroyed, thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns were massacred. And the man responsible for it was Brahmin Hindu king Pushyamitra Sunga.
And today nothing is left of the Nalanda university.
Since time immorial this is how civilisations thrived, and then became obscure.
Why're you offended?

There was no need for that; when you knew for a fact that I wasn't even serious about the Aryan-Dravidian thing - It was in bad taste !
 
. .
Culture, as you rightly said by its organic nature evolve and that is why we tend to see different phases within a single culture/tradition.

Culture is such a loose, amorphous concept that it can be hard to describe even in the present context. Doing so to cultures millenia's back in time is very, very difficult and is so open to subjective interpretation. Examples of this can be seen when IVC is described as 'Indian' culture. That is hilarious.

For example, the early Neolithic settlements of Mehrgarh show how architecture, habitation structures, plant and animal domestication, food and ceramic industry evolved within a single tradition. But different cultures/traditions can be distinguished from each other for their own uniqueness based upon the geographical and climatic influences on it. For example, Mesolithic, proto-Neolithic and Neolithic traditions in Baluchistan, Kashmir and those in India have distinct dissimilarities.

Above exposes why I sometimes think there is no point in discussing with you guy's. You Indian's really treat the word "Pakistan" like a swear word. Just look at the duplicity on your part. You move from using names of provinces, Balochistan, Kashmir then you zoom out and use India. What was so wrong with saying Pakistan? Would that have given you cardiac arrest? You either use zoom in and say, Balochistan, Kashmir, Bihar, Orrisa etc or use Pakistan and India. Look how you jumped around but used the term "India" but avoided mentioning Pakistan.

Craft activities, burial practices, ceramic industry and habitant structures of the settlement west of river Indus show strong affiliations to those of Southern Turkmenistan and Northern Iran,

Again your aversion to "Pakistan". Tell me instead of saying "west of Indus" what was so horrible about just saying "Western Pakistan"? You were quite happy to add Northern and Southern to Iran and Turkmenistan. Would it have killed you to say "Western Pakistan"?

those in Kashmir shows similar affection to East Asian traditions and those in the Gangetic plains evolved their own traditions (like cattle pens that are quite distinct by its own character in the sub-continent)

Precisely what are you talking about? Links please?

Now coming to culture as a common binding factor; Indians knew the art of clay-wood architecture and sculpture much before they came heavily in contact with Persians and Greeks. The Bull and elephant in Sarnath abacus was a complete Indian concept of art (Vincent Smith). From Gandhara in the North West to Anga in the East, the artistic themes of cave architecture, stupas, pillars and stone inscriptions, not withstanding their regional variations was quite common throughout the subcontinent. Sanskrit and Prakrit classical Buddhist and Jain literature flourished, Socio-economic and religious systems in this vast swath of land remained unaffected by the political rivalries of the sixteen political republics. This is the reason, the Greeks, Chinese or Arab travellers consistently recognized the region as a cultural/civilization unit quite unique of its own from what they saw dominant West of Indus.

This is a dead horse your beating. Nobody here is trying to claim Ancient Pakistan was part of North America. We accept that it was part of a larger geographic area within which it shared some similarities as well as dissimilarities. Ancient Pakistan/Indus Basin is on the fracture zone between South/Central Asia and has been subjected by forces from both sides. This means while it shares some aspects with east but it also has influences from the west.

I would like to compare the subcontinent to Europe. Diverse but still having something in common. The Spanish or the Greeks have had significant influences from the Meditearean world. In fact places like Spain were even ruled by Muslim Arabs, Greece was ruled by Muslim Ottomans. However today they are all still considered part of Europe. Yet they still have their own history. That said they are not like Swedish.

The problems with Indian's is they refuse to give us our own space that Iberians of Spain/Portugal have. It is like somebody foisting a pan European history on Spanish that eradicates their unique history. I would like Indian's to regard Pakistan like Greece or Spain are regarded in the European context.

I think deep down you guy's refuse to accept the 1947 event. So you insist on grabbing our history whilst at the very same time act like we don't exist.You delude yourself into thinking we were just teleported to the Indus Basinin 1947. Pakistan, hell it might exist in reality when it comes to talk about terrorism, radicalism but talk ancient history you will go super averse to even using the term "Pakistan". This shows how even in 2015 you have not come to terms with 1947.
 
Last edited:
.
So, Dani is absolutely correct in his assertion.India and Pakistan definitely were not part of a greater ancient India together if we strictly define India in a political context. It is just that Greeks recognized anything beyond east of Indus as India in a broader context just as they expressed Asia as anything beyond Aegean coast in a general sense.

Indeed. This raises the question that do we treat what Greeks said as word of god? Infallible? The Greeks were from Europe. Most of their writing includes things that are silly to say the least. Lot of it is hearsay. So we can't treat what Greaks said as holy. Their initial intro to South Asia was limited to Indus Basin. Herdodotus's India is in fact Ancient Pakistan. After large parts of Indus Basin/Ancient Pakistan fell to Greek control during Alexanders conquest that gave the Greeks a chance to see and explore further east so their knowledge expanded immensly of present day India.

Similar to how definition of Asia expanded to include further lands to the east as they became known the same happened with India. However just because Greeks over time included most of South Asia as India does not mean much. Turkey, Syria,Iran, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Japan, Philipines are all included in a ridicalous European construct called "Asia".

Ever seen a Tunisian? Ever seen a Sicilian? You would need forsensic team to figure out who is who. According to European construct, Sicilian is one of their own and Tunisian is African. Ever seen Greek? Ever seen a Turk or Syrian? You would need Crime Scene Investigators to figure out who is who. Yet the former is European and latter Asian.

Yet have you seen a Korean or a Malay? Both them are bracketed as Asian like the Syrian. Even a bonehead can tell the differances. So let us not treat what these old sources said as scientific fact. These are best to be used as pointers.

What I am only in disagreement with is the author's dishonesty to stick to Herodotus' version of India only and not others who were fairly way more accurate in describing the region that was called India. I have no reservation in saying that the cradle of civilization IS in modern Pakistan nation state and NOT in modern Indian nation state. But it is ridiculous to me that ancient India never existed in present modern Indian state for the author's own intellectual failure to comprehend what 'ancient India' actually meant.

I certainly can agree with the broad thrust of what you said. I would feel much happier if we accepted that South Asia did exist and does exist as a broad geographic descriptor much as Europe exists. Within this space there has been lots of threads sometimes woven togather other times like climbing plants diverging from each other. If we can agree on this frankly I think we have almost overcome the problem.

The only thing then left is nomenclature. It should not give undue advantage to one side or cause or lead to confusion to the benefit one. If this can be addressed then we can have South asia party and celebrate. I will buy the drinks !!!
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom