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

[tsinga]

Pakistan was but a small part of Ancient India.

 

[Levina]

The name India refers to the region of Greater India or the Indian subcontinent, if somebody assumed that a part of it(in Pakistan) is what represents India then they 're off the mark by a huge margin.India and hindustan 've the same root, Hindu. And hindus live in India.

Just FYI : "Ancient India" had many names like........
Aryavarta : This name was based on the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the Eastern (Bay of Bengal) to the Arabian Sea.
Jambudvipa : Dvipa means island, I am not sure what Jambu means, but this was one of the names of India.
Nabhivarsha : Nabhi was a king, father of Rishabh, it was after Rishabh's son Bharata that India was known as Bharatavarsha.
Tianzu: Chinese/Japanese names for Hindus.
Hodu: A hebrew name for India.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@Whirling_dervesh. Read the comments by Indian's here. From experiance they follow the typical trend. Broadly there are two responses informed by either the poster being 'dumb' or intentional duplicity.

(i) That Pakistan broke off India in 1947.

(ii) Any historical mention of 'India' was in referance to today's India.

(iii) Geographic India and political India are merged by Indian's to create this false notion of India having been there since time began when the actuall reality is India is one day younger then Pakistan. Bharat and Pakistan republics came in existance in August 1947.

The fact that prior to 1947 was a colony called 'British India' from which to have evolved Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar [ Burma ] is lost on dumb posters and others use that as a wordlplay to create illusion of 'Bharat' having a existance prior to 1947. Bharat and Pakistan had equal existance as they both were in the embryonic stage within the womb of British colony in thegeograhic sub continient.

At a intellectuel level I think we have a solid cogent argument but we face the real problem of centuries of inertia most of it coming from western writing, the British Indian history and finally our singualr failure post 1947 to develop a solid historical base for Pakistan. It is as if we are afraid of saying 'Pakistan' with referance to any history pre 1947. The reality is not many countries existed in nthe past but that does not stop for example the Afghans referring to a even in 500ad and using the name Afganistan.

I have struggled with this problem in differant fora and whilst I can articulate a fifinally prepared response but that entails a long drawn out discussion with the Indian's normally setting of smokescreen to make the task harder.The shortest sharpest response that I have come down is as follows.

The name Alex has been around for millenia. If you run into a Alexander today that does not mean that person is Alexander the Great or Alexander Fleming. Over the millenia Alexander has been used but we all know it cannot have been the same Alexander.

In the same way if you look at the name 'India' it has been used over the millenia but it's meaning has differant. Over time it settled for what we now call India. This is like the way Asia has been around but what it conveyed has gradually changed. This often happens witth words and is called linquistic drift.

Drift (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of continent name etymologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word Asia originated from the Ancient Greek word "Ἀσία",[7] first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 BCE) in reference to Anatolia or to the Persian Empire, in contrast to Greece and Egypt. It originally was just a name for the east bank of the Aegean Sea, an area known to the Hittites as Assuwa. In early Classical times, the Greeks started using the term "Asia" to refer to the whole region known today as Anatolia (the peninsula which forms the Asian portion of present-day Turkey). Eventually, however, the name had been stretched progressively further east, until it came to encompass the much larger land area with which we associate it today, while the Anatolian Peninsula started being called "Asia Minor" or "The Lesser Asia" instead.

And to the Indian's we are not wanting to use the name India today. We just want the indus basin to have a clear historical link with us withot any obfuscation whatsoever. WE want to bring clarity and concisness not create confusion which is what we have at the moment because in this confusion many of your people use to pillage our history and legacy. All because of a name.

 

[Sneaker]

A must read for all interested in pak history:


Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as `India' but as `Bharat'. The word derives from Bharata- varsha, `the land of the Bharatas', these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism.

In the first flush of independence `Bharat' would seem preferable, because the word `India' was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an `India consciousness' were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called `India' is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically `India' belonged anywhere, it was not
to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan.

Partition would have a way of dividing the subcontinent's spoils with scant reference to history. No tussle over the word `India' is reported because Jinnah preferred the newly coined and very Islamic-sounding acronym that is `Pakistan'. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of `India'. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain `India'. Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, `was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress Party) were going to call themselves India'. The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy which Pakistan would never accept. It also flew in the face of history, since `India' originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the Indus river (with which the word is cognate). Hence it was largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan.

The reservations about the word `India', which had convinced Jinnah that neither side would use it, stemmed from its historical currency amongst outsiders, especially outsiders who had designs on the place. Something similar could, of course, be said about terms like `Britian', `Germany' or `America'; when first these words were recorded, all were objects of conquest. But in the case of `India' this demeaning connotation had lasted until modern times. `Hindustan', `India' or `the Indies' (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a territory. Geographically imprecise, indeed moveable if one took account of all the `Indians' in the Americas, `India' was yet conceptually concrete: it was somewhere to be coveted – as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. To Alexander the Great as to Mahmud of Ghazni, to Timur the Lame as to his Mughal descendents, and to Nadir Shah of Persia as to Robert Clive of Plassey, `India' was a place worth the taking.

The first occurrence of the word sets the trend. It makes its debut in an inscription found at Persepolis in Iran, which was the capital of the Persian or Achaemenid empire of Darius I, he whose far-flung battles included defeat at Marathon by the Athenians in 490 BC. Before this, Darius had evidently enjoyed greater success on his eastern frontier, for the Persepolis inscription, dated to 518 BC, lists amongst his numerous domains that of `Hi(n)du'.

The word for a `river' in Sanskrit is sindhu. Hence sapta-sindhu meant `(the land of) the seven rivers', which was what the Vedic arya called the Panjab. The Indus, to which most of these seven rivers were tributary, was the sindhu par excellence; and in the language of ancient Persian, a near relative of Sanskrit, the initial `s' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as an apirate – `h'. Soma, the mysterious hallucinogen distilled, deified and drunk to excess by the Vedic arya, is thus homa or haoma in old Persian; and sindhu is thus Hind(h)u. When, from Persian, the word found its way into Greek, the initial aspirate was dropped, and it started to appear as the route `Ind' (as in `India', `Indus', etc.). In this form it reached Latin and most other European languages. However, in Arabic and related languages it retained the initial `h', giving `Hindustan' as the name by which Turks and Mughals would know India. That word also passed on to Europe to give `Hindu' as the name of the country's indigenous people and of what, by Muslims and Christians alike, was regarded as their infidel religion.

On the strength of a slightly earlier Iranian inscription which makes no mention of Hindu, it is assumed that the region was added to Daruis' Achaemenid empire in or soon after 520 BC. This earlier inscription does, however, refer to `Gadara', which looks like Gandhara, a maha-janapada or `state' mentioned in both Sanskrit and Buddhist sources and located in an arc reaching the western Panjab through the north-west frontier to Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where `Kandahar' is the same word). According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Gandhara had been conquered by Cyrus, on of
Darius' predecessors. The first Achaemenid or Persian invasion may therefore have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BC. That it was an invasion, rather than a migration or even perhaps a last belated influx of charioteering arya, seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemy were the `Derbikes'; they enjoyed the support of the Hindu people and were supplied by them with war-elephants. In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of Hindu with elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus. To Alexander of Macedon, following in the Achaemanids' footsteps two centuries later, the river would be a geographical curiosity, but the elephants were a military obsession.

If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan.

Under Xerxes, Darius' successor, troops from what had become the Achaemenids' combined `satrapy' of Gandhara and Hindu reportedly served in the Achaemenid forces. These Indians were mostly archers, although cavalry and chariots are also mentioned; they fought as far as eastern Europe; and some were present at the Persians' victory over Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermopylae, and then at the decisive defeat by the Greeks at Plataea. Through these and other less fraught
contacts between Greeks ad Persians, Greek writers like Herodotus gleaned some idea of `India'. Compared to the intervening lands of Anatolia and Iran, it appeared a veritable paradise of exotic plenty. Herodotus told of an immense population and the richest soil imaginable from which kindly ants, smaller than dogs but bigger than foxes, threw up hillocks of pure gold-dust. The ants may have intrigued entomologists, but the gold was registered in political circles. With rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle, it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth.

Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma,a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' History circulated widely. A hundred years after his death it was still avidly read by northern Greeks in Macedonia, where a teenage Alexander `knew it well enough to quote and follow its stories'


John Keays
India: a history

ROFLMAO.... Bharata clan? Bharatas? Give that man a noble prize in history...

@Whirling_dervesh. Read the comments by Indian's here. From experiance they follow the typical trend. Broadly there are two responses informed by either the poster being 'dumb' or intentional duplicity.

(i) That Pakistan broke off India in 1947.

(ii) Any historical mention of 'India' was in referance to today's India.

(iii) Geographic India and political India are merged by Indian's to create this false notion of India having been there since time began when the actuall reality is India is one day younger then Pakistan. Bharat and Pakistan republics came in existance in August 1947.

The fact that prior to 1947 was a colony called 'British India' from which to have evolved Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar [ Burma ] is lost on dumb posters and others use that as a wordlplay to create illusion of 'Bharat' having a existance prior to 1947. Bharat and Pakistan had equal existance as they both were in the embryonic stage within the womb of British colony in thegeograhic sub continient.

At a intellectuel level I think we have a solid cogent argument but we face the real problem of centuries of inertia most of it coming from western writing, the British Indian history and finally our singualr failure post 1947 to develop a solid historical base for Pakistan. It is as if we are afraid of saying 'Pakistan' with referance to any history pre 1947. The reality is not many countries existed in nthe past but that does not stop for example the Afghans referring to a even in 500ad and using the name Afganistan.

I have struggled with this problem in differant fora and whilst I can articulate a fifinally prepared response but that entails a long drawn out discussion with the Indian's normally setting of smokescreen to make the task harder.The shortest sharpest response that I have come down is as follows.

The name Alex has been around for millenia. If you run into a Alexander today that does not mean that person is Alexander the Great or Alexander Fleming. Over the millenia Alexander has been used but we all know it cannot have been the same Alexander.

In the same way if you look at the name 'India' it has been used over the millenia but it's meaning has differant. Over time it settled for what we now call India. This is like the way Asia has been around but what it conveyed has gradually changed. This often happens witth words and is called linquistic drift.

Drift (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of continent name etymologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word Asia originated from the Ancient Greek word "Ἀσία",[7] first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 BCE) in reference to Anatolia or to the Persian Empire, in contrast to Greece and Egypt. It originally was just a name for the east bank of the Aegean Sea, an area known to the Hittites as Assuwa. In early Classical times, the Greeks started using the term "Asia" to refer to the whole region known today as Anatolia (the peninsula which forms the Asian portion of present-day Turkey). Eventually, however, the name had been stretched progressively further east, until it came to encompass the much larger land area with which we associate it today, while the Anatolian Peninsula started being called "Asia Minor" or "The Lesser Asia" instead.

And to the Indian's we are not wanting to use the name India today. We just want the indus basin to have a clear historical link with us withot any obfuscation whatsoever. WE want to bring clarity and concisness not create confusion which is what we have at the moment because in this confusion many of your people use to pillage our history and legacy. All because of a name.

(i) Pakistan indeed broke up from India. The act giving independence to both India and pakistan was called "INDIAN" Indiependece act see for yourself - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
(ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.
(iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.

 

[WAR-rior]

ROFLMAO.... Bharata clan? Bharatas? Give that man a noble prize in history...


(i) Pakistan indeed broke up from India. The act giving independence to both India and pakistan was called "INDIAN" Indiependece act see for yourself - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
(ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.
(iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.

. And that ends the thread. No more propaganda and fake facts anymore. Ha ha ha.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Let us look at Herodotus's India in 5th century BC. This is what he understood to be India in 5th century BC.

"As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the east is desolation, nor can anyone say what kind of land is there." (trans. A. D. Godley 1920)

1. Acording to this India is on the end of known world and that east of this was desolation. Desolation suggests emptiness. What is east of India? Can the Indian's here clarify this please instead of making snide comments. The truth is this 'India' in fact is just the Indus basin that is today's Pakistan.

"The tribes of Indians are numerous, and they do not all speak the same language—some are wandering tribes, others not. They who dwell in the marshes along the river live on raw fish, which they take in boats made of reeds, each formed out of a single joint. These Indians wear a dress of sedge, which they cut in the river and bruise; afterwards they weave it into mats, and wear it as we wear a breast-plate. Eastward of these Indians are another tribe, called Padaeans, who are wanderers, and live on raw flesh. [...] There is another set of Indians whose customs are very different. They refuse to put any live animal to death, they sow no corn, and have no dwelling-houses. Vegetables are their only food. [...] All the tribes which I have mentioned live together like the brute beasts: they have also all the same tint of skin, which approaches that of the Ethiopians. [...]

2. We can safely assume his is talking about the indus River basin, probably Sindh, Pakistan? Unless the Indian's want to claim this is in referance to Ganges plain?

Besides these, there are Indians of another tribe, who border on the city of Caspatyrus, and the country of Pactyica; these people dwell northward of all the rest of the Indians, and follow nearly the same mode of life as the Bactrians. They are more warlike than any of the other tribes, and from them the men are sent forth who go to procure the gold. For it is in this part of India that the sandy desert lies. Here, in this desert, there live amid the sand great ants, in size somewhat less than dogs, but bigger than foxes. [...]" (trans. Rawlinson)

3.This probably refers to more north of the Indus Basin. Lower parts of Khyber Pak and Punjab as this part of Pakistan even today is suject to influence from Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass with people known for being warlike. Bactria was northern area of Afghanistan in antiquity.

Even Wikipedia which so often is subjected to heavy pro India editing thanks to the army of Hindutwa internet warriors says ..

"In ancient Greek geography, the basin of the Indus River (essentially corresponding to the territory of modern Pakistan) was on the extreme eastern fringe of the known world. The first Greek geographer to describe India was Herodotus (5th century BC), who calls it ἡ Ἰνδική χώρη hē Indikē chōrē, after Hinduš, the Old Persian name of the river and the associated satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire. Darius the Great had conquered this territory in 516 BC,

Greek knowledge of India was entirely received by contact to the Persian empire (according to Herodotus 4.44, via Scylax of Caryanda, a Greek explorer who sailed down the length of the Indus in the service of Darius

The Greeks (or Persians) were not aware of the geography of India (or Asia in general) east of the Indus basin. Herodotus in 4.40 is explicit about India being on the eastern fringe of the inhabitable world,

4. What is there east of Indus? I think you need to look at the maps below and you will see the Thar Desert and as Herodotus says 'desolation'.

Below is map of Indus Basin in Sindh, Pakistan. The Indus River is marked in blue. The Sky Blue line is on a west east axis heading toward present day Indian border. Within 10 miles east of Indus Thar Desert begins and goes over the border for another 200 miles into Rajathan, India. This is just sand dunes.

This map below is the close up of point marked east near the Indian border. As can be seen it is sand and desolute. It indeed is empty. This is what the quote refers to? "As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the east is desolation, nor can anyone say what kind of land is there." (trans. A. D. Godley 1920) As can be seen below east of Indus this is what Greek writers would have seen. Miles and miles of sandy desert dunes. The present Indian border is marked in yellow.

Indus Basin is what Greeks called 'India' in 5th Century BC. Only later after Alexander's conquest of this Indus Basin [ todays Pakistan] did they become acquainted with the Ganges plain and what we call today India. So yes, in 5th century BC Ancient Pakistan gave currency to the name 'India'.

Much as the word Asia drifted over time to even include Japan, over time India came to mean Ganges plain, peninsular India and in British times even Burma or Myanmarr was British India. The name drifted way east from the original river that gave birth to the name - Indus River.

 

[xyxmt]

What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.

When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Souther part of India.

stupid history remembers it as Indus civilization, the riches of India was meant to be the riches of Punjab.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

(i) Pakistan indeed broke up from India. The act giving independence to both India and pakistan was called "INDIAN" Indiependece act see for yourself - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf

Wiseguy, why not refer to section (2) which defines what 'India' is. It my son does not mean your humpty dumty republic but refers to a British Colony. If I share my name with Alexander does not MAKE me Alexander the Great. Present day Indian Republic, Pakistan, Bangladesh and burma are the succession states of British India. The only way you are any more especial is you share the name with the British product. Think alexander again. Do please read section 2 carefully.

India during the British Raj was made up of two types of territory: British India and the Native States (or Princely States).[20] In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

(1.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.

(2.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.[1]


(ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.

Yes, and No. It depends which time in history your talking about. Read my post # 22 which shows you what 'India' meant in 5th century BC. Over time the meaning drifted to include almost all of South Asia and at one stage even included Burma. Also you must always bear in mind 'India' is used as a geographic term so don't confuse it with you Indian Republic. India in history was synonymous with terms like Europe, Scandanavia etc

(iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.[/QUOTE]

Agreed both republics came into existance on the SAME* day. Great for Mauryan Empire although what time frame does that encapsulate in the last 5,000 years of history? Furthermore it was based in present day India although it spread west to present day Pakistan. By your logic the moghul Empire was first based in Lahore and from there it spread east? Shall we milch it as a proto Pakistan if you can milch Maurya as proto India?

Before you utter 'there was no Pakistan' I can safely also say there was no 'India' during that time unless you can give me proof from Mauryan times the usage of the term India.

SAME* Although both republics came into existance on the same day India happens to have name that has been around for millenia. However that does not give it any more historical heritage then Pakistan in the same way me having a name Alexander does not give me historical continuity just on account of name having been around for centuries.

The product is new although the name is old and had a geograhic meaning the definition of which itself evolved over the millenia.

 

[RanvirSena]

stupid history remembers it as Indus civilization, the riches of India was meant to be the riches of Punjab.

Haha, Pakistan has never even produced an empire lmao. You country has been conquered by Indian empires like Maurya and Gupta. You are a failed people.

 

[xyxmt]

Haha, Pakistan has never even produced an empire lmao. You country has been conquered by Indian empires like Maurya and Gupta. You are a failed people.

last I know Mughals kept your enslaved from Pakistan.

 

[RanvirSena]

Wiseguy, why not refer to section (2) which defines what 'India' is. It my son does not mean your humpty dumty republic but refers to a British Colony. If I share my name with Alexander does not MAKE me Alexander the Great. Present day Indian Republic, Pakistan, Bangladesh and burma are the succession states of British India. The only way you are any more especial is you share the name with the British product. Think alexander again. Do please read section 2 carefully.

India during the British Raj was made up of two types of territory: British India and the Native States (or Princely States).[20] In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

(1.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.

(2.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.[1]


(ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.

Yes, and No. It depends which time in history your talking about. Read my post # 22 which shows you what 'India' meant in 5th century BC. Over time the meaning drifted to include almost all of South Asia and at one stage even included Burma. Also you must always bear in mind 'India' is used as a geographic term so don't confuse it with you Indian Republic. India in history was synonymous with terms like Europe, Scandanavia etc

(iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.

Agreed both republics came into existance on the SAME* day. Great for Mauryan Empire although what time frame does that encapsulate in the last 5,000 years of history? Furthermore it was based in present day India although it spread west to present day Pakistan. By your logic the moghul Empire was first based in Lahore and from there it spread east? Shall we milch it as a proto Pakistan if you can milch Maurya as proto India?

Before you utter 'there was no Pakistan' I can safely also say there was no 'India' during that time unless you can give me proof from Mauryan times the usage of the term India.

SAME* Although both republics came into existance on the same day India happens to have name that has been around for millenia. However that does not give it any more historical heritage then Pakistan in the same way me having a name Alexander does not give me historical continuity just on account of name having been around for centuries.

The product is new although the name is old and had a geograhic meaning the definition of which itself evolved over the millenia.

[/QUOTE]
Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.

last I know Mughals kept your enslaved from Pakistan.

Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Hey you Hindutwa fanatics - are you not able to properly advance your argument? Anybody reading this can say I have presented my argument in logical coherant way. All I am getting from you guy's is stupid comments. At least come up with some valid argument, if you can that is.

@RanvirSena if your incapable of elucidating a answer either pull your tail in and leave or I will report you to the mods.

Read your history or get out. The Moghuls came from west not east. Lahore was first capital of Moghul Empire. So you got raped from the west so as to say.

Mughal period in Lahore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ranvir, decide are you a dog that is going to bark here or are you going to address the specific points I made?

 

[RanvirSena]

Hey you Hindutwa fanatics - are you not able to properly advance your argument? Anybody reading this can say I have presented my argument in logical coherant way. All I am getting from you guy's is stupid comments. At least come up with some valid argument, if you can that is.

Why are you getting angry? Remember that we are your ancient rulers
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gupta Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pls name me one empire to come from Pakistan, we have actually defeated the Greeks during the Seleucid Maurya war. Your Porus failed. You can't even produce an empire, such shame.

 

[Whirling_dervesh]

read below about maurya and gupta

It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, and even then it was more because of diplomacy rather than conquest under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej.

"At the close of Samudragupta’s triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith).


"Harsha’s subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid)




"Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown)



"Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer’s nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee)


now put that in your pipe and smoke it

 

[Indus Pakistan]

British Indian empire Map.

Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Burma.

British Indian Empire flag.

British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia