Any questions Regarding India

[my2cents]

Your trade with them is not good and so is the diplomatic relation.

Turkey deliberately did not invite India for a meeting on Afghanistan to appease Pakistan. Reflecting Islamabad’s insistence at every international forum that New Delhi be kept out of any meeting on Afghanistan, a top Turkish diplomat told U.S. officials in early 2010 that India was kept out to address the concerns of Pakistan..
India

you are giving another example to hate you...you get the drift.....

 

[Ticker]

Unlike Sindh or West Punjab, Uttar Pradesh is still in new India, not in Pakistan.

Thank you for reminding me that UP is in India.

Check kar lena - kahin bhool ke Pakistan hi na aa gya ho.

 

[nForce]

"part of the Dravidian Civilization"

Are you sure sir that there was a Dravidian Civilization - Majumdar says that they were part of Indus Valley Civilization.

A direct quote of R.C.Majumdar would perhaps help to clear things out.

"Excavation in the South has hitherto revealed no trace of the Indus Valley Civilization"
-History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol.1, The Vedic Age, edited by R.C. Majumdar

Source

What is your source?

 

[Ticker]

You avoided the question.Also,you kind of debunked it with your answer.If Urdu is linked to Old India and not current India,still it does not explain how come it becomes a language claimed by Pakistan while Pakistanis don't want to link themselves with India.It is a worth-mentioning fact that Urdu originated from Khariboli dialect of Delhi region,which,as you know is in current India.

Urdu was a Lashkari language originated as a common language used by the soldiers of Muslim Armies invading India. As these soldiers came from different hues and spoke different languages, a need for a common language arose. This common language had words from Arabic, Turkish, Persian etc. Later, it also included Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi and words from certain other local languages including Kahriboli. And Delhi was a seat of Muslims rulers of India, then.

I hope I have clarified some aspects.

A direct quote of R.C.Majumdar would perhaps help to clear things out.

"Excavation in the South has hitherto revealed no trace of the Indus Valley Civilization"
-History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol.1, The Vedic Age, edited by R.C. Majumdar

Source

What is your source?

I am the source.

So much the better, less linkages of IVC with India. But, despite this Dravidian people were part of Indus valley civilization and there are numerous sources you can quote from.

 

[nForce]

Urdu was a Lashkari language originated as a common language used by the soldiers of Muslim Armies invading India. As these soldiers came from different hues and spoke different languages, a need for a common language arose. This common language had words from Arabic, Turkish, Persian etc. Later, it also included Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi and words from certain other local languages including Kahriboli. And Delhi was a seat of Muslims rulers of India, then.

I hope I have clarified some aspects.

It is not like you people exercise some kind of monopoly over Islam in the region.Even if we start equating things on those lines,let me enlighten you with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan.And the fact remains that Urdu originated from Khariboli,a native of Delhi region.

"part of the Dravidian Civilization"

Are you sure sir that there was a Dravidian Civilization - Majumdar says that they were part of Indus Valley Civilization.

A direct quote of R.C.Majumdar would perhaps help to clear things out.

"Excavation in the South has hitherto revealed no trace of the Indus Valley Civilization"
-History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol.1, The Vedic Age, edited by R.C. Majumdar

Source

What is your source?

I am the source.

So much the better, less linkages of IVC with India. But, despite this Dravidian people were part of Indus valley civilization and there are numerous sources you can quote from.

I hereby rest my case.I really cannot get involved into a discussion with some who would go to the extent of being a LIAR,misquoting eminent historians of our time.You could have simply said,you think different,you are free to disagree.
But instead of doing that,you decided to take a potshot,banking on perhaps I myself would not know,what R.C.Majumdar has to say regarding this matter.
You disappointed me.I was just starting to think,you might be one of those learned people from Pakistan,with whom we all can have a constructive discussion.....

 

[my2cents]

What is 1 thing that you guys love the most about Pakistan? (dont say zaid hamid )

How can you forget the guy who invented the water kit...... Engineer Mr. Agha Waqar

 

[Joe Shearer]

My question is how can Pakistan claim Urdu when they don't want to link themselves with India as well neither mongols or Turks claim Urdu. Also there are no words from Pashto, Punjabi or Sindhi in Urdu language.

Why are you raising fringe issues?

The grammatical structure of Urdu is Hindi, nothing else. The bulk of the verbs used are Hindi, with a minority of others. It is the nouns that are imported. That should put the problem in perspective. If any hedge scholar now starts telling you that it is associated with this India or that India, as his addled wits define the different ages of India, simply point out that it is not a defined language with a set vocabulary, but an open-ended one which accepts words from its linguistic parents at all times, through the years. So it borrows from current Persian as much as from middle Persian, from current Hindi as much as from middle Hindi, or Khariboli. It is never static, so it cannot be linked to any one age.

Explain carefully, in simple language.

Allow time for digestion then repeat again. Repeat until the message is internalized.

 

[Ticker]

It is not like you people exercise some kind of monopoly over Islam in the region.Even if we start equating things on those lines,let me enlighten you with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan.And the fact remains that Urdu originated from Khariboli,a native of Delhi region.

History tells us differently. I explained above. I agree khariboli was part of urdu but was never a major part.

I hereby rest my case.I really cannot get involved into a discussion with some who would go to the extent of being a LIAR,misquoting eminent historians of our time.You could have simply said,you think different,you are free to disagree.
But instead of doing that,you decided to take a potshot,banking on perhaps I myself would not know,what R.C.Majumdar has to say regarding this matter.
You disappointed me.I was just starting to think,you might be one of those learned people from Pakistan,with whom we all can have a constructive discussion.....

You quoted Mr. Majumdar as saying that there was no trace of IVC in any excavation in South India.

The historical traces of any civilization does not only emerge from excavations, but from linguistic linkages as well. Did Majumdar say anywhere that Dravidians were not from IVC - or was it that you implied the he would have said it because he says no excavations were found. I have not read him saying this. I may still be wrong - I don't deny it.

Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people.

There are more experts who say that probably Dravidian people migrated from IVC. Most Tamil historians whom I have read say that Tamils were also part of IVC.


"The Indus Valley people were most likely Dravidians, who may have been pushed down into south India when the Aryans, with their more advanced military technology, commenced their migrations to India around 2,000 BCE."
Manas: History and Politics, Indus Valley

There are many other potent sources which do indicate that Dravidians were part of IVC.

I however, acknowledge that you or many others may not agree with it. Even I may have my differences with many of the things quoted above. This is the beauty of discussing such old history - one learns so many new things.

 

[Bang Galore]

Well, you can claim ape descend (Darwin's evolution which by the way any modern Genetics can disprove because of all the new discoveries) while we say we always were humans, deal?

Modern genetics can disprove what? You were always human? Sure you are but your ancestors going back a few million years back were not. So unfortunately, no deal...no more than we can make deals with people believing the Earth is flat.

 

[Ticker]

Why are you raising fringe issues?

The grammatical structure of Urdu is Hindi, nothing else. The bulk of the verbs used are Hindi, with a minority of others. It is the nouns that are imported. That should put the problem in perspective. If any hedge scholar now starts telling you that it is associated with this India or that India, as his addled wits define the different ages of India, simply point out that it is not a defined language with a set vocabulary, but an open-ended one which accepts words from its linguistic parents at all times, through the years. So it borrows from current Persian as much as from middle Persian, from current Hindi as much as from middle Hindi, or Khariboli. It is never static, so it cannot be linked to any one age.

Explain carefully, in simple language.

Allow time for digestion then repeat again. Repeat until the message is internalized.

I will use hajmoola.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is not like you people exercise some kind of monopoly over Islam in the region.Even if we start equating things on those lines,let me enlighten you with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan.And the fact remains that Urdu originated from Khariboli,a native of Delhi region.

I hereby rest my case.I really cannot get involved into a discussion with some who would go to the extent of being a LIAR,misquoting eminent historians of our time.You could have simply said,you think different,you are free to disagree.
But instead of doing that,you decided to take a potshot,banking on perhaps I myself would not know,what R.C.Majumdar has to say regarding this matter.
You disappointed me.I was just starting to think,you might be one of those learned people from Pakistan,with whom we all can have a constructive discussion.....

You might also like to consider the fact that neither someone as authoritative as Ramesh Majumdar nor anyone else could have said with certainty that the Dravidian people were part of the IVC, nor even that the Dravidian language was part of the culture. At most, they could say that at present a Dravidian language exists in the hills of Baluchistan, and there is reason to believe that it was quite widespread earlier. It might well have been akin to the language spoken in the great cities, but no one ca tell, since the Indus language is lost now.

About people, there are Mediterranean people everywhere. There is no definite proof about who the IVC people were.

 

[INDIC]

Urdu was a Lashkari language originated as a common language used by the soldiers of Muslim Armies invading India. As these soldiers came from different hues and spoke different languages, a need for a common language arose.

Even if the Muslim Laskhars have contribution for Urdu, on what basis can Pakistan claim it without linking herself to India because neither Turks, Persians, Central Asia or Afghanistan or Arabs claim Urdu.

Later, it also included Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi and words from certain other local languages including Kahriboli.

Sindhi, Punjabi and Pashto influence came in Urdu only after the creation of Pakistan.

 

[Ticker]

Even if the Muslim Laskhars have contribution for Urdu, on what basis can Pakistan claim it without linking herself to India because neither Turks, Persians, Central Asia or Afghanistan or Arabs claim Urdu.

There is difference between the level of people like @Joe Shearer and yourself. You may take another fifty years to reach there, and there is no surety. Remain where you are because your knowledge base is as long as your sentences.

Pakistan can and will claim it without linking it to current India. Please continue to speak your Garibaldi.

Sindhi, Punjabi and Pashto influence came in Urdu only after the creation of Pakistan.

Nope. There were linkages to these languages much before creation of Pakistan.

 

[karan.1970]

Its a little sickening to see this tamasha of claiming IVC, Urdu and what not.. Guys, always remember

1. Those who have no faith left in their own Karma, become fanatical about their religion
2. Those who have no faith left in their future, become possessive about their past..

Move on.. Let the Pakistani bros live with their IVC and origins of Urdu..

 

[Ticker]

Its a little sickening to see this tamasha of claiming IVC, Urdu and what not.. Guys, always remember

1. Those who have no faith left in their own Karma, become fanatical about their religion
2. Those who have no faith left in their future, become possessive about their past..

Move on.. Let the Pakistani bros live with their IVC and origins of Urdu..

sach ka saath kabhi na dena

choon choon ka murabba