Betrayed, Arabized

[Kinetic]

Invading 'India' as a region, not a 'nation'.

Technically, for the peoples and Kingdoms conquered by the 'Indian' empires you mentioned, these 'empires' were also 'invaders'.

It isn't like the peoples of the lands currently comprising Pakistan 'voted democratically to join the 'Maratha, Pala, Mughal and Gupta empires' ...... they were all conquered by Autocrats and Dictators looking to expand their territory, power, influence and riches.

We all know there was no democracy at that time, so to unite a country it is like conquering it by force. No country ever united without a war. Whether it is Greece or China or India (I am talking about old times).

Why distinguish between 'Invaders' from the West vs 'Invaders' from the East, at least as far as Pakistanis are concerned?

Than Balochis will say invaders from north, Sindhis say invaders from north, Saraiki invading Hazara, Pashtuns invading Sindh like that. Same goes in India. Rajputs, Punjanbis, Gujaratis etc. When Chinese emperors united China many times like Indian emperors, they had to fight wars. Because it was the only way in ancient times.

 

[Kinetic]

Kinetic can you please stick to the thread. I can see you are in love with your "periods" and the indian nation but this isnt what this thread is about. Either start your own thread to satify your kinetic theory or be on topic.

I have not started it. I am replying to ongoing discussion. See my first post in this thread.

here....

 

[fd24]

I have not started it. I am replying to ongoing discussion. See my first post in this thread.

You are off thread and you know it. I dont care who started it. Doesnt give you the right to side track this nice thread so stop it

 

[aakash_2410]

The reference to India historically in that context is as a 'region', not a nation.

Had India splintered into more nations post her creation in 1947, the context in which it is used currently would not apply - this is more of a retroactive reference that is erroneously conflated with the modern concept of the 'Indian nation' (which only started existing post 1947).

Exactly the point.

So, Punjabis and Sindhis are Indic races like any other Indic race. Not Iranian. That's what it all comes down to. Whereas people like 'Omar1984' are so adamant to prove that they have nothing Indian about them. I am glad he thinks like that until he said 'Hindu Indians' and 'I wouldn't wanna relate myself to Hindu Indians.' I suppose he should be banned.

Oye bharati. I dont have any indian blood in me and nor do I look like a bharati like you people.

I always speak against india. I even write india with a lower case, because I dont believe that country should even exist. There should be Khalistan, Tamil Nandu, etc.. etcc..

.

By the way, its you indians who have inferiority complex, always hiding behind false flags, what you people are not proud of who you are?

These are ONLY some of his comments. I mean some of his comments were SO offensive that they are already deleted my Santro. Please do something about it.

And by the way at the time of IVC it was ruled by Indian kings. Islam only came to that region after 7th-8th century. As Islam didn't exist before the born of prophet Mohammad. For IVC it is said that. Following the drought in Indus river residents of IVC migrated at the banks of river Ganges. So this river became holy for these people [Hindus] as it was the only religion at the time.

People like him say his is not Indian but at the same time claim the IVC.

BBC documentry.

 

[LaBong]

But the 'Indus Valley' regions were also part of other empires:


So why would the Indus Valley civilization (and the lands of Pakistan) belong more to the invaders and Empires that arose out of the East, rather than the West/South West?

Because of linguistic and cultural compatibility. Just because British ruled You and Us for 200 years, we don't become English.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because these "invaders" were our own people having the same culture, faith and language (Sanskrit) or derivative state languages as most other people. BTW to the person who brought a flurry of maps, he forgot Mauryan Empire that stretched much beyond Indus and Afghanistan itself.

So take a look at the parameters you yourself bring about when you argue 'own people':

Faith: So that would imply that you support the concept of 'Ummah' and a global 'Islamic identity' and therefore support the argument that Pakistan (because it is today largely Muslim) is not really closer to India than it is to the Muslim world to the West.

Language: Sanskrit as a language used by a very, very small minority of 'religious and other scholars', but given the diverse ethnic groups in South Asia today it is pretty clear that linguistically there was no commonality between the various regions in South Asia, and even today within India and Pakistan there is little linguistic commonality. Though the prevalence of Urdu in Pakistan vs that of Hindi in India would make Pakistan more 'homogenous' as a nation than India, on the basis of the 'language parameter' you raise.

And as far as language is concerned, there are plenty of religious and other scholars and even commoners in Pakistan today who are well versed in Arabic, perhaps more so than those who were well versed in Sanskrit. So we must, using your logic, be closer to the Islamic world than to India.

Culture: Culture changes, and even today there are significant differences between North and South Indian culture, and especially between Pakistani and South/East Indian culture, and that will continue to change as the impact of Western culture and other external influences continues to be absorbed by both societies in varying degrees.

The invaders of the west were nothing but barbaric tribes with an alien culture and an organized religion that is not a part of this land. Simple as that.

The Western (Arabic, Persian, Greek, Afghan) invaders would have been just as 'alien' to a Pashtun, Punjabi, Baluchi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, as would have the Eastern invaders (Mongols, Bengalis, etc.)

Why wouldn't I, as a Punjabi, see a Tamil/Bengali/Sindhi/Keralite etc. as an invader as much as an Arab/Mongol/Persian?

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

To put it in simple words,the arabs pile up the desis together and pakistanis also figure in that.

Pakistanis dont want to be with India and there is an issue with Iran because they are all Shia and Pakistanis are Sunnis.So,they pretty much invent their identity and that is nothing but anti-India.Anything but India/Indian things because anything else ll be opposite to the concept of Pakistan.

u r wrong iran is not all shia, persian's have sunna in them large numbers, baouch r not shia and kurd also most of them sunna in iran. there is no need to write if u don't know what u r talking

TARIQ

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because of linguistic and cultural compatibility. Just because British ruled You and Us for 200 years, we don't become English.

I have no 'linguistic or cultural compatibility' with Tamils, Keralites, Bengalis ....

My fluency in English and experience with Western culture would in fact make me far more compatible with the Americans and English today ...

 

[Omar1984]

Why do these indians always try to convice us we are the same?

We Pakistanis want nothing to do with you people and stop making up races like indic..leave the Indus River alone. The Indus is a River, just like the Ganges that flows through your country is a River. Call your people Gangdic race please....leave us alone...we always wanted to get away from you people and we will never join you people.


And Punjabis in India are Khalsas or Khalistanis not indians.

 

[Subramanian]

u r wrong iran is not all shia, persian's have sunna in them large numbers, baouch r not shia and kurd also most of them sunna in iran. there is no need to write if u don't know what u r talking

TARIQ

Yeah but then those guys are beyond sunni/shia,the fight on ethnicity and Iraqis are Arabs and Iranians are persians,not the same.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Exactly the point.

So, Punjabis and Sindhis are Indic races like any other Indic race. Not Iranian. That's what it all comes down to. Whereas people like 'Omar1984' are so adamant to prove that they have nothing Indian about them. I am glad he thinks like that until he said 'Hindu Indians' and 'I wouldn't wanna relate myself to Hindu Indians.' I suppose he should be banned.

Well we are also 'Asian' races like the Arabs and Persians - India/South Asia as a 'region' is merely a sub-category of Asia.

However what Omar was/is protesting is the argument that South Asia/'Indic' is somehow a unique 'racial category', along the lines of 'African' or 'Caucasian'.

And by the way at the time of IVC it was ruled by Indian kings. Islam only came to that region after 7th-8th century. As Islam didn't exist before the born of prophet Mohammad. For IVC it is said that. Following the drought in Indus river residents of IVC migrated at the banks of river Ganges. So this river became holy for these people [Hindus] as it was the only religion at the time.

I have already dealt with the 'empire' argument in my past posts.

 

[Subramanian]

I have no 'linguistic or cultural compatibility' with Tamils, Keralites, Bengalis ....

My fluency in English and experience with Western culture would in fact make me far more compatible with the Americans and English today ...

Same thing ll make u compatible with Tamils and Mallus and Bengalis man.In today's world i have friends all over the world,i am able to fit myself in any damn country and you are talking about compatibility,which cave is that man?

---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

Why do these indians always try to convice us we are the same?

We Pakistanis want nothing to do with you people and stop making up races like indic..leave the Indus River alone. The Indus is a River, just like the Ganges that flows through your country is a River. Call your people Gangdic race please....leave us alone...we always wanted to get away from you people and we will never join you people.


And Punjabis in India are Khalsas or Khalistanis not indians.

Punjabis in India are Punjabis and they hate people like you Omar.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We all know there was no democracy at that time, so to unite a country it is like conquering it by force. No country ever united without a war. Whether it is Greece or China or India (I am talking about old times).

Then the 'invaders from the West' were no different (for the lands and peoples of modern day Pakistan) than the 'invaders from the East'. Either way it was an 'invasion and conquest through force' of their lands, homes and people.

Than Balochis will say invaders from north, Sindhis say invaders from north, Saraiki invading Hazara, Pashtuns invading Sindh like that. Same goes in India. Rajputs, Punjanbis, Gujaratis etc.

Absolutely - it is only post 1947 that one could argue that the various Ethnic groups in Pakistan chose to become part of one nation, through a somewhat 'democratic process', and I suppose the same for India.

 

[aakash_2410]

Well we are also 'Asian' races like the Arabs and Persians - India/South Asia as a 'region' is merely a sub-category of Asia.

However what Omar was/is protesting is the argument that South Asia/'Indic' is somehow a unique 'racial category', along the lines of 'African' or 'Caucasian'.


I have already dealt with the 'empire' argument in my past posts.

Ideed. Balcoh - Persian, Pashtun - Persian/Afghan, Punjabi, SIndhi - Indic. I mean it doesn't really bother me if he chooses not to recognise his Indians roots, it's his choice. But he certainly can't down talk my religion or my country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Same thing ll make u compatible with Tamils and Mallus and Bengalis man.In today's world i have friends all over the world,i am able to fit myself in any damn country and you are talking about compatibility,which cave is that man?

My compatibility with Tamils (and a very, very good friend of mine is Tamil) would be on the basis of a shared language (English) respect for each other's beliefs (he is an agnostic/atheist Hindu and I am an agnostic Muslim), shared liberal/Western values ... etc.

It is the US/West that makes us compatible by giving us a common set of linguistic and cultural values to coalesce around, not some 'Indic culture' or 'Indic nationhood'.

When I say 'lack of compatibility', I am referring to a native Punjabi vs a native Tamil/Bengali - they have no shared language (excluding learning English), no shared values, culture and what not. You are ignoring those differences because you are viewing them from a 'global/Western commonality' perspective.