Calendars show Pakistan as part of India

[was]

Map sent to Senate proposes Pak-Indo amalgamation


ISLAMABAD: The Senate was assured on Tuesday that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) would hold a full investigation into circulation among parliamentarians of a calendar proposing confederation between India and Pakistan and containing a map depicting the proposed ‘Greater India’.
Leader of the House Mian Raza Rabbani said the FIA would launch a probe into the matter and a full report regarding the ‘Greater India Calendar’ would be presented to the house.

Leader of the Opposition Kamil Ali Agha stated that the calendar floating the idea of ‘greater India’ had been published in a province of India and sent to parliamentarians by mail as part of a conspiracy to disintegrate Pakistan.

Mr Rabbani condemned the publication of the calendar, terming it counter to the ideology of Pakistan and the two-nation theory. Prof Khursheed Ahmed called for rising above political differences to defend Pakistan’s ideology.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Map sent to Senate proposes Pak-Indo amalgamation

 

[paritosh]

Taking pride in your Muslim heritage now. By all means bro...

yeah...and seems like pakistan has forgotten it's sikh+hindu heritage!

 

[kenchabhai]

The subcontinent can be split into 100s of provinces with their own history, culture and languages which are not shared.

I differ, Most Indians believe that they have a common origin.

Let me illustrate (I can be wrong with some castes here so bare with me)

Suryavanshi Rajputs such as Sisodia, Rathore, Kachchwa, Janjua, Shaktawat, Pundir, Minhas, Mair, Gahlot, Gaur, Jamwal, Manhas, bargurjar , Tanwar, Gurkhas etc. claim descent from Sun.

Suryavanshi Jats such as Gehlots, Dahiya, Dhillon, Deol, Bais rajput, Nehra, , Tanvar, Maan, Lamba, Gill etc. claim descent from Sun.

Suryavanshi Marathas such as Surve, Shirsagar, Tanvar, Bhonsle, Angane, Gaekwand, Kale, Kadam, Rane etc. claim descent from teh Sun.

Arain, Khatris, Chetris, Swaroopam, Samanta , Raghuvanshis, Kurmi, Kunbi,Bhavsar, Agrawals Aroras, Bhatia, Sood, Lohana, Lobana, Rajus, Reddy, Ror, Dhangars, Patel claim descent from Sun.

Suryavanshi Gujjars such as Gehlots, Dahiyas, Banswara, Tanvar, Tomar

Now these communities are spread over Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, Nepal, Uttarakhand, UP, HP, MP, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan etc.

This is just with 1 Suryavanshi dynasty, then there are Brahmins, Kayasthas, Nagavanshi, Dhobi, Malli, Somvanshi, Jhaula, Chamar etc. tribes/castes who are spread all over the subcontinent India and claim a similar descent.

so......

 

[UnitedPak]

exactly. now ill ask u wat do u think is a country?? country in most of the cases is a group of these different cultures, languages, provinces etc with one centre. same was the case before partition and even after partition. history which i am talkin about is not the history of every area but history of the subcontinent which was governed by one centre. achievements made were to make everyone proud and not only ppl living in south or north. and these achievements or downfalls became the history of this subcontinent. lik today if pakistan achieves something, that makes everyone proud and not only sindhis or baltastanis or who so ever. now this becomes the history of pakistan.
talkin about the distinct identity. distinct identity only stays with u till the time u r together. God forbid if pakistan breaks up tomorrow then who would call himself a pakistani. we are pakistanis bec we are under one roof.
now if u go before 1947, though punjabis were punjabis and gujratis were gujratis, bec we are under one roof therefore we were (we lik it or not but accordin to the outside world) indians.
sunskrit originated from todays pakistan (im only quoting wat was there in this thread) but it was used all over the subcontinent. same goes for urdu. i dont know where it originated from but indians cant tell us that it is not ours and actually belongs to them.

therefore if u look at a macro level, our history was the same before partition.

its not about colonial pride, its about our past. and there should be no doubt i love my Pakistan and if need arises will not think twice before presenting my life to this Islamic Republic

I already said there were periods of shared history. But you are oversimplifying it. In ancient times the subcontinent was covered in kingdoms and more recent times it was covered in (what are now) provinces. These regions were not under a "greater Indian roof", or united in any way. How would you explain these regions fighting wars constantly if they really were united?

I was merely pointing out that the kingdoms/provinces which make up Pakistan are part of our history alone. People from the rest of India cannot relate to Pakistan in this way. There is of course shared history like the British Raj, which I haven't denied. But the Indian version of history you are promoting is what gives way to them thinking they own Kashmir and Pakistan.

I disagree with your view that Pakistan belonged to Indians before 1947.
The timeline shows that way back the Indus region was covered in self governing Kingdoms, followed by Muslim empires, followed by British rule, followed by the formation of modern Pakistan.
I don't know why certain people would wave around the colonial map with such pride, because I distinctly remember something about a mass demand for independence.

 

[UnitedPak]

I differ, Most Indians believe that they have a common origin.

Let me illustrate (I can be wrong with some castes here so bare with me)

Suryavanshi Rajputs such as Sisodia, Rathore, Kachchwa, Janjua, Shaktawat, Pundir, Minhas, Mair, Gahlot, Gaur, Jamwal, Manhas, bargurjar , Tanwar, Gurkhas etc. claim descent from Sun.

Suryavanshi Jats such as Gehlots, Dahiya, Dhillon, Deol, Bais rajput, Nehra, , Tanvar, Maan, Lamba, Gill etc. claim descent from Sun.

Suryavanshi Marathas such as Surve, Shirsagar, Tanvar, Bhonsle, Angane, Gaekwand, Kale, Kadam, Rane etc. claim descent from teh Sun.

Arain, Khatris, Chetris, Swaroopam, Samanta , Raghuvanshis, Kurmi, Kunbi,Bhavsar, Agrawals Aroras, Bhatia, Sood, Lohana, Lobana, Rajus, Reddy, Ror, Dhangars, Patel claim descent from Sun.

Suryavanshi Gujjars such as Gehlots, Dahiyas, Banswara, Tanvar, Tomar

Now these communities are spread over Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, Nepal, Uttarakhand, UP, HP, MP, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan etc.

This is just with 1 Suryavanshi dynasty, then there are Brahmins, Kayasthas, Nagavanshi, Dhobi, Malli, Somvanshi, Jhaula, Chamar etc. tribes/castes who are spread all over the subcontinent India and claim a similar descent.

so......

Try again.
This time take into account 1300 years of Muslim rule in Pakistan.

 

[kenchabhai]

Try again.
This time take into account 1300 years of Muslim rule in Pakistan.

1300 yrs?

Turkics ruled over most of India (and Present day Pakistan) for close to 500years.

 

[hasang20]

1300 yrs?

Turkics ruled over most of India (and Present day Pakistan) for the most part since 1200AD.

Muslims ruled India 1400years and til late 1850s than British took over than a new nation born Pakistan !

 

[Vinod2070]

Try again.
This time take into account 1300 years of Muslim rule in Pakistan.

Would you elaborate the 1300 years?

Yes, Bin Qasim came and there was an Arab rule for a time in the 7th century. The Arabs would be defeated by the Rajputs at the Battle of Rajasthan in 738, and Muslim incursions would only be resumed under later Turkic and Pathan dynasties with more local capitals, who supplanted the Caliphate and expanded their domains both northwards and eastwards.

I guess the Islamic rule started in the 13th century after that and came to an end in 1757 in all but name. So more like 550-600 years!

Why would people claim it to be 1000 years or 1300 years!

 

[Vinod2070]

Taking pride in your Muslim heritage now. By all means bro...

India has never denied her heritage. It is good that some of you have begun recognizing your pre-Islamic heritage. Accepting that it was not Jahiliya!

Call it by any name "ancient Pakistani civilization" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) or whatever, I am happy if you can appreciate the fact that the land had a great heritage before the invaders came in. People were not living in Jahiliya for some saviors to come in and teach them how to live.

 

[Vinod2070]

The "Stan" part is actually Persian for "land of".

Sanskrit is not an "Indian" language if that's what you are implying.
Sanskrit was mostly developed by Panini, and to some extent his brother Pingala, who were both from Peshawar valley, (Ghandara), Pakistan.
Pingala was also the person to develop the binary system in the ancient university of Taxila, also in Pakistan.

Glad to know that Indians take pride in Pakistani history

A divine language like Sanskrit is not developed by an individual! He was a grammarian.

He is known for his Sanskrit grammar, particularly for his formulation of the 3,959 rules [2] of Sanskrit morphology in the grammar known as Ashtadhyayi (meaning "eight chapters"), the foundational text of the grammatical branch of the Vedanga, the auxiliary scholarly disciplines of Vedic religion.

The Ashtadhyayi is one of the earliest known grammars of Sanskrit, although he refers to previous texts like the Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, and Ganapatha [2]. It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, generative linguistics, and together with the work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta, Nighantu, Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself.

Pāṇini's comprehensive and scientific theory of grammar is conventionally taken to mark the end of the period of Vedic Sanskrit, by definition introducing Classical Sanskrit.

On Monday, August 30, 2004, the Department of Posts of the Government of India, released a Rs. 5 postage stamp to honor Pāṇini.

The Ashtadhyayi (Aṣṭādhyāyī (अष्टाध्याय&#2368) is the central part of Pāṇini's grammar, and by far the most complex. It is at once the most exhaustive as well as the shortest grammar of Classical Sanskrit. It takes material from the lexical lists (Dhatupatha, Ganapatha) as input and describes algorithms to be applied to them for the generation of well-formed words. It is highly systematised and technical. Inherent in its generative approach are the concepts of the phoneme, the morpheme and the root, only recognized by Western linguists some two millennia later. His rules have a reputation for perfection — that is, they are claimed to describe Sanskrit morphology fully, without any redundancy. A consequence of his grammar's focus on brevity is its highly unintuitive structure, reminiscent of contemporary "machine language" (as opposed to "human readable" programming languages). His sophisticated logical rules and technique have been widely influential in ancient and modern linguistics.

Its good that you see some merit in Sanskrit. If you had imbibed it's spirit of "Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam" (I am sure you can understand that, Pakistan being the inheritor of Sanskrit sure must be teaching the language in schools and universities to thousands and thousands of students), you won't be reduced to claiming it exclusively!

 

[suresh_]

@those who pride on muslim rule on india
india was also ruled by british, portuguese and french but I have never heard evangelists calling it christian rule! so, how is the concept of muslim rule different?

india was conquered by different nation belonging to different religions, but common point was that they were all OUTSIDERS and did precious little for the locals that includes OUR ancestors(irrespective of their religion).

rightnow ,india and pakistan is in the hands of indians and pakistanis. this is the best thing. so stop seeing the world in terms of religion.

 

[Vinod2070]

UnitedPak, tell me one thing. Do you believe in civilization just by modern geography?

Would you and the rest of the Pakistanis feel that they were no part of the Muslim rule based mostly in modern India? Do you feel that you are also a part of that heritage irrespective of the current geography and modern borders?

 

[kenchabhai]

I already said there were periods of shared history. But you are oversimplifying it. In ancient times the subcontinent was covered in kingdoms and more recent times it was covered in (what are now) provinces. These regions were not under a "greater Indian roof", or united in any way. How would you explain these regions fighting wars constantly if they really were united?

1. The kings were fighting for territorial gains. They were interested in gaining as much land as possible. Imperialistic mentality rings a bell ?

2. Provinces weren't mined. People were quite free to travel, there were no embassies or airports or immigration and customs at the time to restrict them. Families/tribe were not relegated to one province. Kingdoms were not divided into linguistic, ethnic, caste lines, boundaries were constantly being redrawn depending on wars, and populations kept shifting etc.

3. No wonder that same surnames,tribes, languages, cultures are found in Pakistan and India. How else would it have been possible ?

4. Nations and Kingdoms are totally different. And most provinces in Subcontinent are based on linguistic divisions.

I was merely pointing out that the kingdoms/provinces which make up Pakistan are part of our history alone.

1. Punjab is divided
2. Baltistan is divided
3. Pashtunistan is divided
4. Balochistan is divided
5. Kashmir is divided.

PS: Why do Indigenous Pakistanis celebrate rule of Turkics, Arabs, Persians and Afghans(from modern day Pakistan) over them ?

Why do indigenous Pakistanis have similar surnames/tribes as Indigenous Indians?

Why do indigenous Pakistanis speak a similar tongue to Indigenous Indians ?

Why did indigenous Pakistanis follow an Indigenous Indian in building their nation?

Why did non muslim indigenous Pakistanis leave their "distinct motherland" to go to the land of "Hindus"?

Why did muslim indigenous Indians leave India to go to a "distinct motherland"?

What if those Kingdoms/provinces overlapped with those of India? or what if those Kings were from India and crossed over to Pakistan?

How do you know Porus was not born in present day India ?

How do you know University at Taxila was started and staffed by scholars born in Present day India ?

Do ancient texts name a place/province/country which comprises of present day Pakistan as distinct ?

People from the rest of India cannot relate to Pakistan in this way.

Why not? Many of the non Muslim or pre-conversion to Islam "indigenous Pakistanis" had similar descent as Indians and followed cultures virtually identical to them. Converting to Islam made them distinct right ?

There is of course shared history like the British Raj, which I haven't denied. But the Indian version of history you are promoting is what gives way to them thinking they own Kashmir and Pakistan.

IIRC Gandhi said something to this effect, he was like most of Indians flummoxed as to how does conversion to Islam sheds one of his "Indian" nationality?
How were the borders of Pakistan so unique that on the west of it it was an entirely different and distinct land with no relation to the one on its eastern border.

I disagree with your view that Pakistan belonged to Indians before 1947.

Before 1947, Most parts of Pakistan like India belonged to British Monarch.

The timeline shows that way back the Indus region was covered in self governing Kingdoms, followed by Muslim empires, followed by British rule, followed by the formation of modern Pakistan.

Self-governing Kingdoms ? There were a plethora of Kingdoms and the British did not consult ancient maps (horribly inaccurate ones at that) to carve out the perfect piece of land which was totally distinct from "Republic of India". It was quite simply divided on the basis of religious affliation. Present day Bangladesh and Pakistan had a majority Muslim population or were those regions where Muslim League won a seat during elections.

Irresp, people claiming similar descent aka same ancestors were spread all over these Self-governing Kingdoms in present day Pakistan and India.

Most of those self-governing Kingdoms had changing boundaries too and there was a constant movement of population.
No wonder that Rajputs, Jats, Brahmins, Dalits, Gujjars are found all over India and Pakistan.

When some of these people converted to Islam they began to look down up non-muslims due to peculiarities in their belief systems.

I don't know why certain people would wave around the colonial map with such pride, because I distinctly remember something about a mass demand for independence.

I don't know why certain indigenous Pakistanis hail foreign Turkic rule on thier indigenous lands esp when those Turkics either had indigenous Indian or Persian mothers ? and further take imminence pride in their brutalities against indigenous Pakistanis ?

a mass Independence movement ? yeah yeah something like that did take place not very well documented at least not as much as a detailed history of Pakistan a land which has no similarity with India.

PS: This history is not taught to most of the World. Zionist-Bhatry-Hindu-Brahmin propaganda.

 

[kenchabhai]

Would you elaborate the 1300 years?

Yes, Bin Qasim came and there was an Arab rule for a time in the 7th century. The Arabs would be defeated by the Rajputs at the Battle of Rajasthan in 738, and Muslim incursions would only be resumed under later Turkic and Pathan dynasties with more local capitals, who supplanted the Caliphate and expanded their domains both northwards and eastwards.

I guess the Islamic rule started in the 13th century after that and came to an end in 1757 in all but name. So more like 550-600 years!

Why would people claim it to be 1000 years or 1300 years!

The Syrian Bin Qasim defeated "Pakistanis" ?? and yet he is celebrated in Pakistan ??
why is Aurangzeb hailed in Pakistan ?? He did nothing for "Pakistan" or "Pakistanis".
Why is Tipu Sultan hailed in Pakistan ??
why do Pakistanis claim Hyderabad/Andhra Pradesh ??

Muslims ruled India 1400years and til late 1850s than British took over than a new nation born Pakistan !

Thank you. You are claiming that Pakistan is a new creation carved out from India and unlike Unitedpak's assertion not something which existed before distinct from India.

 

[UnitedPak]

I never said anything about modern borders. Its Indian members here who worship the colonial borders. If you read my posts again, I refer to the kingdoms which made up the Indus region. I would classify that as Pakistani history as it has nothing to do with Indians.

Then comes the shared history, like Muslim Rule (make of that what you will) and British colonialism. Once again, these were Empires and by no means make us the same people, or give Indians right to Pakistani history and identity.

I am not the one basing my views on modern geography when I actually bother to cite all the past kingdoms in the region. Its the people who think British colonial India is the definition of Bharat that are delusional.

And there is far too much whining from certain members when Pakistanis dare to talk about their own history.

Regards.