Calendars show Pakistan as part of India

[Vinod2070]

Great points kenchabhai.

 

[kenchabhai]

I never said anything about modern borders. Its Indian members here who worship the colonial borders.

Colonial borders comprised Burma too.

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.

Why? You gave a mere statement and no arguments.

Most of the non-Muslim Kings of subcontinent claimed descent from Indians including those that ruled over erstwhile Pakistan. Even many Pakistanis till today claim descent from "Indian" ancestors/tribes such as Gujjars, Rajputs, Jats,Brahmins etc.

Then comes the shared history, like Muslim Rule (make of that what you will) and British colonialism.

I make nothing of either. They were Kings who wanted to rule as much land as they could. IMPERIALISM.

Once again, these were Empires and by no means make us the same people, or give Indians right to Pakistani history and identity.

this is a illogical argument. First you say Self-governing empires under present day boundaries of Pakisltan made people distinct from those under present day Indian boundaries and then you say people under self-governing empires such as Mughals, Asoka, British are dissimilar on the basis of boundaries created in 1947 ???

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.

Bharat(region)as per definition refers to quite a big area comprising of most of the subcontinent.
Bharat Ganrajya(country) is well republic of India.

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

this is a childish accusation, crying IMO is when the posts contain these terms "we ruled you for 1000 years" and "Taj Mahal is ours".

 

[Vinod2070]

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 crying from certain members when Pakistanis dare to talk about their own history.

Regards.

Indians think that all colonialists were bad. All of them.

You chose to worship one set!

And you can't conveniently chose some history as shared and some as exclusive. Now, can you?

 

[Vinod2070]

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 ??

This is called utter confusion!

There is the new found struggle to define or find an identity beyond just the Islamic one on the one hand and the reality of Pakistan being created solely in the name of Islam on the other.

Two totally incompatible ideologies.

"Do patan ke beech me sabut bacha na koay".

 

[UnitedPak]

Your arguments are mostly based on the use of the term "India" in its various contexts. If modern India had chosen another name then there would have been no link between Pakistani history and the Indian people.

The fact is that the history of Pakistan starts from Mehrgarh and Indus Valley all the way to the recent times, and it belongs to the Pakistani people. No matter what they called themselves, the identity still belongs to the same people. You cant shove Indians in anywhere.
Even to this day, the differences between all the people of the subcontinent are well defined. These are historical, language, cultural, appearance and religious differences. You cant just ignore them all and claim shared identity.

I am out.

 

[U-571]

no damn pic

 

[kenchabhai]

Your arguments are mostly based on the use of the term "India" in its various contexts. If modern India had chosen another name then there would have been no link between Pakistani history and the Indian people.

India is an "English" term. Indians would have never used the term India to describe themselves if the British had not come here and popularised English.
Though, when learning English or History, Indians and Pakistanis would have had to use the term India, Hind, Hindustan, Bharat etc. as the dictionaries and historians accounts would have used these terms to describe this region as per the language of the accounts.

PS: If it weren't for Persians and Arabs, Indians would have not used the term Hind, Hindu or Hindustan either.

The fact is that the history of Pakistan starts from Mehrgarh and Indus Valley all the way to the recent times, and it belongs to the Pakistani people. No matter what they called themselves, the identity still belongs to the same people. You cant shove Indians in anywhere.

NO. History of Pakistan starts from events post 14th August 1947 as Pakistan did not exist before.
Pakistan's boundaries were defined by the contiguous districts in which Muslims were in a simple majority or in which Muslim League won elections or which British decided to grant them as per radcliffe line.
The Muslims in favour of Pakistan wanted nothing to do with anything "Indian" and everything to do with anything "Islamic".

The Muslims of South Asia believe that...The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial, racial, linguistic nor ethnic; rather they are a nation because they belong to the same faith, Islam....They demanded that areas where they were in majority should be constituted into a sovereign state, wherein they would be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S. A. W.).

The Ideology of Pakistan: Two-Nation Theory
The Ideology of Pakistan: Two-Nation Theory

Not surprisingly the true heirs of the civilizations you mentioned wrongly as "Pakistani" are "Indian Hindus" and not "Pakistani Muslims". The culture of Indus Valley or Mehrgarh was not Muslim/Islamic.

Pakistani Muslims claim a nation based on faith they don't care if Mehrgarh or Indus Valley civilization was included in the borders were they to be granted nationhood.

Even to this day, the differences between all the people of the subcontinent are well defined. These are historical, language, cultural, appearance and religious differences. You cant just ignore them all and claim shared identity. I am out.

How can then Pakistanis have a shared identity ? or how can then Punjabi Muslim Gujjar claim Mehrgarh ?

1. Historical differences - ? Syrian Bin Qasim ruled parts of southeastern Pakistan after defeating the "Pakistani" King but was defeated by a joint force comprising of Central Pakistani Rajputs were instrumental in defeating him. Ironically he is still lionized in Pakistan.
2. Language - There are differences in language in Pakistan eg. Urduspeakers/Muhajir, Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashtu, Balochi, Kutchi, Gujarati, Memoni, Brahui etc.
3. Cultural - All the people described above divided provincially on the basis of language have developed regional cultures based on their regions, and tribal cultures based on their tribes. For eg. Punjabi, Balochi, Sindhi, Shaikh, Pashtu, Gujjar, Muhajir, Parsi, Thar Hindus, Lahoris etc.
4. Religious - Many Pakistanis, follow Deoband School(located in India) some follow Shia Islam, some follow Ahmedi school of thought etc.
5. Appearance - There are differences in appearances in pakistanis. Pashtuns, Arab, Persian, turkic, punjabis, sindhis, balochis, biharis, malaylis,kutchi, gujaratis etc.

What were you trying to prove ?

To reiterate "The basis of Pakistani nationhood is neither territorial, racial, linguistic nor ethnic; rather they are a nation because they belong to the same faith, Islam."

 

[Vinod2070]

To reiterate "The basis of Pakistani nationhood is neither territorial, racial, linguistic nor ethnic; rather they are a nation because they belong to the same faith, Islam."

Exactly what I have been saying.

If your nation is born on the concept of faith, you can't claim the accident of geography as a basis for your history. That too trying to claim it exclusively.

A much too belated recognition of shared Pre-Islamic glorious heritage is a welcome development though.

 

[Meesna]

Only Pakistanis and Indians can have a five pages worth of fight over some map in some calendar somewhere.

 

[UnitedPak]

Not surprisingly the true heirs of the civilizations you mentioned wrongly as "Pakistani" are "Indian Hindus" and not "Pakistani Muslims". The culture of Indus Valley or Mehrgarh was not Muslim/Islamic.

Pakistani Muslims claim a nation based on faith they don't care if Mehrgarh or Indus Valley civilization was included in the borders were they to be granted nationhood.

The true heirs of the Indus Valley/Mehrgarh are the Pre-Islamic Pakistani people. I have never claimed they were Muslims, but they were Pakistani ancestors and not Indian in any way.

I also mentioned Pakistan's diverse people, and the Pakistani identity and history is that of all its people.
How can you talk about an "Indian" identity if you think Pakistan is too diverse?

Your views are extremely flawed if you think Pakistan's conversion to Islam/1947 independence changed the roots of the people.
The people have always been the same, and distinct from the rest of India.