What's new

Churches burnt in India

If the attempt to seperate the history of the two is to be avoided, then the Indians have to start that process first and refer to subcontinental history as "South Asian history". What Pakistanis are doing, in the presence of labeling almost everything from the subcontinent "Indian", is pointing out that a tremendous amount of history is the history of the civilizations and peoples that were the ancestors of Pakistanis, and labeling it Pakistani to differentiate from the colloquial use of "India" referring to "modern India".


I think the word "India" has a lot more historical legitimacy than "South Asia".
"India" has a long history of usage and it has been used to describe both modern India and Pakistan throughout history.

I can see why Pakistanis don't want their history refered to as history of India, but since the word India has historically also been applied to Pakistan, I don't find anything wrong with it.
 
I think the word "India" has a lot more historical legitimacy than "South Asia".
"India" has a long history of usage and it has been used to describe both modern India and Pakistan throughout history.

I can see why Pakistanis don't want their history refered to as history of India, but since the word India has historically also been applied to Pakistan, I don't find anything wrong with it.

It is the the modern interpretation of the word "India" that I have issue with - it symbolizes the modern Indian state, not the ancient general reference to a bunch of different civilizations, peoples and Kingdoms, none of which considered themselves to be part of a "United India". We have gone over this before as well.

None of the ancient peoples or civilizations referred to themselves as "Indian", as we explored on other threads, it was a name used by outsiders to refer to the general region. It is no more apt to use than is the "Orient" to describe all of the South East Asian nations - a general identifier perhaps, but every nation and people have their individual history as well.
 
And why does India take so much pride in the achievements of "Indians" who have worked and lived abroad, and even changed citizenship? Why are they still "Indian"? Have their accomplishments not occurred due to the work by non-Indians that have come before them? They didn't just land in the US and encase themselves in a cocoon. As much as Aryabhata may have done much before Brahmagupta, there were certainly non-Indians who did much before the "Indian" achievers overseas. If Bose can be eulogized as an Indian, then by the same logic Brahmagupta is a part of Pakistani history, if he was born in Multan. You cannot have it both ways.

Or, these personalities are a part of "South Asian" history.

Indians who achieve in foreign countries are refered to as Indians by Indians, and as Americans or Germans by Americans and Germans. Its quite simple. There is no conflict. For Indians, he remains an Indian. For the americans, he is an american.

However, in ancient times, this does not apply, since we define the history of a country by its geographical boundaries and not the origin of its people.
Akbar was part of Indian history, not central asian, since he adopted India as his homeland.
All humans are known to have migrated out of africa. So does that make all of history "African history"?? No. It doesn't.
 
Indians who achieve in foreign countries are refered to as Indians by Indians, and as Americans or Germans by Americans and Germans. Its quite simple. There is no conflict. For Indians, he remains an Indian. For the americans, he is an american.

However, in ancient times, this does not apply, since we define the history of a country by its geographical boundaries and not the origin of its people.
Akbar was part of Indian history, not central asian, since he adopted India as his homeland.
All humans are known to have migrated out of africa. So does that make all of history "African history"?? No. It doesn't.

You are correct that there was no geographical boundary that could have been called Pakistan, and there was none that could be called India either. I do not see what the problem with referring to this history as South Asian history is, the word India colloquially is almost always taken to mean the modern Indian State and therefore creates an inaccurate impression for most not familiar with the history. I would argue that referring to any of the history before "British India" as "Indian" is inaccurate and misleading. Call it South Asian and avoid the confusion.
 
AM, I can see your point of view.

But this thing about claiming the ancient history is a new innovation (at least as far as I can see) and quite surprising. Indeed it is a bit pleasing too as I find it better that lampooning that civilization as Jahiliyah by the Mullahs. It is good to see that at least some in Pakistan now recognize that history as their own and are willing to claim that.

I will take that any day over those claiming that foreigners invading my land started my history.
 
AM, am I worng about the following quote that I made earlier?

And don't most Pakistanis consider themselves of non-Indian origin (as in of Arab, Central Asian, Afghan or Persian stock). I read an article by a Pakistani writer that there are more Qureshis (supposedly Arab origin) in Pakistan than there are Arabs!

This is my understanding from reading some Pakistani writers in reputed Pakistani newspapers. I am sure you would have read about such claims too.

So how much % of people in pakistan consider themselves of non-Indian (or South Asian if you will) stock and part of the invading races? If its a very large % then the point of South Asian history becomes a moot one.
 
AM, I can see your point of view.

But this thing about claiming the ancient history is a new innovation (at least as far as I can see) and quite surprising. Indeed it is a bit pleasing too as I find it better that lampooning that civilization as Jahiliyah by the Mullahs. It is good to see that at least some in Pakistan now recognize that history as their own and are willing to claim that.

I will take that any day over those claiming that foreigners invading my land started my history.

Vinod,

There are quite a few Pakistanis who are frustrated by this attitude that existed pre-Musharraf, and still exists in some sections. One more "blessing" of Zia, and of the obscurantist, free thought stifling Mullah's.

As you imply, by referring to it as "Jahiliyaah", some people encourage feelings of hate for any other than Muslims, and inculcate a false sense of superiority that is antithetical to the equality commanded in the Quran, that the same people will then throw in your face when you question their prejudicial attitudes to others, sometimes other Muslims!
 
AM, am I worng about the following quote that I made earlier?



This is my understanding from reading some Pakistani writers in reputed Pakistani newspapers. I am sure you would have read about such claims too.

So how much % of people in pakistan consider themselves of non-Indian (or South Asian if you will) stock and part of the invading races? If its a very large % then the point of South Asian history becomes a moot one.

That is a question for anthropologists to answer. RR has attempted to provide some in the threads in the history sub forum, and he would be better able to answer.

I personally simply consider myself Pakistani. My father was quite insistent about us learning our "rajput" heritage, and for a while, through my late teens, I was impressed by the thought. Now I don't care. I am a Pakistani from Lahore.

Perhaps where we share history with Central Asia, it can be referred to as Afghan-Pakistan history, and where we share history with India, referred to as Indo-Pak (or South Asian) history. Again, it isn't so much that I want to deny any links that Pakistan has with modern India, I just would like a more neutral term used to describe it.
 
Jana,

Stop being coy and being cute.!

i dont need to because i am ;)

!
Your skulduggery remains exposed!!

it was you who exposed by crediting someone's else quote to me anyway you are an elder so idont mind whatever u say

!
Heavens bless you!!

It has ;)



!
Journalists dress lies as truths!

And thereby putting food on their table!

but atleast we do not steal the food meant for our colleagues to serve it on our tables unlike some of your fellows from your profession did ;) ;)
 
Sorry RR now you continue your wonderful konwledge on History.

@ Sir Ray

Hope next time when you post anything from nytimes against Pakistan get ready to call it pack of lies too ;) :)
 
It ways he was born in India. It refers to modern india and not ancient.

Well, that's a lie. When they say "india", they mean the subcontinent. That seems to be the basis of your references. Prove to me they mean modern India, and not Ancient India in your previous references. You won't be able to..

I believe it says that he was a hindu.

Hindu is an assumption, based on the name, which in turn is a common Hunnic derivation for invaders that came to Pakistan. They include Vedic people, and I believe Buddhist people in this category. Remember in 600 AD, Pakistan was not a Hindu dominanted country. Therefore it is likely that Brahmagupta was a Vedic or Buddhist follower.

Clearly says that he was born in Rajasthan.

My link clearly says born in Multan. So which is it? It is clear that he had connections with Multan though.

Alrite, here are some more links:

Elementary Number Theory with ... - Google Book Search
(says that he was born in Bhillamala and worked in Ujjain)

Fine - see end.


Which I don't dispute altogether. I'm saying he was born in Multan, and you keep quoting me where he worked!


Doesnt say where he was born.

Mathematics and Its History - Google Book Search
(Says that he was the teacher from Bhillamala)

http://www.math.utah.edu/~treiberg/isoperim/isop.pdf
(Says that he was from Ujjain)

Sherlock Holmes in Babylon and Other ... - Google Book Search
(says Brahmagupta of Bhillamala)

I can go on posting more links, but I'm bored now...

Out of all these links, only one of them has said where he was born..this too from google book search. Alright, here is another google book search..

A History of Sanskrit Literature - Google Book Search

Says Brahmagupta was born AD 598, son of Jisnu of Bhillamalla, near Multan etc.

None of your links except one, says where he was born. I posted a solid link to say he was born in Multan plus one of the many google.books references. My link, Strasbourg University, is a highly credible academic link.

He was an ancient Pakistani working in the region of modern Northwest India (Rajasthan). Whether he made all his discoveries in India or only some is not known. What is known is that he was born in Multan (son of Jisnu).
 
That is a question for anthropologists to answer. RR has attempted to provide some in the threads in the history sub forum, and he would be better able to answer.

I personally simply consider myself Pakistani. My father was quite insistent about us learning our "rajput" heritage, and for a while, through my late teens, I was impressed by the thought. Now I don't care. I am a Pakistani from Lahore.

Perhaps where we share history with Central Asia, it can be referred to as Afghan-Pakistan history, and where we share history with India, referred to as Indo-Pak (or South Asian) history. Again, it isn't so much that I want to deny any links that Pakistan has with modern India, I just would like a more neutral term used to describe it.

And I agree with you 100 % here. I guess when we talk of "Indian" history, everyone understands that its not about the modern India but the common civilization that is shared by all South Asians that is being talked about. Any attempt to monopolize that by people either in modern India or modern Pakistan is to be resisted I feel. I would go a step beyond and say it is even the common heritage of all people in the world as fellow humans.

I feel that I am a part of other many such great event and civilzations (of course not in the physical sense), just by virtue of being a fellow human.

If the nomenclature is the issue, then personally I won't have an issue if you call it by another name that satisfies people. Its the recent idea of some people trying to claim otherwise for the common and shared history that I have an issue with.

Thanks RoadRunner in advance , if you can help me with the facts about the question that I asked AM about the % Paksitani population claiming non-South Asian inheritence.
 
Well, that's a lie. When they say "india", they mean the subcontinent. That seems to be the basis of your references. Prove to me they mean modern India, and not Ancient India in your previous references. You won't be able to..

Look, its quite obvious that "India" refers to modern India unless specified otherwise. No author would be **** enough to confuse modern India with Pakistan.
If a reference is made to ancient India, it is usually written as "now in Pakistan" or something of the sort.

Hindu is an assumption, based on the name, which in turn is a common Hunnic derivation for invaders that came to Pakistan. They include Vedic people, and I believe Buddhist people in this category. Remember in 600 AD, Pakistan was not a Hindu dominanted country. Therefore it is likely that Brahmagupta was a Vedic or Buddhist follower.

It is obviously not an assumption. You can't simply call anything you disagree with an assumption. I have given plenty of sources describing him as a hindu. By your standards, this fact is verified.

There was no Vedic religion in 600 AD, which was the era of classical hinduism. The conclusion that he was a hindu is based upon his work, which clearly gives away his hindu beliefs.

The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang visited Multan in 641 AD, and described Multan as a grand city whose people did not believe in Buddha. He said the city had eight deva temples and one grand temple dedicated to Surya dev.
Source: History ..: Hamara Multan :..

In any case, the Vedic religion itself is an early form of Hinduism.

My link clearly says born in Multan. So which is it? It is clear that he had connections with Multan though.

It says he was "of Multan". If you notice, in 600 AD, Mulan was under hindu rule. The people there were not buddhists but Sun worshippers (i.e. Surya Dev).
Before the Arab conquests, Multan was ruled by a Brahmin king Raja Chach.

Multan was mostly ruled by hindu kings till the invasion of the Arabs.


Out of all these links, only one of them has said where he was born..this too from google book search. Alright, here is another google book search..

A History of Sanskrit Literature - Google Book Search

Says Brahmagupta was born AD 598, son of Jisnu of Bhillamalla, near Multan etc.

Bhillamala refers to modern Bhinmal, on the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan. I don't see how this link helps your case. It clearly mentions him as born within the boundaries of India.


None of your links except one, says where he was born. I posted a solid link to say he was born in Multan plus one of the many google.books references. My link, Strasbourg University, is a highly credible academic link.

My links say he was "from Bhillamala". Clearly, by your definition, that means that he was born in Bhillamala since even your link says that he was "of Multan".

On top of that, I have given you links that use the word "born" in conjunction with "Bhillamala".

Read the following paragraph:

The famous Iranic scholar Al-Beruni summarised these canons thus, providing slightly different names for the various systems:

"They [the Indians] have 5 Siddhāntas:

1. Sūrya-Siddhānta, ie. the Siddhānta of the Sun, composed by Lāṭa,
2. Vasishṭa-siddhānta, so called from one of the stars of the Great Bear, composed by Vishnucandra,
3. Pulisa-siddhānta, so called from Paulisa, the Greek, from the city of Saintra, which I suppose to be Alexandria, composed by Pulisa.
4. Romaka-siddhānta, so called from the Rūm, ie. the subjects of the Roman Empire, composed by Śrīsheṇa.
5. Brahma-siddhānta, so called from Brahman, composed by Brahmagupta, son of Jishṇu, from the town of Bhillamāla between Multān and Anhilwāra, 16 yojanas from the latter place.


Source: History on Podium: Varahamihira, a Great Iranic astronomer

Read point number 5. It quotes directly from Al-Beruni. I hope you don't say that this might be a mistranslation or that this link is not credible, because I really don't think someone can mistranslate something this badly.

I think it is now beyond doubt that he was born in Bhillamala,between Multan and Anhilwara


He was an ancient Pakistani working in the region of modern Northwest India (Rajasthan). Whether he made all his discoveries in India or only some is not known. What is known is that he was born in Multan (son of Jisnu).

Here is a quote that ought to seal the case:

"his book Brahma-sputa-siddhanta describes him as the teacher from Bhillamala, which is a town now known as Bhinmal"

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=yPsl0WzBzZYC&pg=PA80&dq=%22brahmagupta%22+%22bhillamala%22&lr=&ei=g7V9R7XuH4KmtgPSlanFBA&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=eHBZ10YC4as67TJVxLHtbHhMpvs#PPA79,M1

his own work Brahma-sputa-siddhanta describes him as born in Bhinmal. What more proof do you need?

If you need more proof, here is a german professor:

Entwicklung der Darstellung und Dokumentation von algebraischen Sachverhalten

It says that he worked at the astronomical observatory at Ujjain. So there goes your assumption that he didn't do any of his work in India.

Here is another source:

Brahmagupta: 598 A.D. - ). The son of Jisnu, was the author of Brahma-Siddhanta (828 A.D.) or Sphuta-Siddhanta. He did not accept the diurnal rotation of the earth. Alberuni says that he was a native of Bhillamala near Multan. Probably, he lived in the court of Chapa king, Vyagra - mukha. Perhaps, he is the first to use algebra for astronomical calculations and to give zero its rightful positions.
http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/data/upload/0047/997/TXT/00000020.txt

It says, that Al-Beruni described him as a native of Bhillamala. This corresponds with my earlier link quoting Al-Beruni.

So, it is clear now that he was born in Bhillamala (bhinmal), headed the observatory at Ujjain, and wrote his Brahma-sputa-siddhanta at Bhinmal.

Here is yet another quote in portuguese:
Matemático da Índia Central nascido em Ujain, que demonstrou a solução geral para a equação do segundo grau em números inteiros, as diofantinas, e desenvolveu a métodos algébricos gerais para aplicação na astronomia, em sua principal obra Brahmasphutasiddhanta (628), um trabalho matemático escrito em 25 capítulos, em Bhillamala, onde era professor e que hoje é a cidade de Bhinmal, então capital das terras regidas pela Dinastia de Gurjara
Brahmagupta

It says that he wrote Brahmasphutasiddhanta at Bhillamala, which is modern Bhinmal, and the capital of the dynasty of Gurjara.
 
And I agree with you 100 % here. I guess when we talk of "Indian" history, everyone understands that its not about the modern India but the common civilization that is shared by all South Asians that is being talked about. Any attempt to monopolize that by people either in modern India or modern Pakistan is to be resisted I feel. I would go a step beyond and say it is even the common heritage of all people in the world as fellow humans.

I feel that I am a part of other many such great event and civilzations (of course not in the physical sense), just by virtue of being a fellow human.

If the nomenclature is the issue, then personally I won't have an issue if you call it by another name that satisfies people. Its the recent idea of some people trying to claim otherwise for the common and shared history that I have an issue with.

Thanks RoadRunner in advance , if you can help me with the facts about the question that I asked AM about the % Paksitani population claiming non-South Asian inheritence.

Look Vinod, the population of an area rarely retains its gene pool over time. There are invasions, migrations, famines, floods, all sorts of things happen.

I am quite sure there is no way of ascertaining how many people of pakistan are of "non-pakistani" origin, because it is entirely subjective and depends on which point of time you take as the starting line.

If you go far back enough, all the people of Pakistan are from Africa.

If Iran wanted, it can claim all of Pakistani history since most Pakistanis are of "iranic" origin, whatever that means.

This whole business of dividing up history is a dirty one, but I'm afraid there is no choice in the matter. It needs to be done, because if we don't claim our history, someone else will claim it as theirs.
 
Stealth, I understand that we have a mixed population. And many people who claim non-Indian descent are not actually being truthful. They just feel it gives them a higher stature in a Muslim society for whatever reasons.

Here, I wanted to know how many people claim non-Indian descent (not how many are of non-Indian descent). I understand it is a surprisingly high number, but it is mostly from Pakistani newspaper ed-ops. If someone can present this number from a credible source, this will at least put into perspective that how many people actually believe that the pre-invasion history actually belongs to them too.

And I don't see that if some people went their own way for whatever reason, how that takes away the loooong time that we shared. We may have a separate future, but to claim a separate past is being factually wrong. Here I am not referring to those who claim some non-Indian descent, of course. But then they can't claim any piece of the history of this land.

If someone rejects that shared past, I don't give a damn. If someone tries to appropriate it, I have an issue. So if Pakistanis are happy ignoring or vilifying the pre-Arab invasion history (which we are informed is changing now), then that history belongs to the rest of the South Asians. If some of them are comfortable about it and want to share it, I don't see a problem.

I do have a problem if someone wants to appropriate that history exclusively after rejecting it for so long. Anyway I don't this as being anything more than the opinion of more than a few people on the internet. At least one has never heard of the Pakistani government claiming that the Pre-Islamic civilization was a Pakistani one. Nor has one heard of very term "Pakistani civilization" by any reputed history scholar. So its no more than a storm in a tea cup.

It is really a bit interesting to see some ancient Hindu mathematician being called an exclusive Pakistani. Surely that guy would be shocked to know that he was a Pakistani without ever knowing about it!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom