What's new

Did Two Nation Theory Die in 1971 After Creation of Bangladesh?

Mehrgarh (7000 BC-2500 BC) in Balochistan, Rehman Dheri (4000 BC) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Harappa (3300 BC-1300 BC) in Punjab, Mohenjodaro (2600 BC-1900 BC) in Sindh, and many other similar sites in Gilgit Baltistan are testimony to the fact that the Indus Valley Civilization has archeological and historical linkages with all corners of Pakistan. The core of this civilization remains in Pakistan with a bit of spill over in Iran, Afghanistan and India. The Indians falsely claim that Indus valley Civilization is Indian Civilization, which it is not.

The sub-continent has mainly been divided in two major regions. The landmass served by Indus river valley , its tributaries and the adjoining plains and the areas served by Ganges river valley, its tributaries and its adjoining plains. These two areas are separated by a distinct watershed. The Indus river valley and its adjoining plains etc has been the home of Meluhha, the people of Indus Valley Civilization which is known as Pakistan. The map spread of Indus Valley Civilization roughly aligns with the map of Pakistan and has known history of over 9000 years. The only time this land was politically united with Republic of India happened on three occasions during the times of Mauryans, Muslim and British rules and for around 8000 years it remained as a separate political entity. These two areas have remained separate entities for around 8000 years out of 9000 years of known history and therefore existed as two different nations. The Two nation Theory therefore has historical linkages which can not be denied.

The remaining people in the sub-continent live in Republic of India which gained independence in 1947. They have their own history and a different identity which many do not know and falsely claim that IVC is Indian Civilization, which it was never Indian during its entire history, from its peak to its decline and fading out. The Indians seek their identity in the Vedic and Hindu scriptures which they try to relate with the IVC. The fact that IVC pre-dated the advent of Vedic and Hindu scriptures and literature defies such a claim.

It is time that Indians find their own identity and stop claiming that IVC was an Indian civilization which it has never been.
 
You good at faking history by claiming Gandhara was never Hindu. :omghaha: Is modern Pashto language continuation of Prakrit once spoken in Gandhara.:wacko: 



Its called Indo-Iranian, Iranians have their own culture, Indians have their own.


Shameful you are still trying to claim what belongs to others.

Jesus was an Indian too.
 
hindu is the geographical name given by muslims to the people of the subcontinent who beleive in the different religions ......

The fact is that the words "Hindu" and "India" have a foreign origin. The word "Hindu" is neither a Sanskrit word nor is this word found in any of the native dialects and languages of India. It should be noted that "Hindu" is not a religious word at all. There is no reference of the word "Hindu" in the ancient Vedic Scriptures.

It is said that the Persians used to refer to the Indus river as Sindhu. However, the Persians could not pronounce the letter "S" correctly in their native tongue and mispronounced it as "H." Thus, for the ancient Persians, the word "Sindhu" became "Hindu." However, it actually meant the River Sindh and did not refer to present day Hindus in any capacity.

The ancient Persian Cuneiform inscriptions and the Zend Avesta refer to the word "Hindu" as a geographic name rather than a religious name. When the Persian King Darious 1 extended his empire up to the borders of the Indian subcontinent in 517 BC, some people of the Indian subcontinent became part of his empire and army. Thus for a very long time the ancient Persians referred to these people as "Hindus". The ancient Greeks and Armenians followed the same pronunciation, and thus, gradually the name stuck.

The word "India" also has a similar foreign origin. Even the word Bharat is merely described in Vedic Mythology and as a matter of fact in the epic Mahabharat, which is one of the two "Itihasa", where one finds reference of the word "Bharat". As per legend, the land ruled by the great King "Bharata" was called Bharat. In actuality, there was no King named Bharat and Mahabharata is a story.

The ancient Greeks used to mispronounce the river Sindhu as Indos. When Alexander invaded India, the Macedonian army referred to the river as Indus and the land east of the river as India. The Greek writers who wrote about Alexander preferred to use the same name.

For the Arabs the land became Al-Hind. The Muslim rulers and travelers who came to India during the medieval period referred the Indian subcontinent as "Hindustan" and the people who lived there as Hindus.
 
Your civilisation was started by aryans and the only aryans around were Iranians, they invented Hinduism gave it to you and to keep the imbreds under control they created a cast system.

What undiluted crap man. Pakistan O level history 1.1.
 
Shameful you are still trying to claim what belongs to others.

Jesus was an Indian too.

Jesus wasn't Indian, I put some questions, hope you understood it. 
hindu is the geographical name given by muslims to the people of the subcontinent who beleive in the different religions ......

What different religion? All Hindus believe in 4 Vedas and Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh.
 
What different religion? All Hindus believe in 4 Vedas and Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh.
hindu is the geographical name for all people of the sub-continent ,no matter what the religion they have ...like christan hindu, muslim hindus buddist hindus even hindu hindu:lol: jain hindu .......donot twist my comment deleberately...


@ghilzai
 
hindu is the geographical name for all people of the sub-continent ,no matter what the religion they have ...like christan hindu, muslim hindus buddist hindus even hindu hindu:lol: jain hindu .......donot twist my comment deleberately...


@ghilzai

You weren't pointing to name but tried to proof the crap that Hindus aren't a single religion group. :girl_wacko:
 
You weren't pointing to name but tried to proof the crap that Hindus aren't a single religion group. :girl_wacko:

the group without religious group name .
since its not religious name but u take and use "hindu"word as a religious name recently .....


even ur religious group is not single ..its divided ........................................
 
the group without religious group name .
since its not religious name u take "hindu"word as a religious name recently .....


even ur religious group is not single ..its divided ........................................

Which religion is not divided into sects. Hindu is a word applied to people following a common religion.
 
Which religion is not divided into sects. Hindu is a word applied to people following a common religion.

sect is not islam ...its politically done by people .....islam is to beleive in quran and prophets ....to beleive in one GOD .......but u people beleive in m....... ok leave it...

early vedic people beleived in one GOD and were not idol worshipper..they were called pure people ...there is MUHAMMAD name which is arabic name in sanskrit vedas ..how come its possible??
 
sect is not islam ...its politically done by people .....islam is till quran and prophets ....to beleive in one GOD .......but u people beleive in m....... ok leave it...

early vedic people beleived in one GOD and were not idol worshipper..they were called pure people ...there is MUHAMMAD name which is arabic name in sanskrit vedas ..how come its possible??

Have you even read Vedas, we still follow the four original Vedas. Sects are reality in all major religion of the world like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism. Among Hindus sect is not given too much importance.
 
Back
Top Bottom