First World War - Finding Pakistan's place in history.

[third eye]

India of today was created on August 15, 1947 (one day later than Pakistan).

Actually..

Pakistan was carved out of British India, what remained became India.

Going by this logic, can what is now Pakistan & BD be called Predecessor States of India and therefore claimed ?

 

[VCheng]

Nobody cares. British or europeans could even call them as "Indians" but they were Pashtun, Baloch, Kashmiris, Punjabis and Sindhis and identified themselves for that what they are and fought for their country.

Their tombstones clearly identify them as soldiers of the British Empire, not of Pakistan.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Bhai sahib

If you want to gain respect as a modern day India citizen,

then

give the same to others.

Yes sire. I am doing that.

 

[INDIC]

Bad history!

Again!

Jinnah was born in Karachi.
Iqbal in Sialkot,

Muslim League won majority of Seats in elections/referendums from modern day Punjab and Sindh and KP in Pakistan.


Do you study at all

or just shoot breeze?

Jinnah was a Gujarati from Gondal in Gujarat and it he don't become a Sindhi in single generation and you also know lot many Muslims from United Provinces and Bengal were associated with Pakistan movement. So, Pakistan as a state was created on Muslim identity, not on some regional identity of North-West. Iqbal wrote poems in praise of India/Hind.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Well essentially, the Germans of today should not be responsible for what Hitler did. Yet the state of Germany and Germans in general end up paying Israel millions every year in aid as some sort of moral punishment.

Moral punishment? Nope - it's more like blackmail and extortion now. And make no mistake this is coming from a supporter of the State of Israel.

 

[scorpionx]

In the context of India's participation in the first world war, a famous quote of Jinnah may give a hint what was the characteristic relation between the Empire and Indians. He remarked,"I say that if you [British] wish us to help you to facilitate to stimulate the recruiting, you must make the educated people feel that they are the citizens of the Empire and the King's equal subjects.."

The statement above proves the fact that citizens of British India did not join the war out of any patriotic compulsion but by individual choice. While this is true that a soldier must be bestowed with accolade for his heroic achievements and bravery, it must be noted that without a specific nationalist zeal, a soldier is often very close to be a mercenary. Perhaps, this is why the finest and ablest French, German or English generals in the Mughal, Maratha or Nizam's army are seldom revered or remembered today.

 

[PakhtunGuy]

Jinnah identified himself as Gujrati.. are you saying that the founder of Pakistan was not worthy of being Pakistani?
This attitude of only identifying Pakistanis if their heritage came from the boundaries of Pakistan has to stop.. or Pakistan will not last.

Additionally, there were/are Pasthuns/decendants in India today as well. They call themsleves Indians and not Pakistanis..

That is a wrong accusation. I have nothing against muhajirs.
Everyone could become a Pakistani. But you should not deny your heritage. And people who became Pakistanis should have respect for native Pakistanis.

 

[FaujHistorian]

And the rank and unit is part of the British Army that the respected Havaldar served, right?

yeap. And the regiments still have home in Abbotabad Pakistan

And not in middleburry UK.

you need serious study of military history my friend.

Serious study.

 

[Kompromat]

Good, then why take the pains to contort out a connection for Pakistan with the First World War? That history may belong to the regiments, but not to Pakistan, which did not exist at that point.

Because it doesn't matter what the region was called in 19freakingfourtheen as long as the people concerned were our people.

 

[SQ8]

India back then was classified as a region not a country because there was no nation state structure present at that time.

The most relevant post to this sub-debate. Essentially, an Indian was one that came from the land of the Indus rivers. There was no tricolour or Crescent on Green. A Bengali was Indian.. so was a Tamilian.. and a Punjabi. Ironically, the Pathans were identified as Afghans and not Indians in recent history.

But if we really look at history as defined by the west then a lot of classifications were bridged together based on their exploratory chronicles and views. If we look from the view of say historians from Arabia or even Indian historians.. there were much more distinct identities classified. By that perspective, most of India identified themselves by their ethnicity and had no concept of a United Indian nationalism or anything of that sort.

 

[VCheng]

Because it doesn't matter what the region was called in 19freakingfourtheen as long as the people concerned were our people.

Okay, if "it doesn't matter" what the region was called at the point in history being discussed (WW1) then why call it by a name that did not even exist then?

yeap. And the regiments still have home in Abbotabad Pakistan

And not in middleburry UK.

you need serious study of military history my friend.

Serious study.

So the regiments have their history that is longer than the history of the State that they are now a part of. Happens all the time!

 

[PakhtunGuy]

Additionally, there were/are Pasthuns/decendants in India today as well. They call themsleves Indians and not Pakistanis..

Indians of Pashtun origin are Indians and not Pashtuns or Pakistanis.

They even mixed with Indians and don't look like Pashtuns at all nor they speak a single word Pashto.

Just like the parsis in India.

 

[INDIC]

Correct, which is why term Indians IMHO should apply to both Pakistanis and Indians pre-47. However, the nations that exist today are Pakistan and Bharat. Not India and Pakistan. Even the Indian state identifies itself as "India that is Bharat".. not India as used to be united with Pakistan, Bangladesh and the land that has been named Bharat.

We are two countries but in reality perception of history in both countries is that of a common landmasses, the Indians see everything East of Indus and until Gandhara in North-West as inseparable part of Indian history since the antiquity, same with Pakistanis perceiving all Islamic history of present Indian landmass as their history. It seems quite bizarre when Pakistanis present a separate history of North-West from Indians.

 

[FaujHistorian]

In the context of India's participation in the first world war, a famous quote of Jinnah may give a hint what was the characteristic relation between the Empire and Indians. He remarked,"I say that if you [British] wish us to help you to facilitate to stimulate the recruiting, you must make the educated people feel that they are the citizens of the Empire and the King's equal subjects.."

The statement above proves the fact that citizens of British India did not join the war out of any patriotic compulsion but by individual choice. While this is true that a soldier must be bestowed with accolade for his heroic achievements and bravery, it must be noted that without a specific nationalist zeal, a soldier is often very close to be a mercenary. Perhaps, this is why the finest and ablest French, German or English generals in the Mughal, Maratha or Nizam's army are seldom revered or remembered today.

Scorp bhai,

Martial tribes of British India have had joined as soldiers and policemen long before WW-1.

--------------- What Jinnah may have said

or

--------------- Why Gandhi became honorary Lieutenant in British Indian army (even when he was a leader of Congress)


Were all those political games being played by the politicians.

These politicians were using the bravery and patriotism of martial tribes for their own purposes e.g. extract political mileage.


peace

We are two countries but in reality perception of history .....

your perception is usually not based on reality.

Sorry to say.

.....



So the regiments have their history that is longer than the history of the State that they are now a part of. Happens all the time!

To be precise, those "regiments" in reality formed the country.

you cannot separate the two.

 

[MM_Haider]

Not keeping up with the latest trends in science and technology, military, trade, travel, conquest as well as the failure to evolve our political structures which could provide a robust basis for human growth. Americans had a constitution when we were rich but spent most of the time in hermes and killing family members for the right to rule.

just for the sake of avoidance of any doubt and clarity: Which era you are talking about when 'we' didn't keep up with latest trends. I reckon, you refer to Mughals, from Muslim Ummah Point of view. I am talking from pure nationalist point of view.