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

[Kabira]

What should I add? This note more or less sums up the situation, except that @Armstrong should get an Indian passport immediately and get to work helping out in Kashmir. Stop lallygagging and get to work.



Try not to be utterly stupid.

I live in the Punjab. In Dera Bassi, to be exact. The Biharis and the other Bhaiyas are an essential part of the ecology. Things would come to a grinding halt without them. They get beaten up by some exuberant Jats every now and then, which is fine: those same Jats beat up other Jats every now and then. Without the Bhaiyas, the harvest wouldn't happen, building wouldn't happen, any manner of hard labour wouldn't happen.

So cork up.

Please.

Yes things will also come to halt in Pakistan punjab villages without ganga vasis, i completly agree with you on that. But we don't beat them and neither humilate them like Indian punjabis are doing. Seem like Indian punjabis hatered for ganga hindus is very deep, probably to do with 84 among many other things.

Thats why its very important for hindu like indic to experience Indian punjab village once in a life time.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes things will also come to halt in Pakistan punjab villages without ganga vasis, i completly agree with you on that. But we don't beat them and neither humilate them like Indian punjabis are doing. Seem like Indian punjabis hatered for ganga hindus is very deep, probably to do with 84 among many other things.

Thats why its very important for hindu like indic to experience Indian punjab village once in a life time.

Frankly, while @INDIC may or may not have experience of Indian Punjab life, and village life in particular, I have, having lived in the Punjab three times counting this one. And I do not agree with your evaluation.

Why are you going on and on like this? Do you think you will get people up in arms against each other with this kind of silly Internet propaganda?

 

[Kabira]

Frankly, while @INDIC may or may not have experience of Indian Punjab life, and village life in particular, I have, having lived in the Punjab three times counting this one. And I do not agree with your evaluation.

Why are you going on and on like this? Do you think you will get people up in arms against each other with this kind of silly Internet propaganda?

Sir one cannot experience punjab in cities, when indic visit some village and get beaten there like typical hindu then he will understand meaning of punjab. Sir tell me when did Punjab ever treated hindus with respect historically? Didn't hindus always got beaten like rabid dogs or just imported to do dirty work which punjabi tribes didn't want to do?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't know where to start.

Hindus have never been treated with disrespect by Sikhs; in fact, one of the Gurus laid down his life for Hindus, the Kashmiri Pandits, specifically. Banda Bairagi was a Hindu ascetic when he was selected by Guru Gobind Singh to lead the Khalsa after him. At that time, and well into the 80s, Muslims were a target of the Khalsa after it became militant; read up the battle of Chhaparchiri to understand how deep the hatred went. Malerkotla was noted for being communal killing free during partition, because its Nawab had pleaded for the lives of the Guru's young children; the exception, dear Sir, proves the rule.

Now for the Punjab village: are you aware - I accept @INDIC might not be - that today, the bulk of the villagers are Sikhs, but Punjabi Hindus live there cheek to jowl with them in every village that I have seen?

I was angry with you earlier; now I realise that you genuinely thought all that you were pumping out was true. WHERE did you get this nonsense? If you write to me after the 18th, I will answer you in full detail about the sociology and demography of the present and the past Punjab. Right now, I have to pack; I have a train to catch.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Perfectly correct, unexceptionable, as a matter of fact.

.

Thank you my dear bro.

I should have tagged you earlier.

...
Why do I find you upholding the same point of view as that rabid little bigot @save_ghenda? I am really upset to see you here.

I am not familiar with sg.

As usual no history with him. So I am clueless about this particular intra-poster tussle aspect of debate.

 

[Kabira]

I don't know where to start.

Hindus have never been treated with disrespect by Sikhs; in fact, one of the Gurus laid down his life for Hindus, the Kashmiri Pandits, specifically. Banda Bairagi was a Hindu ascetic when he was selected by Guru Gobind Singh to lead the Khalsa after him. At that time, and well into the 80s, Muslims were a target of the Khalsa after it became militant; read up the battle of Chhaparchiri to understand how deep the hatred went. Malerkotla was noted for being communal killing free during partition, because its Nawab had pleaded for the lives of the Guru's young children; the exception, dear Sir, proves the rule.

Now for the Punjab village: are you aware - I accept @INDIC might not be - that today, the bulk of the villagers are Sikhs, but Punjabi Hindus live there cheek to jowl with them in every village that I have seen?

I was angry with you earlier; now I realise that you genuinely thought all that you were pumping out was true. WHERE did you get this nonsense? If you write to me after the 18th, I will answer you in full detail about the sociology and demography of the present and the past Punjab. Right now, I have to pack; I have a train to catch.

Sir i meant real proper hindus from Ganga desh, few punjabis are hindus in geographical sense instead of religious.

thanks for the response, have a nice journey. I will definitely tag you after 18th.

@Joe Shearer I can't believe you are taking interest in @save_ghenda 's nonsense.

Ironic coming from you, don't you think? Lol

 

[Armstrong]

Slightly Incorrect statement. Ancient India has little to do with the Republic of India. Ancient Bharatvarsha was a civilization (that survives to this day), while the Republic of India was born officially with the ratification of the Constitution of India. before that we were Dominions (from 1947).

Nation states are a new concept. Just 200 years ago there was no Germany(only Prussia, Bavaria, Duchy of Hamburg etc), nor was an United Italy(Venezia, Rome, etc) for example.
As far as Bharat is concerned, the name finds reference in multiple historical documents APART from mythology. This includes coins, stamps, letters, trade documents, etc.

The cohesive entity that you are pointing to is an 18th century construct - called a Nation state.

The rest is interpretation and hence subjective. The idea of a land that is now called India is ancient. @Joe Shearer , if he is still there, can elaborate on that.

No not really the 'nothing to do' part was supposed to imply 'anymore' than Ancient India having to do with other countries that form the Indian Subcontinent.

So far as the Ancient Indian Civilization surviving till today is concerned; I don't think it does anymore than Greece, Rome or Persia can be called a continuation of their respective Ancient Civilization because even Hindus of today are markedly different from the Hindus of a 1000 years ago let a lone Hindus of tens of thousands of years ago if they can be called Hindus to begin with....which is a big IF and doesn't figure in the archaeological research carried out on the Indus Valley Civilization.

Like I said Bharat finding mention in 'trade documents' does not anymore substantiate the presence of an ancient cohesive lands inhabited by a unitary people or civilization anymore than the Americas or Africas being historically mentioned does.

The notion of a cohesive entity is indeed a recent construct; try telling that to your compatriots who spin romanticized tales of Ancient India giving way to the State of India as a continuation of one and the other as if to speak of one is to speak of the other. And how by implication the modern-day entity on our right has somehow greater ownership to whatever inhabited these lands than the rest of us and why because its big and shares the same name....duhhh ?

The land that now is called India is an Ancient Entity - Indeed it is; just like the land that is now called Africa or Polynesia or Americas is an ancient concept; similarly the notion of an ancient land of India is the notion of subcontinent which is now called South Asia. I don't know why some of your compatriots seem to superimpose the idea of an Ancient India onto the State of India ?

 

[FaujHistorian]

No not really the 'nothing to do' part was supposed to imply 'anymore' than Ancient India having to do with other countries that form the Indian Subcontinent.

So far as the Ancient Indian Civilization surviving till today is concerned; I don't think it does anymore than Greece, Rome or Persia can be called a continuation of their respective Ancient Civilization because even Hindus of today are markedly different from the Hindus of a 1000 years ago let a lone Hindus of tens of thousands of years ago if they can be called Hindus to begin with....which is a big IF and doesn't figure in the archaeological research carried out on the Indus Valley Civilization.

Like I said Bharat finding mention in 'trade documents' does not anymore substantiate the presence of an ancient cohesive lands inhabited by a unitary people or civilization anymore than the Americas or Africas being historically mentioned does.

The notion of a cohesive entity is indeed a recent construct; try telling that to your compatriots who spin romanticized tales of Ancient India giving way to the State of India as a continuation of one and the other as if to speak of one is to speak of the other. And how by implication the modern-day entity on our right has somehow greater ownership to whatever inhabited these lands than the rest of us and why because its big and shares the same name....duhhh ?

The land that now is called India is an Ancient Entity - Indeed it is; just like the land that is now called Africa or Polynesia or Americas is an ancient concept; similarly the notion of an ancient land of India is the notion of subcontinent which is now called South Asia. I don't know why some of your compatriots seem to superimpose the idea of an Ancient India onto the State of India ?

Indian right wingers have been fed bad history in a very similar that we can see in other extremist groups like ISIS and Nazis.

you and I can spend next decade convincing these right wingers and they will still lap up RSS propaganda as if it was divine message from Lord Shiva himself.

 

[Side-Winder]

 

[scorpionx]

Indian right wingers have been fed bad history in a very similar that we can see in other extremist groups like ISIS and Nazis.

you and I can spend next decade convincing these right wingers and they will still lap up RSS propaganda as if it was divine message from Lord Shiva himself.

Fauj Bhai, day before yesterday when I told an on line Hindutvawadi that RSS murdered Gandhi, She told me its a Marxist propaganda

 

[PakhtunGuy]

They didnt fight for the country, they fought for farangi empire. Your pakhtun and potohari soldiers were sent to europe to defend it from germans, what had pakhtuns and potoharis any thing to do with europe and its wars?. And in the presence of caliphate movement in hindostan, each and every muslim soldier in british army was traitor unless he refused to fight or deserted. Your heroes should be those tribal pakhtuns who refused to fight against ottomans in iraq or those ragnar muslims who mutinied in singapur.

When did I say they were my heroes?
And it could be they were forced to fight for the British. Maybe they threatened their families. You never now.
And they fought the kuffar in Europe. It isn't like they fought Muslims.

And I do respect the pashtun soldiers who refused to fight against Muslims.

The article is about Pakistan's role in WW1. Nothing to do with heroes or not.
Pakistani soldiers had definetely some influence in it.

So whats your problem?

 

[Samandri]

When did I say they were my heroes?
And it could be they were forced to fight for the British. Maybe they threatened their families. You never now.
And they fought the kuffar in Europe. It isn't like they fought Muslims.

And I do respect the pashtun soldiers who refused to fight against Muslims.

The article is about Pakistan's role in WW1. Nothing to do with heroes or not.
Pakistani soldiers had definetely some influence in it.

So whats your problem?

Why do you think i have problems With you?. You said that the soldiers in british indian army fought for their country. I differed, that they fought for farangis and their cause, any where in the world. Take the example of gurkhas of nepal, they are still fighting and dying for british even though their country is nepal...in plain langauge,such soldiers are called mercenaries. The desi sepoys of farangis were mercenaries.

 

[PakhtunGuy]

Why do you think i have problems With you?. You said that the soldiers in british indian army fought for their country. I differed, that they fought for farangis and their cause, any where in the world. Take the example of gurkhas of nepal, they are still fighting and dying for british even though their country is nepal...in plain langauge,such soldiers are called mercenaries. The desi sepoys of farangis were mercenaries.

Maybe my statement was a little bit misunderstanding for you.

They fought for the British but were from our country.
So Pakistanis did have influence in WW1 since they were from our country whether they fought for the British or not.

British always used Pakistani soldiers in their wars since hindi people are small and weak naturally.

 

[MM_Haider]

The rot in Muslim governance structure had started to take shape when we took the transition from Khilafa to Malookiat.

which started just after fourth Rashid Caliph (RA). My question was different though.

 

[Samandri]

Maybe my statement was a little bit misunderstanding for you.

They fought for the British but were from our country.
So Pakistanis did have influence in WW1 since they were from our country whether they fought for the British or not.

British always used Pakistani soldiers in their wars since hindi people are small and weak naturally.

Thats very stupid thing to say. Gurkhas are very small and they were the most favourite soldiers of British. The criterea was not physique but loyalty towards farangis. British had no choice but to rely on punjabis and gurkhas for army after 1857 war of independence.
You are argueing that those desi sepoys were used against kafirs so whats my problem?. Well they were not just used against ottoman muslims, they were also deployed against your own pakhtuns. May be it was big deal for previously unknown gurkha to get recruitments in the army of british army but your and mine people were up against invasions and occupation. If your grandfather served in british indian army, then i can sympathize with you but for me, desi sepoys were just mercenaries for hire. They neither fought for their nation nor religion.