Great myths of Indian history

[Adux]

I dont know if this kind of bickering is neccessary, what is today is that you are both Pakistani and should be proud of that. Whatever the problems between your people ....solve it , and move on
Road Runner is complete fool, you dont have to stoop to his level, He got Uber-mentality!!! thats all


Though I completly agree with you on Pakistani Army and its role in the destruction of Pakistani democracy

 

[bhangra12345]

Oh well this makes sense..not..Pakistanis are on average genetically and physically different to Indians aka Bharatis



Pakistan and India were never similar entities until 1947. Pakistan has only been part of the NorthWest fringe of India (such as Indian Punjab, and Indian Gujrat). Other than that, Pakistan has spent more time part of Afghanistan or even part of the Greek Empire than part of India aka Bharat.

This fellows indoctrination is complete. He has just completed a degree from the lalmasjid madarsa. Please congratulate him

 

[Adux]

I like the way he keeps on harping India aka Bharat, Indians aka Bharati's. It as if he is trying to beat something into my head.

What a sore loser

 

[Contrarian]

Before you call me an indian, i can trace my pure blooded family 300 years back all the way to daman in afghanistan near jalalabad, can you do the same?
may be you can trace yours all the way to delhi, he he he he he he

Ouch! That MUST have hurt

 

[roadrunner]

i dont know where you are getting your information from but its wrong, well i guess you have to alter a few things to distance your self from your indian ancestors. Pushtoons are afghans and yes balouch also relate to iran.

Pushtoons are Afghan and most Afghans live in Pakistan. Baloch are not related to Iranians - this was proven linguistically long ago, and confirmed recently by genetics. They're not even Semitic which thows out the Aleepa theory. What's been found is that their genetics are much like the rest of Pakistan funnily enough, just with less Indian mixing I guess.

please go and read before you come and debate with me, its no good cutting and pasting a few lines from the net. Punjabis and sindhis are of indian origin, you can not call your self an afghan just because you wish to deny your indian ancestry. How can punjabis be afghans?

Dud, listen, I never said Punjabis were Afghan. Punjabis are Punjabi, Pashtoons are Pashtun. But Punjabis are in no way physically and genetically the same as the majority of Indians. They have some similarities to the people of the fringes of India, but are less Dravidified in Pakistan.

But culturally, Punjabis share more in common with the Mughals since Urdu has many Persian and Arabic loan words. Pashto does not.

may be some afghan pashtoon blood in some of them, as afghanistan still to this day claims its border to be from river roxanne to river jehlum.

Afghanistan's border was permananetly made a long time ago at the Eastern border of the NWFP by the Durand line.

punjabis that may have some pashtoon afghan blood can not call them selves afghans or tie their selves with our history, as they are not pure blooded afghans or pashtoons.

I can only guess this doesn't register. NOONE SAID PUNJABIS ARE PASHTUN. DUHHHHH. Punjabis are a mixture, but they have a lot more Mughal culture than Pashtuns I would say. My own opinion is that Punjabis are basically the same as Pashtuns, but with more Dravidian/Indian mixing - at least that's what the genetics say..and it makes sense, as you cross over into your country, you find the Indian Punjabis to be even more Dravidified, and then after the Punjab ends, Dravidification of the people is complete.

And why should you name after heroes that dont belong to you, are you that desperate to show some history for your self by claiming historical links with people like mahmood of ghazni etc.

Since most Afghans live in Pakistan, I think it's a very appropriate choice.

Accept the fact that you have indian history and ancestral background, please dont say that everything is smooth between punjabis and pashttons, may be in karachi but in my native sarhad a dog has more value then a punjabi mongrel.

Dud! In Delhi everything has more value than a Mongrel with the caste system you guys have.

Only thing that unites us is our religion apart from that nothing else, no quaid e azam etc, as not many pashtoons have respect for the man, he was a worthless drunk who took glory for others hardwork. we had our own quaid khan abdul ghaffar khan, who did alot to ensure the rights of pashtoon people

If Quaid was so unpopular, why did most of the people vote for him in the 1947 referendum, and then vote for him in the 1946 elections. Bacha just gave up by the end.

I am not an indian am pakistani pashtoon, from mardan, and my people and my culture comes way before pakistan and other ethinic groups.

Alright, you're from Mardan and moved to India. I know lots of YusufZais that look heavily Dravidiifed in Delhi. No big deal, Indian Pashtuns look Indian to me, not Pashtun.

Before you call me an indian, i can trace my pure blooded family 300 years back all the way to daman in afghanistan near jalalabad, can you do the same?
may be you can trace yours all the way to delhi, he he he he he he

Tracing isn't required. Facial judgements are better evidence of ancestry. As are obvious attempts to fake identity.

 

[bhangra12345]

Afghanistan's border was permananetly made a long time ago at the Eastern border of the NWFP by the Durand line.

Factually completely wrong. There was an agreement in 1892 and the agreement states clearly that it becomes void after 1992. So NO PERMANENT demarcation on eastern border has been done. Hell, even the taliban, Pakistani ISI puppets rejected the demarcation.

Since most Afghans live in Pakistan, I think it's a very appropriate choice. Why dont you name your country Afghanistan instead of Pakistan, if that is the case? (this is only for this guy, for others I apologize for this comment)

Oh really? You never get your facts right for India, atleast get them right for Afghanistan.

Tracing isn't required. Facial judgements are better evidence of ancestry. As are obvious attempts to fake identity.

that you are f*king racist is clear from this.

 

[roadrunner]

Factually completely wrong. There was an agreement in 1892 and the agreement states clearly that it becomes void after 1992. So NO PERMANENT demarcation on eastern border has been done. Hell, even the taliban, Pakistani ISI puppets rejected the demarcation.

Oh really Dud. I think it's you that's factually wrong. Here is a text of that agreement. Tell me where it says it becomes void after 1992 or in 100 years.



Agreement between Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, G. C. S. I., and Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, K. C. I. E., C. S. I.

Whereas certain questions have arisen regarding the frontier of Afghanistan on the side of India, and whereas both His Highness the Amir and the Government of India are desirous of settling these questions by friendly understanding, and of fixing the limit of their respective spheres of influence, so that for the future there may be no difference of opinion on the subject between the allied Governments, it is hereby agreed as follows:

1. The eastern and southern frontier of his Highness’s dominions, from Wakhan to the Persian border, shall follow the line shown in the map attached to this agreement.

2. The Government of India will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of Afghanistan, and His Highness the Amir will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of India.

3. The British Government thus agrees to His Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees, on the other hand, that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur, or Chitral, including the Arnawai or Bashgal valley. The British Government also agrees to leave to His Highness the Birmal tract as shown in the detailed map already given to his Highness, who relinquishes his claim to the rest of the Waziri country and Dawar. His Highness also relinquishes his claim to Chageh.

4. The frontier line will hereafter be laid down in detail and demarcated, wherever this may be practicable and desirable, by joint British and Afghan commissioners, whose object will be to arrive by mutual understanding at a boundary which shall adhere with the greatest possible exactness to the line shown in the map attached to this agreement, having due regard to the existing local rights of villages adjoining the frontier.

5. With reference to the question of Chaman, the Amir withdraws his objection to the new British cantonment and concedes to the British Governmeni the rights purchased by him in the Sirkai Tilerai water. At this part of the frontier the line will be drawn as follows:

From the crest of the Khwaja Amran range near the Psha Kotal, which remains in British territory, the line will run in such a direction as to leave Murgha Chaman and the Sharobo spring to Afghanistan, and to pass half-way between the New Chaman Fort and the Afghan outpost known locally as Lashkar Dand. The line will then pass half-way between the railway station and the hill known as the Mian Baldak, and, turning south-wards, will rejoin the Khwaja Amran range, leaving the Gwasha Post in British territory, and the road to Shorawak to the west and south of Gwasha in Afghanistan. The British Government will not exercise any interference within half a mile of the road.


6. The above articles of' agreement are regarded by the Government of India and His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them in regard to the frontier; and both the Government of India and His Highness the Amir undertake that any differences of detail, such as those which will have to be considered hereafter by the officers appointed to demarcate the boundary line, shall be settled in a friendly spirit, so as to remove for the future as far as possible all causes of doubt and misunderstanding between the two Governments.

7. Being fully satisfied of His Highness’s goodwill to the British Government, and wishing to see Afghanistan independent and strong, the Government of India will raise no objection to the purchase and import by His Highness of munitions of war, and they will themselves grant him some help in this respect. Further, in order to mark their sense of the friendly spirit in which His Highness the Amir has entered into these negotiations, the Government of India undertake to increase by the sum of six lakhs of rupees a year the subsidy of twelve lakhs now granted to His Highness.

H. M. Durand,
Amir Abdur Rahman Khan.
Kabul, November 12, 1893.

Oh really? You never get your facts right for India, atleast get them right for Afghanistan.

Dud, Pakistan IS named after the Afghans. "a" in Pakistan is for "Afghania".

that you are f*king racist is clear from this.

[/QUOTE]

Not as racist as your caste system. But I'd be interested in how you determined what I said was racist? You mean by stating India is 95% Dravidian and about 1-5% Aryan, that makes me a racist? Hey, it's simple genetic and visual fact. I guess you'd accuse all anthropologists that don't subscribe to the "India is best - Ja Hind meera Bharraaaaaattt" attitude are all racists too!

 

[bhangra12345]

The Durand Line was demarcated by the British and signed into a treaty in 1893 with the Afghan ruler Amir Abdur Rehman Khan. The treaty was to stay in force for a 100-year period. According to Afrasiab Khattak, a political analyst, the areas from the Khayber Agency Northwards to Chitral, however, remained un-demarcated.

This disputed land was legally to be returned to Afghanistan in 1993 after the 100 year old Durand Treaty expired, similar to how Hong Kong was returned to China. Kabul has refused to renew the Durand Line treaty since 1993 when it expired,

link
sorry didnt do the exact research read this site long ago and decided on it. Actually infact now I want to know from where did they 100 year rule from?

However, also please note that.....

As early as June 1949, Afghanistan's parliament cancelled all the treaties which former Afghan governments has signed with the British-India government including the Durand Treaty and proclaimed that the Afghan government does not recognise the Durand Line as a legal boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19991116/iex19059.html
You have to understand the significance of this statement. It states that it does not recognise Pakistan as the inheritor of the British India. It means it says Pakistan and British india are not the same. So in effect, you have to renegotiate the treaty. Note this is the same as recognition of a country by a different country.

I will give you an example. Say X and Y agreed to a treaty. Now Y goes off and divides itself into A and B. FOr the treaty between X and Y to be valid, X decides who is the inheritor of that particular treaty.

Unfortunately for you, the treaty is one between Govt. of India and Amir, not between Govt. of Pakistan and Amir. So truly speaking, I think you are in a legal conundrum. India will not have this problem, because it retained the name and so its treaties with other countries are valid.

For example, India did not rejoin the UN in 1947. It joined in (30 October 1945). whereas Pakistan joined in 30 September 1947. In other words, India inherited British India and its treaties, agreements. Whereas Pakistan starts from ground zero in relation to this particular context, imho.

link

was never accepted by either Afghanistan (which signed it under duress)

The agreement as I read it was between a person(Amir) and a government(Britain).

The vienna convention which is the framework for treaties says

In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:

(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;

but unfortunately in your case, it is not valid, because the convention cannot be applied retrospectively.

Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.

link

All I am saying is frankly the durand line agreement legal status is questionable? I am not a lawyer, so if somebody can correctly unravel it, I would be grateful.

 

[bhangra12345]

Dud, Pakistan IS named after the Afghans. "a" in Pakistan is for "Afghania".

So a simple question to you, Is Pakistan an acronym or a single word. Pakistan is a single word dude. Show me your constitution, where it states Pakistan is an acronym, otherwise it is simply someone's height of adrenaline. By the way for the acronym why was english chosen? Why not urdu, which is the official language of Pakistan.

 

[bhangra12345]

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2005-daily/22-09-2005/main/main9.htm

and by the way what the hell was your NWFP gov doing??

Not new to controversy, the NWFP Governor Khalilur Rahman apparently created another one when he opined here Wednesday that the Durand Line agreement demarcated by the British and marking Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan expired in 1993.

Talking informally to journalists invited for lunch at the sprawling Governor’s House, he said the Durand Line agreement signed in 1893 was for 100 years. He said he had asked President General Pervez Musharraf to talk to the Afghan government for extending the agreement.

International Law states that boundary changes must be made among all concerned parties; and a unilateral declaration by one party has no effect. So, when in 1949, Afghanistan’s “Loya Jirga” (Grand Council) declared the Durand Line Agreement invalid, it was considered a unilateral declaration, and therefore, could not be enforced. Furthermore, Durand Line, like virtually any international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is there any mention of such in the Durand Line Agreement, which is contrary to the popular beliefs of certain Afghan scholars that the Agreement lapsed in 1993 which is after a hundred years of its signing.

link

This seems to reinforce what I just said. The question is not regarding the legality of durand line agreement. The proper question is whether Pakistan is the inheritor of the durand line agreement and to put it more simply, afghans do not regard Pakistan as such.

 

[niaz]

i dont know where you are getting your information from but its wrong, well i guess you have to alter a few things to distance your self from your indian ancestors. Pushtoons are afghans and yes balouch also relate to iran. please go and read before you come and debate with me, its no good cutting and pasting a few lines from the net. Punjabis and sindhis are of indian origin, you can not call your self an afghan just because you wish to deny your indian ancestry. How can punjabis be afghans? may be some afghan pashtoon blood in some of them, as afghanistan still to this day claims its border to be from river roxanne to river jehlum. punjabis that may have some pashtoon afghan blood can not call them selves afghans or tie their selves with our history, as they are not pure blooded afghans or pashtoons. And why should you name after heroes that dont belong to you, are you that desperate to show some history for your self by claiming historical links with people like mahmood of ghazni etc.

Accept the fact that you have indian history and ancestral background, please dont say that everything is smooth between punjabis and pashttons, may be in karachi but in my native sarhad a dog has more value then a punjabi mongrel.

Only thing that unites us is our religion apart from that nothing else, no quaid e azam etc, as not many pashtoons have respect for the man, he was a worthless drunk who took glory for others hardwork. we had our own quaid khan abdul ghaffar khan, who did alot to ensure the rights of pashtoon people

I am not an indian am pakistani pashtoon, from mardan, and my people and my culture comes way before pakistan and other ethinic groups.

Before you call me an indian, i can trace my pure blooded family 300 years back all the way to daman in afghanistan near jalalabad, can you do the same?
may be you can trace yours all the way to delhi, he he he he he he

Just to correct you a little bit Hon Member from Mardan. You came to be a part of Pakistan because the English captured Punjab ; which by the way included current NWFP because this area was captured by the Ranjit Singh ( what you call Punjabi mongrel)

Majority of Punjabi population consists of Jats and Gujjars which are basically of old Scythian stock going back more than a couple of thousand years. From 500 BC for a thousand years main religion of this area was Budhism. If you look at the history of Gandhara, mainly Eastern Afghanistan and NWFP, people living there were also Budhists ( Are you going to deny the existence of the Kushans ??). Mahabharta mentions "Gandhara and the mother of defeated Kurus as 'Gandhari'. She was obviously from modren NWFP or Swat region. Thus NWFP has also been part of the old Hindu/Indian history. Off course you would also like to deny the existence of the Bamyan Statues of Budhha; which your dear bigots Talibans destoyed; ( even though the area was first captured during the time of Hazart Omar (RA) and all through the Abbaside Caliphs but these were left untouched)


Thus people of Afghanistan are also converts from Budhism. Jats are Scythians who invaded India circa 130 AD and then the Huns. All these poeple passed through the areas now in the Afgahinstan and and current NWFP. Some English historians have even suggested close links betwen Afghans and Rajputs. All the invaders that came to India first settled in Punjab and NWFP before spreading East and South.

Arabs were as circa 712 Arabs had captured Multan. In the 12th Century Ghaznaids made Lahore their capital after being thrown out of Afghanisatn bythe Ghurids. since then Punjab has been under Muslim rule. Most of the people in Punjab with Khan as surname are descendents of these migrants, probably with the local Punjabi mothers. You assertion that Sikhs converted to Islam is totally wrong. Guru Nanak was born in 1469 AD. You are off by at least 500 years in time!!

While it is true that Pathans in general contain less Dravidian/Indian blood than the Punjabis, nevertheless Jats and originally inhabitants of Gandhara have a lot of Scythian blood along with Rajputs of India.

Old Iranian language was written in a script similar to Sanskirt and the group called Indo -Iranian languages are closley related. Sindh has a substantial mixing of Arabs, Baluchis and Rajputs as well. At least a third of Sindhis are ethtnic Baluchs. Even now you see in Pakistan that there are inter marriages betwen Pashtoons, Pujabis, Sindhis are Mohajirs.

Therefore; Hon Democrat; despite being a very noble nickname, your views are obviously of a follower of Bacha Khan; basically a very bigoted Pashtoon.

Whether you admit it or not, genetically, there is no such thing as "pure blood". You can trace your geneology to 300 years, what about before that? All the inhabitants are or of mixed gene pool. The fact remains that nearly all the people of Pakistan and Northen India are related and all are "Mongrels" as you prefer to call Punjabis. The only difference is the degree of inter mixing.

 

[bhangra12345]

I think I now got the hang of what Durand line problem is all about.

After Pakistan’s independence from Britain in 1947, Pakistani leaders assumed that Pakistan would inherit the functions of India’s British government in guiding Afghan policy. But soon after Pakistan’s independence, Afghanistan voted against Pakistan’s admission to the United Nations, arguing that Afghanistan’s treaties with British India relating to Afghan borders were no longer valid because a new country was being created where none existed at the time of these treaties.

link

 

[roadrunner]

I'll read more later. But I got to correct you on a couple of things (at least i don't agree).

"The fact remains that nearly all the people of Pakistan and Northen India are related"

Northern India is very different from Pakistan. A North Indian Calcuttan or Orrisan is a completely different physical and genetical specimen to any group in Pakistan.

Rajasthan, the land of the Rajputs is on the fringe of India, so yes, it shares some similarities with Pakistan, as do the other Indian fringe states of Punjab and Gujerat. But of course, most of India is completely different to Pakistan, and most of North India is too. Northwest India, aka the FRINGE of Bharat has some similarities.

 

[roadrunner]

link
sorry didnt do the exact research read this site long ago and decided on it. Actually infact now I want to know from where did they 100 year rule from?

The treaty content is posted. It contains no such rule.

However, also please note that.....

http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19991116/iex19059.html
You have to understand the significance of this statement. It states that it does not recognise Pakistan as the inheritor of the British India. It means it says Pakistan and British india are not the same. So in effect, you have to renegotiate the treaty. Note this is the same as recognition of a country by a different country.

Won't work like that. British government and the Afghan king made an agreement. Both parties must be willing to break the agreement in order for it to lose its validity. The name is irrelevant. If it were, might as well rename NWFP, Khyber, and say NWFP doesn't exist anymore, so you can't have it - silly reasoning.

I will give you an example. Say X and Y agreed to a treaty. Now Y goes off and divides itself into A and B. FOr the treaty between X and Y to be valid, X decides who is the inheritor of that particular treaty.

Unfortunately for you, the treaty is one between Govt. of India and Amir, not between Govt. of Pakistan and Amir. So truly speaking, I think you are in a legal conundrum. India will not have this problem, because it retained the name and so its treaties with other countries are valid.

Dud, lay off the weed! The treaty was between the Afghan king and the British government, not the Government of India.

For example, India did not rejoin the UN in 1947. It joined in (30 October 1945). whereas Pakistan joined in 30 September 1947. In other words, India inherited British India and its treaties, agreements. Whereas Pakistan starts from ground zero in relation to this particular context, imho.

link

So India aka Bharat inherited the treaties when it formed, and the the treaties relating to Pakistan were inherited when Pakistan was formed.

The agreement as I read it was between a person(Amir) and a government(Britain).

The vienna convention which is the framework for treaties says


but unfortunately in your case, it is not valid, because the convention cannot be applied retrospectively.

link

All I am saying is frankly the durand line agreement legal status is questionable? I am not a lawyer, so if somebody can correctly unravel it, I would be grateful.

Dud, this is just desperation. So what if the Vienna Convention defines heads of states later on? It doesn't mean heads of state can't agree treaties before this time also !

 

[bhangra12345]

Roadrunner,

Why do you jump to conclusion before reading completely??

My posts were in to say order of development of my understanding of Durand line.

Read the next two posts.

To reiterate, the question is not whether Pakistan inherited the treaties from British India. The question is regarding Afghanistan's acceptance of Pakistan as such. These two are completely different. Afghanistan says Pakistan is not.

I have a question: What happens to a countries treaties with other countries when it becomes two parts?

Now another case in the same case: Say a small part of a country acceded from a larger country. Now the original country has a border at that small part with another country, say X. Are the treaties made by X with the original country valid with the smaller country?

-Simply put the last case I developed is the legal position of the Durand line.



OOPs, now my head is reeling with weird ideas.

Now I know that people will deal this as flame bait, I just got a weird thought in my mind.

Status as on 1970: East Pakistan has more pakistani population than west pakistan.

in 1971, when east pakistan became bangladesh, so majorities of pakistanis became bangladeshis. So if I apply the same majority population concept used by "Pakistan" for Kashmir in this case, shouldnt Bangladesh be treated as the "true Pakistan".

By the extension of this logic, is Kashmir a dispute between India and Present day Pakistan/Bangladesh? What makes present day Pakistan have the higher authority in this case?

Please also note, I will extend the same logic which you will use on this dispute for the durand line dispute also. So, I require a logic which validates Pakistani position with respect to durand line and kashmir?

Interchangebilities for the sake of convenience:
i)
British India : "Past Pakistan"
durandline : kashmir.
afghanistan : india
ii)
present India: "present Pakistan"
pakistan: bangladesh

i) is immutable, where as (ii) is mutable. So for two I will ask you why you took a particular mutation and why not the other mutation.

Can anybody with a legal brackground help me out in the nuances? The ideas are hazy