What's new

I, Maha Sapta Sindhu

Sir the simple question mr gubbi asked that why does Pakistani institutions use arabic or turkish names?

ANS: This was because:

1) Why use Arabic names in use at the time of Muslim Caliphates?

Not only were these names oftenly used when a muslim empire was present but present day Pakistan's south-western part was part of the caliphate led by Hadhrat Umar (R)...and later on most of Pakistan (60-70 % became part of Ummayad caliphate)...I repeat these were Muslim empires not nationalistic empires....thats why we share a lot in common with them.
Traditionaly the area to the left (west) of indus was under Persian influence and to the right (east) of indus was hind.

The military clash between rashidun caliphate of Hadhrat Umar (R) and Raja of Rasil of Rai Dynasty. Traditionaly Makran and balochistan was considered to be under the influence of Persian Sassanid empire but at that time it was under Rai dynasty. This was known as "Battle of Rasil". This was all part of conquest of Persia as much of present day Pakistan was part of ancient Persia The account is as follows;

Conquest of Southeastern Persia (Kerman & Makran)
"The expedition to Kerman was sent roughly at the same time when the expeditions to Sistan and Azerbaijan were sent. Suhail ibn adi was given command of this expedition. Suhail marched from Busra in 643, passing from Shiraz and Persepolis he joined with other Muslim armies and marched against Kerman, which was subdued after a pitched battle with local garrisons. Further east of Kerman laid Makran in what is now a part of present day Pakistan. It was the domain of the Hindu king of Rasil (sindh). The Rai Dynasty dominions were vast, extending from Kashmir and Kanauj to Kandhar and Seistan and on the west to Mekran and a part of Debal, while on the south to Surat their capital was Alor and during their rule Sindh was divided into four provinces: Bahmanabad, Siwistan, Chachpur (which comprised the greater part of Bahaw'alpur Division) and the province consisting of Multan and West Punjab.[35] The Raja of Rasil concentrated huge armies from Sindh and Balochistan to halt the advance of the Muslims. Suhail was reinforced by Usman ibn Abi Al Aas from Persepolis, and Hakam ibn Amr from Busra. The combined forces defeated Raja Rasil at the Battle of Rasil, who retreated to the eastern bank of the River Indus. Further east from the Indus River laid Sindh.[36] Umar, after knowing that Sindh was a poor and relatively barren land, disapproved Suhail’s proposal to cross the Indus River.[32] For the time being, Umar declared the Indus River, a natural barrier, to be the eastern most frontier of his domain. This campaign came to an end in mid 644."

Conquest of Eastern Persia (Sistan)

"Sistan was believed to be the largest province of the Sassanid Empire. In the south it bordered with Kerman and in the north with Khurasan. It stretches from what is now Balochistan, Pakistan in the east and southern Afghanistan in the north. Asim ibn Amr, veteran of the great battles of Qadisiyyah and Nihawand was appointed to conquer Sistan. Asim marched from Busra, and passing through Fars and taking under his command the Muslim troops already present in Fars, entered Sistan. No resistance was offered and cities surrendered. Asim reached Zaranj, 250 miles from Kandahar, a small town in present day southern Afghanistan, then a bustling capital of Sistan. Asim laid siege to the city which lasted several months. A pitched battle was fought outside the city and the Persians were defeated and routed. With the surrender of Zaranj, Sistan submitted to Muslim rule. Further east of Sistan was northern Sindh which was beyond the scope of the mission assigned to Asim. The Caliph, for the time being, didn’t approve of any incursion in the land east of the Persian Empire and ordered his men to consolidate power in the newly conquered land."

After Rashidun caliphates, Ummayads under Muhammad Bin Qasim captured majority area of Pakistan today...that was the reason why the north western part of subcontinent (Pakistan) was muslim majority as this area was in touch with the caliphates...the biggest lie in hostory is for the first time Islam was braught to Pakistan by Muhammad Bin Qasim, no sir, Islam came here during the time of Hadhrat Umar (R) in baluchistan....Yes Islam came to sindh and hind through Muhammad Bin Qasim....but not Pakistan..as majority of Pakistan's land was not in the land traditionaly known as hind....baluchistan itself is 45 % of Pakistan.

So Pakistan is bound to use religous names as we share a religous and cultural identity with the caliphates....and to further reinforce the point much of our land (Pakistan) was in the caliphates.....

2) Why Pakistan doesn't use the names of Hindu, Budhist and Persian kings who ruled the present land of Pakistan thousands of years ago ?

Now the point of my indian friends that why dont we use the names of indian, budhist or Persian kings (sassanid Persia) who ruled the present land of Pakistan....
Sir lets examine what we have in common with Hindu empires ;
Relegous beliefs Absolutely different
Dietry habbits Different
Culture Thats a huge debate but every one here knows there is not a single major common thing (urdu which is suppose to be the biggest common thing as indians speak hindi was made official by the british after they replace the Persian in 1840's which was the official language of all muslim empires in the north western part including even the Sikh empires). But still the scripts in which urdu and hindi are written are completely different(with Urdu in Arabic script and Hindi in Sanskrit script) from each other and there are alot of borrowed words in Urdu from other muslim languages.


Were these empires were friendly towards Muslim kingdoms ?
No instead they called muslims as foriegners, invaders and looters...as is evident from the views of indian members in the previous pages.

So the hindu empires have nothing in common religously, linguisticaly plus they considered our heroes to be villians...still being muslim u expect us to use hindu names for our institutions or wpn systems...i would suggest you to wake up from the dream

3) Why use Turkish names when Pakistanis arn't turks ?

An example can be of a SSG battalion being named "Yildiram"...Turkish word for thunder and named after a muslim Ottoman king " Bayezed Yildiram who faught the Roman Byzantine empire.
Turks (Ottoman empire) led the muslim world for 600 years as they were a caliphate...we being muslims feel a natural relationship with that..as Pakistan was made for muslims not for bhuddists...or hindus...yes ppl from other religions can be our citizens but the reason for Pakistan was being Muslim state so we feel related to history of muslim empires who led muslim world.
Ethinicity, culture and location doesnt matter in Islam.....these things might be used to idetify u...eg Hadhrat Salman Farsi (R) ( a companion of Prophet Muhammad (S) who was from Persia) but location and ethinicity is nothing to be proud of as every human being is equal in the sight of God.

So it is our duty to use the names of great heroes who led the muslim world and with whom even to this day we share a lot.
 
Last edited:
Sir the simple question mr gubbi asked that why does Pakistani institutions use arabic or turkish names?

So the hindu empires have nothing in common religously, linguisticaly plus they considered our heroes to be villians...still being muslim u expect us to use hindu names for our institutions or wpn systems...i would suggest you to wake up from the dream

You guys seems really confused with respect to your identity..at times you claim Hindu / Sikh / Buddhist culture and legacy ( when trying to claim how great you were in the past to inflate your ego) and than next moment you wash your hand on any remotely resemblance as it clashes with your country ideology....


Try to make out the meaning of belwo observations:-

Buddhist followwr from Japan. China, around the world come to my state - Bihar for their pilgrimmage like Muslims around the word go for their Haj to Mecca and Madina

Are the Japanese, Indians because their (originally a Hindu) God was born and lived in India / Nepal?

Similarly are the Sub Continet Muslims Arabs?

People in Indian Sub-continent are all culturally rooted into a distinct culture which is essentially Indian. We understand your strugle since 1947 to showcase a " Different" you and in this exrecise, the whole intellengtia / historians of pakistan has been throwing strange theories to the gullible people of Pakistan.....some of the Pakistani friends are product of this mass hysteria / barin washing hat has goen for the last 60 + years.


My point is>>>>>.Accept what it is and move on and build a better society around, higher standard of living etc.....

We will definately acknowledge that there is a difference between us, the way An Australian, Canadian and American ( descendant of United Kingdom) are different.

Tone of the discussion essentially here is " who is superior" / "who was superior".

Unfortunately, we will always differ here. Pepole who converted to survive and their descendants when other resisted and fought back and died>>>>>>>who would you think is superior?

Hypothetically speaking, Say Tom Cruise and his clans of Scientiology attacks Pakistan and forces religion conversion at gun point and some of you go to extreme pain to preserve your faith while others scared of dying etc accepts the new faith and...thousand years later if the discussion is who showed valor, what would be your response.

Here you have to cust the crap that your ancestors accepted Scientiology as is more scinece and latest stuff etc and better faith etc.

Regards
Nalanda
 
There is nothing wrong in telling the world that ancient people who lived in land which is now pakistan constructed great cities...but i would refute ur second argument as i did a few days a go on this forum...that i repeat Pakistan is country of geneticaly diverse people with lineage from central asia, india, afghanistan, arab world...here is my research...

Pakistan is a group of geneticaly diverse people.

a)40 million pushtuns have nothing to do with india. They are majority ethinic in Khyber Pakhtun Khawa and Afghanistan.

b)Then there are the hazaras again nothing to do with india.

c)Then you have baloch around 8 million of them..an ethinic group living in western Pak...and Iran's province of sistan-baluchistan.d)

The group which indians claim is associated with them is punjabis.
Let's examine this province of punjab.


-you have millions of people in punjab from families of Sayyed, Qureshi, shah, Salara, Awans, the Khagga, the Dhund Abbasi, the Dhanyal, the Hans, the Hashmi (Nekokara), the Kahut and the Bodla,Thaheem ...their ancestors started comming to south punjab once it was part of ummayad caliphate and later abbasid caliphate....Muhammad Bin Qasim himself came up to Multan with 20000 Syrian Cavilary.

- The families whose ancestors converted to islam include jatts, rajputs , dogars and few other muhajir families and they are in large numbers but not in majority as our indian friends claim.

-There were mass migrations from muslim areas of central asia and persia to muslim ruled indian subcontinent due to Mongol invasions...and from Karachi to Punjab..people with their decent could be found ranging from sindh to northern pakistan and even in kashmir......

- In Punjab tribes who claim to come from afghanistan are gardezis (from gardez) a shia tribe in south punjab, sadozai ( again from Tarnak, Kandahar, and Kabul and are decendants of ahmed shah abdali) are spread out from peshawar to lahore and kashmir with some decedants even in present day india.

- Northern Punjab...u have people like niazis (pushtun tribe but mainly in mianwali, with significant niazi diaspora in lahor, karachi, islamabad , chakwal, parts of afghanistan)...some also call these ppl "punjabi pathans" espeacialy those in punjab...some famous niazis include imran khan a famous politician.

So Pakistan is a country with 170 million people with diverse ethinic backgrounds including arab, indian, persian, afghan, central asian, and not to forget people from Kalash in gilgit baltistan who have been proven to be exact decedents of alexanders forces.....till now many of them arnt even muslim.

Ask anyone here in Canada, my indian friends...even accept it that an average Pakistani looks different as compared to an average indian...so our indian friends on this forum shouldn't keep extreme views of claiming that muslims here in the north western Part of subcontinent (Pakistan) were forced to convert.

Keep in mind that nearly 4-5 million native hindu and sikh punjabis migrated to india in 1947.

Wheather there is a Pakistani from the lineage of indian converts or from the lineage of people of central asian or middle eastern origin....he is part of the ummah (the muslim nation). You expect us to forget what our prophet told us, if u ask us why we keep arabic names...so then listen that

1) almost every kid in Pakistan learns to read Arabic for reading Holy Quran..it is not some one else'e language it is , our religous language, ...here is an example....if some one is a hafiz (those who learn Holy Quran by heart word to word) in Turkey, or Bangladesh...if he recites 10 chapters in arabic (which is not his mother tongue, he doesnt even understand it...yet almost every muslim has memorized a few chapters of the Holy Quran in Arabic) then from 11th chapter onwards a muslim from Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan or India (again whose mother toungue isnt arabic) could recite the Quran in Arabic.

Hence Arabic language plays an important part in our daily lives...before we eat, sleep even we recite (In the Name of God The Most Compassionate The Most Merciful) " Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim"
So to say why Pakistanis use Arabic for naming things well...its simple its their religous language as they are muslims....even a blind person will know answer to this.

2) The last Prophet (S) came just with a final message just as thousands of prophets came before him to every place in the world wherever human beings lived including india...but the last message was universal unlike the previous messengers who were meant for their nations / tribes or people...this message was for humanity not arabs. Just like Torah and Gospel were sent to the israelietes or other books came to other people in the world,,,The Holy Quran was sent to humanity...for that the last Prophet (S) had to be sent to some nation speaking some language...thus it came to the arabs...this message isnt foriegn to anyone ...its for humanity...u think its for arabs only and thus make retarded assumptions.

There are white converts here in Canada...who have learnt Arabic after converting....with blonde beards even lol u wont believe ....all because Arabic is their religous language and English is their mother tongue.

An example of Convert Muslim Scholars who can recite Arabic are

Yousaf Estes in which he tells his story how he became Muslim and he too is fluent in reciting Arabic although ethicaly he is white

YouTube - why did yusuf estes embrace islam ?, 1 of 5

OR

Hamza Yousaf (previous name Mark Hanson) another Muslim Scolar of US who learnt Arabic and is fluent in it and is a convert

YouTube - Sheikh Hamza Yusuf P1

So please learn more about a ethincaly diverse community called muslims before saying why they consider their religous language i.e arabic so important.


Islam simply was the last and final message for humanity...while messages from God came to all other nations before that...including India
 
Last edited:
@ Maddog

I meant something different than what you have responded to.

I am not religious. I consider myself just spiritual but being a Hindu, love the fact that nobody can confine me to follow just the LAID PATH. I am free.

What suites you , what appeals you is your wish and freedom. Its your personal choice like the way you prefer to wear your underwear.

Religion is not my identity and so I feel strange when I see Pakistani Citizens with blinkers and uniform spectacles displaying their religion as their identity.

But to Claim that your religion is the best is something very funny to us. It may be best for you or for some....but.. anyway..thisi is offtopic.
 
Similarly are the Sub Continet Muslims Arabs?

People in Indian Sub-continent are all culturally rooted into a distinct culture which is essentially Indian. We understand your strugle since 1947 to showcase a " Different" you and in this exrecise, the whole intellengtia / historians of pakistan has been throwing strange theories to the gullible people of Pakistan.....some of the Pakistani friends are product of this mass hysteria / barin washing hat has goen for the last 60 + years.

Its painful to see how badly you miss the point again and again.

I clearly stated that Pakistanis are not Arabs but natives of the Indus valley. The main argument is that we do not all share a "distinct culture" as the subcontinent is home to lots of cultures, languages and religions. Most Indians recognise the difference between north, south and east Indians but when it comes to Pakistanis (of Indus region) you rush to over simplify matters and deny Pakistanis the Indus identity which belongs to them. Then you deafen everyone with tales of shared history, 20th century politics and religion etc.

Every neighbouring country in the world has similarities and shared history, but there is no excuse to literally deny someone their own identity. I guess you havent read the comments of your peers who go on about mass migrations, vanishing rivers and the Turkic/Arab origin of Pakistanis to take this hijacking a step further.
 
Sir with due respect...its not about being the best...its a deen ( a way of life) not a religion in the first place.

Religion is something which is only rituals...for Muslims ( plz dont be pakistan specific) all over the world Islam has its own financial system, islamic banking system ( search on it), judicial system, religous system, governing system, administrative system and that was all perfectly done at the time of Rashidun caliphates...where even the christian citizens voluntarily used to choose to live under the Muslim governments instead of the Byzantine Christian empires....such was their humbleness....plz search more on it...i might be doing courses on Islamic Banking and Finance....some banks are even offering it here in Canada.

Sir i respect your views but as a muslim we are supposed to do dawa ( invite your brothers and sisters in humanity) to tell them the meaning of life so that they can be successful in this world and hereafter.

Sir a holy book has to stand the test of time so that we can prove its teachings are perfect....and from God. As you said you arn't religous i respect that...hopefully you believe in Science...here are the views of Non-Muslim Scientists on the scientific facts mentioned in the Holy Quran 1500 years ago including the process of development of child in a woman's womb ( which was found recently through ultrasound--the stages are clearly mentioned in detail in Hily Quran), the water cycle ( discovered much after the last message came), the BIG BANG THEORY ( mentioned absolutely clearly) , the geographical function of mountains, the 7 layers in the earth's atmosphere..hundereds of verses refering to science.

Here is what the non-muslim scientists have to say

PART 1

YouTube - Scientists prove Qur'an to be the word of Allah (God) 1 of 5

PART 2

YouTube - Scientists prove Qur'an to be the word of Allah (God) 2 of 5

PART 3

YouTube - Scientists prove Qur'an to be the word of Allah (God) 3 of 5

PART 4

YouTube - Scientists prove Qur'an to be the word of Allah (God) 4 of 5

PART 5

YouTube - Scientists prove Qur'an to be the word of Allah (God) 5 of 5


The big bang theory is mentioned as follows

Ch 21 verse 30

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

Today we know from science that early forms of life came out of water.

The continous process of expansion of universe

"And the firmament, We constructed with power and skill and verily We are expanding it. (The Noble Quran, 51:47)" Ch 51 verse 47

Again, the word "samaa" was used for "firmament". "samaa" as I mentioned above means either "heaven", or "Universe" depending on how it is used. Certainly, the meaning of the word "samaa" in Noble Verse 51:47 is "Universe".

The sun and moon both move in orbits

There are 2 verse talking about movement of sun and moon in orbits hundreds of years before scientists found that out

Ch 36 verse 40 (chapter name "Sura Ya seen")

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit."

Chapter 21 verse 33 (chapter name "Surah Al-Anbiya)

"And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit."

7 Layers in atmosphere today which the science found out

“See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, “And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?” (Al-Qur’an 71:15-16) Chapter 71 verse 15-16

Heavens here refers to sky or the universe...as cleared above...after another verse like this.

Translations are realy difficult job...but they are good to convey the message of truth to reast of brothers and sisters in humanity...i would love if you do more reasearch on these topics so that you could find out why muslims are generaly so attached to their faith and way of life...and why they shouldnt care about ethinic and cultural nationalism....islam i repeat is a way of life with rules to even eat food , meet peopl going upto ruling and doing administration of a country. The signs are very clear for humanity.....as i said messages were brought by prophets chosen from their people...these prophets were simple humans like us but braught the message of Oneness of God and to obey and worship God as our time on this earth was temperary ..these messengers came to every place in the world where humans lived...including india...one saying of Prophet (S) puts their number upto approximately1,24000...with the last messenger and prophet being Prophet Muhammad (S)...and the last message was intended to unite the human beings...that is the reason Islam discourages nationalism based on ethinicty..and cultures.
 
Last edited:
I guess enough is posted on this Thread and I don;t know what are we discussing now.. Mods can the thread be closed before somebody starts his lecture on the things totally unrealted.
 
Its painful to see how badly you miss the point again and again.

Painful is the word. It says it all.

The seeking of an exclusivist identity is painful.


The effort by the faithful to explain why the people of these diverse cultures, united by a single geographical circumstance similar to the Nile River, are in fact homogenous is painful.

Their further efforts at explaining away their abandonment of their heritage and rejection of their old names and identities as being their religious duty, while blatantly refusing to look over their shoulders at their Persian and Turkish co-religionists, is painful.

The contradictory seeking of an inclusive identity jammed on top of that exclusivism would have been funny, if the twisting that is needed to claim these things were not so obviously painful.

Look at the examples.

The attempts by another section - the mindful? - within these neighbours to ignore the first section's zeal and to seek affinity with the same barbaric past that that first section has summarily rejected is painful.

The efforts at proving that the citizens of today's modern-day Pakistan were a people and a culture right through history are painful. The pleas that these citizens belong to diverse cultures, wildly diverse, and hence are different from the mass of those others living in the rest of south Asia, followed by an unblinkingly contradictory plea that these very diverse and completely unlinked peoples are yet linked among themselves by some strange national alchemy and constitute a homogenous, united culture would be hilarious to view in its complete confusion if it were not otherwise in logical terms so painful.

Not a bad summary for this strange spectacle of unlettered young people seeking their identity as they live far away from what they cling to as their place of origin, and resorting in the so doing to the most astonishing contortions of their own words and the most abominable distortions of history and the words of all who dare to oppose the progress of the righteous - painful it is.

The passages of this comment and others need to be examined from the following points of view:

  1. Does the conversion of large masses of people in this region amount to rejection of their past, as their abandonment of their ancestral names (contrary to what other converts have done) seeks to indicate?
  2. Are the people currently living in the Indus Valley (extended by courtesy of debate to the farthest stretches of Baluchistan) really, truly each so individual and so diverse that they have nothing to do with the people of the rest of South Asia?
  3. Are they in their diversity and variety in some magical way yet connected among themselves far more closely than they are disconnected from the other South Asians?

I clearly stated that Pakistanis are not Arabs but natives of the Indus valley.

Excellent.

Easy enough, plain and simple. Nothing complicated about this one.

Just keep it simple, great one, and explain to these unlearned peasants seeking wisdom why you proud Indusians, or Indusids, or Indusiots, or Induscans reject your own vaunted heritage and prance around in borrowed plumes.

Why do the Persians not find it necessary (until the recent theocracy) to reject their Persian heritage? Why do names from older Persia occur among them? Are they less zealous, or less conscious of their being part of a greater unitary culture which rejects all earlier cultures? For that matter, why too do the Turks behave similarly? Or the Indonesians, just to give our necks a rest from being turned in one direction all the time?

The main argument is that we do not all share a "distinct culture" as the subcontinent is home to lots of cultures, languages and religions.

That is what some of us have been trying to explain to you, not without patience and forbearance.

I know I am playing a prank on you, distorting your grammar; I know that when you say what you do above, the 'we' refers to south Asians. You are trying to say that all of south Asia is not uniform. Fair enough.

What makes you think that all Pakistanis - Baluch, Sindhi, Pathan, Hazara, Punjabi, Balti, Kashmiri - are different from the rest of the sub-continent, but have some mystic affinity among yourselves? apart from the religion to which the bulk of you belong, and which has nothing to do with your ancient heritage, that you have discovered so late, and now guard so jealously?

Most Indians recognise the difference between north, south and east Indians but when it comes to Pakistanis (of Indus region) you rush to over simplify matters and deny Pakistanis the Indus identity which belongs to them. Then you deafen everyone with tales of shared history, 20th century politics and religion etc.

Oh no, not at all. It started in many places, this thread being one of them. Those others are listed; please have the goodness to read about those parallel threads. They all have one point in common, magically risen from the ground in recent years. There is no need to add to the hurt of a proud country by pointing to the curious juxtaposition of world events and the general displeasure of the world at large to the springing up of this intense desire to reconnect to old roots.

It was not present before. The deafening chorus started quite some time ago. Have you forgotten so easily what you said until even a few months ago?

We (Indians as the old pre-2000 usage had it) were informed roundly, in season and out of season, in context and out of context, for sixty years and more, that we were inheritors of a dead civilisation, that our heritage was idolatry and superstition, of cowardice and supine acceptance of the rule of the chosen people, that our obnoxious culture and language and religions and ethnicity and every other differentiator of human existence made it impossible for 'two nations' to co-exist, that therefore the chosen people had opted to separate two fringe areas and keep those to themselves and to those others among the chosen who elected to travel over there, that nevertheless, by our very existence, we should be the eternal enemy, subject to war, to terror, to threat, to international humiliation orchestrated by the chosen, to defeat in small matters as in large, to a reminder, to quote one of your great men, an exemplar of your great country as we have exemplars of our own, that one Pakistani is worth ten Indians.

It didn't start here, it didn't start now, and when you garb yourself in self-pity and start your tale of recent sorrows, sometimes the weight of indignation and the fury of the unjustly accused keeps us silent. But not forgetful. Never make that mistake.

The cacophony started soon after two articles were printed by a sober commentator, Gunner. It was in those two articles that a common heritage was claimed by the coincidence of residing around a common geographical feature. This is about as sensible as the people living around the Nile, from Uganda, a small part of Ethiopia, the Sudan and Egypt. There is no Nile identity; there is no Rhine identity; there is no Danube identity; there is no Mississippi identity; there is no Amazon identity; no Oxus identity; no Volga identity. Only in this corner of the world is there an Indus identity.

It gets better. It is not just an Indus identity. After years of patiently explaining to our friends that Hindu is a geographical expression, and that India is a Greek distortion of a Perso-Indian term that is pronounced in two different but typical ways on two sides of a linguistic border, and that India is derived from this river name and extended to the whole country, we were rewarded.

What a reward!

There is a whole thread dominated by your champions and paladins telling us that we are not the Indians, contrary to what we have been told for these sixty years, we are in fact linguistic squatters, purloining by stealth and illegal effort the whole name of the Indus Valley Civilisation and its heirs and assigns.

Well done.

First you deny any link but the religious; then you discover that it was a dream of your founder that the land he helped to establish would be a liberal, secular democracy; now we have the bonds of your ancient culture, treated with such contumely for so long, being brought forward.

Never had so much excitement since the circus came to town. All three rings. Do we look at the galloping horses? Oh, that's passe; victorious smiters of the infidel doesn't sell in Peoria any longer. The elephant balanced on a toy train then? Why not? The elephant is the symbol of the country. Or it will be, the moment some sign-painter can put it on the tail of one your planes. It's as easy as that. The clowns? Let's keep this conversation civil, shall we? There's no need to make snide personal remarks.

Every neighbouring country in the world has similarities and shared history, but there is no excuse to literally deny someone their own identity. I guess you havent read the comments of your peers who go on about mass migrations, vanishing rivers and the Turkic/Arab origin of Pakistanis to take this hijacking a step further.

Great balls of fire.

Haven't read the comments of your peers, says the man. Mass migrations and such-like nonsense, says the man, vanishing rivers, says he, Turkic/Arab origins of Pakistanis, says he.

Actually, that's not the way it works. You aren't suppose to raise these issues, not just now. Just wait two or three years and raise them, this time as proof that there was in fact an Ancient Pakistan. Oh, wait!! What am I saying? Some of your fellow countrymen have started writing about the mass migrations already, in a sort of way. They've explained patiently to us dunderheads and historically inept castaways that the Indo-Aryans, the composers of the Rg Veda, aren't anything to do with us actually, they were Indus Valley people, too, we have nothing to do with them, we only get the last three Vedas and the other stuff that followed.

There's also lovely stuff about the Turkic/Arab origins - but that's not from us, that's from one of you, and it's about culture and how it is affected by the Turks and Arabs, more than it is affected by the Gujaratis and the Rajasthanis and the Marathas. It's all right, it's from a member of the chosen, it's kosher, comrade, don't worry. It's not part of the hijacking, it's part of the celebration of your ethnicity.

Head Office isn't keeping you updated; better keep your communications links flowing, comrade. All we untermensch can do is wait to hear what is to happen next. Some incidental gallows humour on our part may be forgiven.
 
@Joe;

I have always seen you using 'Rig Veda' as 'Rg Veda'.

Any special reasons ?
 
@Joe;

I have always seen you using 'Rig Veda' as 'Rg Veda'.

Any special reasons ?

I hadn't noticed till you pointed it out - embarrassing!

It's just old academic habit. The original spelling in Sanskrit is Ri - G, as in Ri - Sh - I, and does not correctly transliterate as R - I - Sh - I.

But - you're right - it is meaningless pedantry, and I will spell it Rig in future.

My name in my own language has five letters, including one heavily compounded letter; in English, it has eight. My surname is two letters wide; in English, five. Yours, in Sanskrit or a derivative, is 5 + 2; in English, as you may have noticed, 6 + 3.
 
Is it not surprising that our indian friends are so concerned about our origins, all the flowery language from our dear Mr Shearer cannot disguise his rage - about the circumstances of our nationhood.

The Sufi Saints of the Pakistan Region, and in india itself were responsible for the conversion of the vast majority of the Islamic people that reside in this region, there were no bloodthirsty warlords holding swords at peoples throats telling them to convert.

This belief has been propagated into the minds of some people in india, by the most vile anti Muslim and anti-minority parties - such as the rss, vhp etc etc.

The Saints that were responsible for the awakening are still venerated today, by the people they converted, in fact they are visited by people of the Hindu faith, such was their great humanist example.

As to people not proud of their pre-Islamic past, you will find many of us are proud, but not to the detriment of our new family and community.

Here is a World Boxing Champion of Pakistani Descent, Amir Khan talking of his heritage.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Painful is the word. It says it all.

The seeking of an exclusivist identity is painful.
Exclusivist? For a reason. What identity is not exclusivist? Maybe the Indian identity which is based on neighbouring regions not their own. Are you feeling excluded that Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto and Baluchi culture represents the tiniest minority in India? The problem lies with you then.
The effort by the faithful to explain why the people of these diverse cultures, united by a single geographical circumstance similar to the Nile River, are in fact homogenous is painful.
United by Pakistan. The pain is obvious or you wouldnt write an essay about the topic.
Their further efforts at explaining away their abandonment of their heritage and rejection of their old names and identities as being their religious duty, while blatantly refusing to look over their shoulders at their Persian and Turkish co-religionists, is painful.
Spare us the disappointment. All of human culture evolved from a single culture in Africa but of course "abandonment" is the only word you can use for Islamic influence on the Indus cultures. Evolution of cultures takes place all over the world and there is no right or wrong way. "Abandonment of their heritage"? Do you even understand the concept of heritage? The irony is that this accusation is hurled around when Pakistanis do claim their Indus heritage.
The contradictory seeking of an inclusive identity jammed on top of that exclusivism would have been funny, if the twisting that is needed to claim these things were not so obviously painful.

Look at the examples.

The attempts by another section - the mindful? - within these neighbours to ignore the first section's zeal and to seek affinity with the same barbaric past that that first section has summarily rejected is painful.
Who rejected what? You seem to think an overly religious Muslim is a sign of rejecting their own past and worse, the rejection is unforgivable. Even if your shockingly childish view did reflect reality, what is your problem with Pakistanis finally accepting their heritage?
The efforts at proving that the citizens of today's modern-day Pakistan were a people and a culture right through history are painful. The pleas that these citizens belong to diverse cultures, wildly diverse, and hence are different from the mass of those others living in the rest of south Asia, followed by an unblinkingly contradictory plea that these very diverse and completely unlinked peoples are yet linked among themselves by some strange national alchemy and constitute a homogenous, united culture would be hilarious to view in its complete confusion if it were not otherwise in logical terms so painful.
This is what I meant by missing the point. It has been explained a million times that the phrase ancient Pakistan (just like ancient India) is geographic. No one but you claimed it to be a nation. Yet you have no problem with the term ancient India.
Not a bad summary for this strange spectacle of unlettered young people seeking their identity as they live far away from what they cling to as their place of origin, and resorting in the so doing to the most astonishing contortions of their own words and the most abominable distortions of history and the words of all who dare to oppose the progress of the righteous - painful it is.
Example of distortion of history: The idea that all modern day Indians originated from the Indus valley just a few thousand years ago.

The passages of this comment and others need to be examined from the following points of view:

  1. Does the conversion of large masses of people in this region amount to rejection of their past, as their abandonment of their ancestral names (contrary to what other converts have done) seeks to indicate?
  2. Are the people currently living in the Indus Valley (extended by courtesy of debate to the farthest stretches of Baluchistan) really, truly each so individual and so diverse that they have nothing to do with the people of the rest of South Asia?
  3. Are they in their diversity and variety in some magical way yet connected among themselves far more closely than they are disconnected from the other South Asians?



Just keep it simple, great one, and explain to these unlearned peasants seeking wisdom why you proud Indusians, or Indusids, or Indusiots, or Induscans reject your own vaunted heritage and prance around in borrowed plumes.

I dont believe I am rejecting our past. In fact I think I am doing the exact opposite. How is this not clear?
Why do the Persians not find it necessary (until the recent theocracy) to reject their Persian heritage? Why do names from older Persia occur among them? Are they less zealous, or less conscious of their being part of a greater unitary culture which rejects all earlier cultures? For that matter, why too do the Turks behave similarly? Or the Indonesians, just to give our necks a rest from being turned in one direction all the time?
Because its not possible to reject ones heritage and I dont believe Pakistanis have rejected their heritage. Only you have this obsession.

I know I am playing a prank on you, distorting your grammar; I know that when you say what you do above, the 'we' refers to south Asians. You are trying to say that all of south Asia is not uniform. Fair enough.

What makes you think that all Pakistanis - Baluch, Sindhi, Pathan, Hazara, Punjabi, Balti, Kashmiri - are different from the rest of the sub-continent, but have some mystic affinity among yourselves? apart from the religion to which the bulk of you belong, and which has nothing to do with your ancient heritage, that you have discovered so late, and now guard so jealously?
Baluch, Sindhi, Pathan, Hazara, Punjabi, Balti, Kashmiri are different, which is why they are called as such.

Did I say they have some mystic affinity amongst themselves? The only point which we repeatedly made was that these groups have instances of shared history due to their geography, like Indus valley, Gandhara and Kushan era. There is also shared history with the rest of the subcontinent so dont stress yourself. Nothing is being overlooked. Ancient Pakistan is a geographic term which describes the ancient heritage of all Pakistanis. Nobody has claimed an ancient country called Pakistan.

We (Indians as the old pre-2000 usage had it) were informed roundly, in season and out of season, in context and out of context, for sixty years and more, that we were inheritors of a dead civilisation, that our heritage was idolatry and superstition, of cowardice and supine acceptance of the rule of the chosen people, that our obnoxious culture and language and religions and ethnicity and every other differentiator of human existence made it impossible for 'two nations' to co-exist, that therefore the chosen people had opted to separate two fringe areas and keep those to themselves and to those others among the chosen who elected to travel over there, that nevertheless, by our very existence, we should be the eternal enemy, subject to war, to terror, to threat, to international humiliation orchestrated by the chosen, to defeat in small matters as in large, to a reminder, to quote one of your great men, an exemplar of your great country as we have exemplars of our own, that one Pakistani is worth ten Indians.
20th century politics, war time speeches, emotion filled statements. Care to explain how this changes the heritage of Pakistani people?
It didn't start here, it didn't start now, and when you garb yourself in self-pity and start your tale of recent sorrows, sometimes the weight of indignation and the fury of the unjustly accused keeps us silent. But not forgetful. Never make that mistake.

The cacophony started soon after two articles were printed by a sober commentator, Gunner. It was in those two articles that a common heritage was claimed by the coincidence of residing around a common geographical feature. This is about as sensible as the people living around the Nile, from Uganda, a small part of Ethiopia, the Sudan and Egypt. There is no Nile identity; there is no Rhine identity; there is no Danube identity; there is no Mississippi identity; there is no Amazon identity; no Oxus identity; no Volga identity. Only in this corner of the world is there an Indus identity.
Only in this corner of the world is there an "Indian identity" which spans all of the subcontinent and all of time. Not a quip from you there.
There is a whole thread dominated by your champions and paladins telling us that we are not the Indians, contrary to what we have been told for these sixty years, we are in fact linguistic squatters, purloining by stealth and illegal effort the whole name of the Indus Valley Civilisation and its heirs and assigns.

Well done.
Well done on missing the point. The argument was purely on the use of the term India.
First you deny any link but the religious; then you discover that it was a dream of your founder that the land he helped to establish would be a liberal, secular democracy; now we have the bonds of your ancient culture, treated with such contumely for so long, being brought forward.
See evolution of culture. Ours didnt appear from thin air.
Never had so much excitement since the circus came to town. All three rings. Do we look at the galloping horses? Oh, that's passe; victorious smiters of the infidel doesn't sell in Peoria any longer. The elephant balanced on a toy train then? Why not? The elephant is the symbol of the country. Or it will be, the moment some sign-painter can put it on the tail of one your planes. It's as easy as that. The clowns? Let's keep this conversation civil, shall we? There's no need to make snide personal remarks.
Snide personal remarks? Should I respond with a loony essay trying hard to be poetic?
Great balls of fire.

Haven't read the comments of your peers, says the man. Mass migrations and such-like nonsense, says the man, vanishing rivers, says he, Turkic/Arab origins of Pakistanis, says he.
...and there was applause (better?)
Actually, that's not the way it works. You aren't suppose to raise these issues, not just now. Just wait two or three years and raise them, this time as proof that there was in fact an Ancient Pakistan. Oh, wait!! What am I saying? Some of your fellow countrymen have started writing about the mass migrations already, in a sort of way. They've explained patiently to us dunderheads and historically inept castaways that the Indo-Aryans, the composers of the Rg Veda, aren't anything to do with us actually, they were Indus Valley people, too, we have nothing to do with them, we only get the last three Vedas and the other stuff that followed.

There's also lovely stuff about the Turkic/Arab origins - but that's not from us, that's from one of you, and it's about culture and how it is affected by the Turks and Arabs, more than it is affected by the Gujaratis and the Rajasthanis and the Marathas. It's all right, it's from a member of the chosen, it's kosher, comrade, don't worry. It's not part of the hijacking, it's part of the celebration of your ethnicity.
I believe that was a reference to Turkic/Arab invasions. Seems like you hear what you want to hear.
Head Office isn't keeping you updated; better keep your communications links flowing, comrade. All we untermensch can do is wait to hear what is to happen next. Some incidental gallows humour on our part may be forgiven.

I dont believe anyone asked you to get involved in the first place. One of the first threads was titled "Why do Pakistanis not appreciate their ancient history", "Historical Background of Pakistan and its People" and this "I, Maha Sapta Sindhu".
 
Last edited:
So you are aware of him :) We Pakistanis are indeed proud to have a World Champion - It is the height of arrogance to tell another person - what or who, he or she is.

Challenging our faith, through these lies - is not going to endear any indians to Muslims, and if you were to do that in real life, could get very ugly indeed.
 
Pakistan is strange country.

1/2 belong to Ancient India, 1/4 belong to Ancient Persia, 1/4 belong to Ancient Bactria.

That is why so much problem.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom