India, Iran cradles of great civilizations: Iranian envoy

[r3alist]

The concept of Bharata/Bharatvarsha is not a new one. It is defined in scriptures, religious texts..
Besides Indika/Indians were called by travellers like Megastehsens or Arabic, Iranian , Chinese travellers..
You have to understand one thing.. It is more cultural than geographical. And it is reflected in the food, language, literature, dances, religious influences...
That is why the IVC which also included sites like Lothal or Ropar goes beyond the present defintion of nationhood

And what you said is the exact reason why your argument is so weak.

It's JUST A CONCEPT.


I don't see the big deal that people who lived somewhat close to each other had some similar facets, what are we meant to make of that?it doesn't mean a great deal to me, and clearly not to my ancestors!!

If a Christian was once a pagan, as many were, who makes a big deal about that, it was just the theme of the time, they were not attaching labels as you are.

and note that I said THEME, which does not constitute a body politic, your argument is just a patchwork of themes meshed into something way bigger then it should be.

just because a few people termed all if south Asia as India thousands of years ago is not binding my friend, it's just a convenient word to lazily describe a region.

 

[r3alist]

Now I don't agree with the above^.

 

[roadrunner]

This is very leechy. I think the problem is that you have no history of note. If the real history was told correctly, Indian history would actually be known as Pakistani history since the big points of Indian history occurred in the geography of Pakistan.

A nation was divided based on the Two nation Thoey and an idelaogy

Do you also want to divide history on the basis of this idealogy

In that case you have ask whether Indus valley people accepted Two nation theory, Gandhara, Kushanas etc etc confoemd to Two nation theory

Gandhara is Pakistani history (Afghanistan's also), the Kushanas are Pakistani history (and Afghanistan, Uzbekistan).

If not then who are you to claim rights on what is your history and what is our history ?

We have no qualms if you claim Tipu/ Akbar or even Prithiraj as part of your history..Please do that

Prithiraj/Tipu Sultan are part of Indian history, not Pakistan's. Is this not obvious?

 

[xLancex]

Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Afghans, Saudis, (can't tell the difference between these groups) all have semetic features.
South Indians, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis (Cant tell the difference)
Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, (Can't tell the difference)
Anglo American, Anglo European from England, France, Poland, Sweden, Germany, Anglo Australian (Cant tell the difference)
Mexican, Brazilian, Colombian, Salvi, (Cant tell the difference)
Spanish, Italian, Greek, Turk, Armenian (Cant tell the difference)
African American, Jamaican, North-West-South- or East African (Cant tell the difference)

We're all just one blob.

 

[roadrunner]

Indians have different features to South Indians

You make great sense as usual.

 

[Bhairava]

Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Afghans, Saudis, (can't tell the difference between these groups) all have semetic features.
South Indians, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis (Cant tell the difference)

Agreed with all except the two containing Indians.

You need to be more specific or rather in our case you can't be specific.

Because inside the 3.2 million sq.kms we have all sorts of people in all skin tones from the extreme white to extreme black.

What I'm saying you cant generalize 'Indians' as such into one block. We have Caucasian looking Indians, Negroid looking Indians, Indian with South Asian features, Indian with Mongoloid features etc.

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

This is very leechy. I think the problem is that you have no history of note. If the real history was told correctly, Indian history would actually be known as Pakistani history since the big points of Indian history occurred in the geography of Pakistan.

Gandhara is Pakistani history (Afghanistan's also), the Kushanas are Pakistani history (and Afghanistan, Uzbekistan).

Prithiraj/Tipu Sultan are part of Indian history, not Pakistan's. Is this not obvious?

Same old, same old..revisionist bs.

 

[roadrunner]

There's nothing revisionist in what I've said. It's only a clarification that Indians don't seem to like.

Whatever happens in the geographic boundary of a country is that country's history.

You have been watching too much Bollywood if you think Indians have Semitic features.

 

[Bhairava]

There's nothing revisionist in what I've said. It's only a clarification that Indians don't seem to like.

Whatever happens in the geographic boundary of a country is that country's history.

You have been watching too much Bollywood if you think Indians have Semitic features.

Whatever bro. Boundaries only arose with the rise of modern nation states not in ancient times and the flow of culture was not restricted by any modern boundaries.

BTW I did not say 'all' Indians have Caucasian features, just some Indians have 'caucasian' features also among other features.

 

[PakistaniPacifist]

Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Afghans, Saudis, (can't tell the difference between these groups) all have semetic features.
South Indians, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis (Cant tell the difference)
Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, (Can't tell the difference)
Anglo American, Anglo European from England, France, Poland, Sweden, Germany, Anglo Australian (Cant tell the difference)
Mexican, Brazilian, Colombian, Salvi, (Cant tell the difference)
Spanish, Italian, Greek, Turk, Armenian (Cant tell the difference)
African American, Jamaican, North-West-South- or East African (Cant tell the difference)

We're all just one blob.

False!

Europeans - Slavics in general have sharper features to Germanics.

Middle Eastern/Asian - I can clearly differentiate between an Iraqi and an Iranian, the same way I can tell the differences between an Afghan or Iranian to a Pakistani and likewise between a Pakistani and an Indian.

Lastly, South Indians are classed as Indians so for you to label them as a separate entity to other Indians is ridiculous and to be honest, most Indians, that I see have the appearance of a South Indian.

Absolutely flawed, notion!

 

[roadrunner]

Whatever bro. Boundaries only arose with the rise of modern nation states not in ancient times and the flow of culture was not restricted by any modern boundaries.

BTW I did not say 'all' Indians have Caucasian features, just some Indians have 'caucasian' features also among other features.

People have always been territorial. They did not give up land to anyone.

Indians do not have similar features to Pakistanis, Iranians, or Saudis. You have to be utterly blind to think so.

Most of those classifications were hilariously dumb, but since this is mainly about the Asian/Arab features..

 

[Bhairava]

Middle Eastern/Asian - I can clearly differentiate between an Iraqi and an Iranian, the same way I can tell the differences between an Afghan or Iranian to a Pakistani and likewise between a Pakistani and an Indian.

Except for some mountain Pashtun or a Baloch , anyone would be hardpressed to tell a Pakistani (especially Punjabi,Sindhi) from an Indian (especially North Indian).

 

[roadrunner]

False!

Europeans - Slavics in general have sharper features to Germanics.

Middle Eastern/Asian - I can clearly differentiate between an Iraqi and an Iranian, the same way I can tell the differences between an Afghan or Iranian to a Pakistani and likewise between a Pakistani and an Indian.

Lastly, South Indians are classed as Indians so for you to label them as a separate entity to other Indians is ridiculous and to be honest, most Indians, that I see have the appearance of a South Indian.

Absolutely flawed, notion!

Agreed. I can generally tell the difference between an Anglo American and a Western European in addition.

---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

Except for some mountain Pashtun or a Baloch , anyone would be hardpressed to tell a Pakistani (especially Punjabi,Sindhi) from an Indian (especially North Indian).

Don't be dumb.

Anyone in the world can distinguish a Calcuttan North Indian, or even an Uttar Pradesh North Indian, 9 times out of 10 from a Pakistani (any Pakistani ethnic group).

 

[Rig Vedic]

Was any ancient Indian person consciously part of something called India/Hindustan, as far as I know that's a NO.

Bharatavarsha is roughly the area that today speaks Sanskrit-based or Sanskrit influenced languages. That includes Punjab, Sindh, Nepal, Assam (Sanskrit-based languages) and also the South (Sanskrit influence - Malayalam is 80% Sanskrit.)

Jinnah's two nation theory is based on denying ancestral heritage. Jinnah's grandfather was a Gujarati Hindu, but Jinnah himself boldly declared that he belonged to a nation that was in conflict with the nation of his grandfather. So we see here that there is a conscious effort to erase all Kaffir influence, and identify with the Buddha-smashing Ghazi warriors ("But-Shikan") from Turkestan or Arabia.

 

[Bhairava]

People have always been territorial. They did not give up land to anyone.

Cultural/civilizational influences were not restricted by modern day boundaries back then.

Indians do not have similar features to Pakistanis, Iranians, or Saudis. You have to be utterly blind to think so.

Indians & Pakistanis. You should have a crystal ball if you could tell apart a Pak Punjabi or a Sindhi from an average North Indian (Punjabi,Haryanvi or a Rajasthani in particular)

Don't be dumb.

Anyone in the world can distinguish a Calcuttan North Indian, or even an Uttar Pradesh North Indian, 9 times out of 10 from a Pakistani (any Pakistani ethnic group).

Genius, Calcuttans (Bengalis) are not North Indians.

 

[r3alist]

Whatever bro. Boundaries only arose with the rise of modern nation states not in ancient times and the flow of culture was not restricted by any modern boundaries.

BTW I did not say 'all' Indians have Caucasian features, just some Indians have 'caucasian' features also among other features.

The flow of culture?? What the heck is this culture you are on about?

Language?arts?architecture?music?

Or is something as banal as we eat spicey food