What's new

Is Kashmir a part of India ?

hahhaa, lol, no you are correct. :lol:

but sadly the rest of the world doesn't agree with you. :cry:.... :smitten:

Bharat doesn't makes rest of the world
It doesn't takes a history buff to figure it out india comes from indus and our founding fathers protested to bharti leaders to change the name but to know avail
 
Whoo, hold on a second, if you cant refute my argument then you call me history buff, i am no student of history, my history is due to University of Melbourne where i study, and over here they dont say Pakistan is Bharat, If the Aussies are teaching lies in their history then i think the whole world is wrong and you bharti are right

You do have an interest in history, right? Hence the term history buff.

And nobody is saying Pakistan is Bharat. But Pakistan certainly was a part of Bharat, not so long ago.
 
You do have an interest in history, right? Hence the term history buff.

And nobody is saying Pakistan is Bharat. But Pakistan certainly was a part of Bharat, not so long ago.

Please tell me the name of an emperor from bharat ruling pakistan
 
Please tell me the name of an emperor from bharat ruling pakistan

You mean a king who ruled over the combined areas of undivided India (including present-day Pakistan)?

Well - in all the following times, Pakistan and India (apart from the South and extreme East) were united. Again I am not talking about capitals alone. Roman civilization was centered in Rome but the whole of Italy and areas as far as Constantinople are included in Roman and later Byzantine history.

Kanishka. He did rule a major part of current day Pakistan and most of North and Central India. And to add, the Kushana empire included parts of central Asia.

File:Kushanmap.jpg


Ashoka.

File:Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg


Samudragupta.
File:Gupta.png


Akbar-Aurangzeb.

File:Mughal1700.png


I hope these help.
 
Bharat doesn't makes rest of the world
It doesn't takes a history buff to figure it out india comes from indus and our founding fathers protested to bharti leaders to change the name but to know avail




no my friend, they are all wrong. you are the only who is correct. what u say!!!! :smitten:
 
You mean a king who ruled over the combined areas of undivided India (including present-day Pakistan)?

Well - in all the following times, Pakistan and India (apart from the South and extreme East) were united. Again I am not talking about capitals alone. Roman civilization was centered in Rome but the whole of Italy and areas as far as Constantinople are included in Roman and later Byzantine history.

Kanishka. He did rule a major part of current day Pakistan and most of North and Central India. And to add, the Kushana empire included parts of central Asia.

File:Kushanmap.jpg


Ashoka.

File:Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg


Samudragupta.
File:Gupta.png


Akbar-Aurangzeb.

File:Mughal1700.png


I hope these help.

kanishka was not an indian he was central asian, he ruled less than 1/4 of bharat area from Peshawar, Pakistan was not part of Bharat but Central Asia

The Mauryans were punjabis from Taxilla not from maghda

Western and Pakistani historians have rejected any Gupta, pala empire ruling pakistan, it only exists in Bharti txtbook

Akbar-Aurangzeb were turkic-mongol in origin Pakistan was not part of Bharat but Central Asia

Final Note: except the 100 year rule of Mauryans Pakistan and Bharat were never united until muslims came, When they came we were part of Central Asia not Bharat
 
kanishka was not an indian he was central asian, he ruled less than 1/4 of bharat area from Peshawar, Pakistan was not part of Bharat but Central Asia
But Pakistan and 1/4 of Bharat were ruled by the same ruler and under the same empire, right? What does that give you? Common culture and a shared history.

The Mauryans were punjabis from Taxilla not from maghda
They ruled from Pataliputra. Taxila was the capital of the province of Gandhara under Mauryan rule. If you are saying otherwise, post references.

Western and Pakistani historians have rejected any Gupta, pala empire ruling pakistan, it only exists in Bharti txtbook
Which ones? Name a few well-known western historians?

Akbar-Aurangzeb were turkic-mongol in origin Pakistan was not part of Bharat but Central Asia
After 100 years in the subcontinent for Akbar and about 200 for Auangzeb, it would be foolish to consider them as outsiders. They were born here. They ruled from India and were Indians for all purposes.

Final Note: except the 100 year rule of Mauryans Pakistan and Bharat were never united until muslims came, When they came we were part of Central Asia not Bharat
You have no proof to back that up. All my pics are from wiki. Granted its not the best source but the one that is most commonly believed and agreed upon.

Now you have just posted your opinions without any backing up. As I see it, you are the one refuting commonly held beliefs, hence the onus of providing references and proofs is on you. You claim you have read books in your Uni that support and lend credence to your theories. Post their names, chapters, page numbers and relevant sections. Untill then, please dont say "western historians and Pakistani historians rejected this and other such stuff".

Eagerly awaiting your references.
 
Whoo, hold on a second, if you cant refute my argument then you call me history buff, i am no student of history, my history is due to University of Melbourne where i study, and over here they dont say Pakistan is Bharat, If the Aussies are teaching lies in their history then i think the whole world is wrong and you bharti are right

You are in luck mate, i happen to be at Uni of Melbourne, library abt 3-4 times a week. If u can tell me where i can find such books, that'd be awesome. Also few of the history lecturers sitting in the John Medley building happen to be very good friends of my dad. Care to tell me which lecturer is teaching the above mentioned things? I ll chase it up with them for you.
 
They ruled from Pataliputra. Taxila was the capital of the province of Gandhara under Mauryan rule. If you are saying otherwise, post references.


Which ones? Name a few well-known western historians?

I wasn’t going to reply because i know you are not going to believe it then i thought lets give a final try.

There is school of scholars like B.M. Barua, Dr J.W. McCrindle, Dr D.B. Spooner, Dr H.C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ranajit Pal and others who connect Chandragupta (Sandrokottos) to the north-western frontiers(Pakistan). B.M. Barua calls him a man of Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila
Source: 'To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila' (Indian Culture, vol. X, p. 34, B. M. Barua).

Based on Plutarch's evidence, Dr J.W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta write that Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi and belonged to the Ashvaka (Assakenoi) territory.
Source: Invasion of India by Alexander the great, p. 405. Plutarch attests that Androcottos had seen Alexander when he (Androcottos) was a lad and afterwards he used to declare that Alexander might easily have conquered the whole country (India); Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi? Article in Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-35

Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that 'Antrokottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians, dwelt on river Indus'.
Source: Appian (XI, 55). Some historians state that he belonged to Kunar and Swat valleys. See: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 150-51, Kirpal Singh. This reference also seems to indicate that Chandragupta belonged to north-west rather than East India.

These scholars relate Sandrocottos (or Androcottos) with Sisicottos of the Classical writings. Sisicottos was the ruler of Paropamise (Hindu Kush) who had helped Bessus of Bactria against Alexander but later co-operated with the latter throughout the Sogdian campaigns.
Source Arrian. iv, 30. 4

During Alexander's campaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, prince Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander faced stiff resistance from the tribals, Sisicottos was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenois. It is however not quite clear if this Sisicottos was same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers or else they were related in someway. Dr J. W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas
Source: Invasion of Alexander, 2nd Ed, p 112, Dr J. W. McCrindle; Op cit., p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta; Dr McCrindle further writes that modern Afghanistan was the ancient Kamboja and that the name Afghanistan is evidently derived from the Ashvakas or Assakenois of Arrian See: Megasthenes and Arrian, p 180; Alexander's Invasion of India, p 38; Dr J. C. Vidyalankar identifies Sisicottos as a Kamboja ruler: See Itihaas Parvesh, pp 133-34, Dr J. C. Vidyalankar; Kamboj Itihaas, 1973, p 58-59, H. S. Thind.

Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros people. It is asserted by scholars of this school that the name Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor (Modern name Koh-i-Mor i.e Mor hill---the ancient Meros of the classical writings) located in the Paropamisade region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas (q.v.). It is pointed out that since Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Mor (Meros of classical writings) hence he was called Moriya or Maurya after his motherland.
Source : Op. cit., pp 32-35, Dr H. C. Gupta; Also: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 149-154.
Tribune writes: "Most historians are of the view that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Bihar, and that he called himself Maurya because his mother was the keeper of royal peacocks (mor) at Pataliputra. He came to Punjab and conquered it. Afterwards, with the help of the Punjab army he seized the Nanda empire. However, there are reasons to believe that Chandragupta belonged to the Kshatriya caste of the ruling Ashvaka tribe of the Koh-i-Mor territory. He called himself Maurya after his homeland" (Ref: Article in Sunday Tribune, January 10, 1999 They taught lessons to kings, Gur Rattan Pal Singh; Also cf: Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi?, Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta)

It is notable that Adiparva of Mahabharata (verses 1/67/13-14) also seem to connect Maurya Ashoka with the Ashvakas
Source: yastvashva iti vikhyAtaH shrImAnAsInmahAsuraH |. Ashoko nAma rAjAsInmahAvIryaparAkramaH. ||14|| tasmAdavarajo yastu rAjannashvapatiH smR^itaH |. daiteyaH so.abhavadrAjA hArdikyo manujarShabhaH ||15.|| ( See English Translation): "That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle."

Dr Spooner observes: "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind".
Source: op cit., (Part II), p.416-17, Dr D. B. Spooner Thus, Dr Spooner's comments also point to the north-western origin of the Mauryas.

It is however interesting to see that the scholars also identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas. They were so-called since they were specialised in horse-profession and their services as cavalrymen were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars. V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar writes: "Both the Puranas and the epics agree that the horses of the Sindhu and Kamboja regions were of the finest breed, and that the services of the Kambojas as cavalry troopers were requisitioned in ancient wars
Source: War in Ancient India‎, 1944, p 178, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar - Military art and science.
 
You are in luck mate, i happen to be at Uni of Melbourne, library abt 3-4 times a week. If u can tell me where i can find such books, that'd be awesome. Also few of the history lecturers sitting in the John Medley building happen to be very good friends of my dad. Care to tell me which lecturer is teaching the above mentioned things? I ll chase it up with them for you.

I knew some bharti would come claiming to be from Melbourne University and here you are,
Now where did i say i am a student of history, I am an engineering student and my friends are taking double degree in which they take extra history subjects so i sometimes read their books. Now if you want history books ask them they must be your friends, oh wait i think they just graduated.
You bharti just want to make fun of others thats it, Is there anything else you want to know me.

I borrow books from Baillieu library is this enough for you or should i scan my student card and enroment number to prove to you that i am a student
 
I knew some bharti would come claiming to be from Melbourne University and here you are,
Now where did i say i am a student of history, I am an engineering student and my friends are taking double degree in which they take extra history subjects so i sometimes read their books. Now if you want history books ask them they must be your friends, oh wait i think they just graduated.
You bharti just want to make fun of others thats it, Is there anything else you want to know me.

I borrow books from Baillieu library is this enough for you or should i scan my student card and enroment number to prove to you that i am a student
i just asked for the name of the books mate? are u broken or something?if u don't wanna give the names just say so, no dramas there.

BTW how exactly did i make fun of you? u sure are a touchy one:disagree:
 
Thanks for taking the time to post these references. Appreciate the effort. However, as you'd see from the following quote from on of your own sources, there are different versions to the story. Even if we are to assume that he was originally from the north-west, he did rule from Magadh. That much is certain.

Most historians are of the view that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Bihar, and that he called himself Maurya because his mother was the keeper of royal peacocks (mor) at Pataliputra. He came to Punjab and conquered it.
 
Which ones? Name a few well-known western historians?


Eagerly awaiting your references.

Every Pakistani historian says no gangan civilization ever ruled pakistan

Read history of Pakistan by Dr Dani, he is the foremost authourity on Central Asia and no one noone knows more than him about pakistan.
I can give you the name of dozens of other writers but no one is of his caliber.
 
i just asked for the name of the books mate? are u broken or something?if u don't wanna give the names just say so, no dramas there.

BTW how exactly did i make fun of you? u sure are a touchy one:disagree:

I thought you were insulting me, now i know you are not so no hard feeling, good luck with your studies,
 
Every Pakistani historian says no gangan civilization ever ruled pakistan

Read history of Pakistan by Dr Dani, he is the foremost authourity on Central Asia and no one noone knows more than him about pakistan.
I can give you the name of dozens of other writers but no one is of his caliber.

Listen yaar, whats the deal with one civilization ruling the other? Now that we have established that both the areas were under common rulers and empires, doesnt it show that the areas had a common history for a considerable amount of time? There would have been differences of-course. Say a Taxila would have had some differences in art, culture and music with say a Pataliputra, but at the and of the day they were both Mauryan towns. Similar was the case with Lahore and Delhi in Mughal times. They had their own distinct cultures and identities but they were both Mughal cities.

And we dont see these distinct regional identities as proofs that people were inherently different. By your logic a Tamil kingdom never ruled Delhi. Does that mean Tamils and North Indians are different nations?

As I said in another one of my posts, these efforts seem to belie a deep desire to justify the two-nation theory.
 
Back
Top Bottom