Is Pakistan The Real India ?

[Hamza913]

and the Mauryans and Guptas still ruled most of Pakistan for a couple of centuries, about the same time as Muslim empires controlled large parts of India.

Mauryans? Yes. Guptas? No. They only ever controlled a small portion of Pakistan, and for a pretty short period of time too (the Huns took it from them a few decades later):

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

These Indian Hindutva indoctrinated Modi fanatics want to do anything to tarnish or minimize the 1,000 year Muslim domination of Hindustan.

Some claim it wasn’t complete because we didn’t take Northern Sri Lanka (Tamil Naidu).

Some claim Muslim rulers had Hindu subjects therefore it was actually Hindu rule.

Others claim that pre-Muslim empires had equal longevity to Muslim empires, contrary to historical facts.

The fact is Muslims brought Hindustan into the modern age and increased Hindus’ standard of living more than any other empire. At one point Mughals had 25% of the world’s wealth.

Their supposed dark age under Muslim rule was actually their enlightenment, coming to age and codification of Hinduism as a major religion, and establishment of one Hindu identity based on Central India.

Hindus owe their civilization to the Muslims.

 

[khanmubashir]

The Maryans and Guptas were not short lived, they lasted for almost a thousand years. Must longer than the Khiljis and Tughlaqs, which lasted barely a century East. And all of those Empires were either Central Asian, Arab, or Turikish, even if they employed generals from ondern day Pakistan. With the exception of northwest-India falling to the Khushans temporarily(And once again, the Khushans were Afghan) India has never been invaded by and Empire indigenous to Pakistan, whereas most of Pakistan(and parts of Afghanistan) were ruled by a Bihari-based Empire for at least a couple centuries.

And yes, Maratha rule of Pakistan did not last long. My point is they put a short end to most of the Muslim Empires ruling modern day India. When the British arrived, they had to defeat the Marathas to control India, as the Mughal "Empire" was only a city-state in Dehli, and it was ruled by a puppet ruler who paid tribute to the Marathas.


Wrong. Ten years after Panipat, the Marathas regained control of North India, and the Durranis were pushed back to Pakistan. And the Mauryans and Guptas remained major powers combined for almost a thousand years. And it is proven Chandragupta Maurya was a Bihari born in Patilputra. And only small kingdoms(Hindu and Muslim) paid tribute to the Mughals. Significant Kingdoms such as Vijayanagar never paid tribute to anyone, and forced Muslim kingdoms(such as the Bahmanis) to pay tribute to them.

Nothing you said changes the fact that
1. For most of the past 10000 years, India was ruled by indigenous empires(Including the British, for only about 500 years was the entirety of India under foreign rule.
Although India was never ruled by an indigenous Empire native to Pakistan(with the exception of some Pashto Empires like the Durranis if you want to count them as Pakistani, but their rule never lasted long), modern day Pakistan was ruled by Bihari Empires for centuries.


If that were true, you would expect there to be some prominent Sanskrit literature from modern day Pakistan. but all you have is unproven claims to the Vedas.




THIS. Alexander only saw a small part of the subcontinent before he was forced to turn back by the Nandas, so his accounts are not valid. The most accurate descriptions of Indika, the origin of India, were written by Megasthenes during the Maruyan Empire, which was based in Patilputra.

Those were sikh Sonny also a product of Indus valley punjab your marhata were just busy looting south India and we're given such a whooping one on one that they had to become goons of British to remain relevant in South India until they were disposed off by there masters

The Maryans and Guptas were not short lived, they lasted for almost a thousand years. Must longer than the Khiljis and Tughlaqs, which lasted barely a century East. And all of those Empires were either Central Asian, Arab, or Turikish, even if they employed generals from ondern day Pakistan. With the exception of northwest-India falling to the Khushans temporarily(And once again, the Khushans were Afghan) India has never been invaded by and Empire indigenous to Pakistan, whereas most of Pakistan(and parts of Afghanistan) were ruled by a Bihari-based Empire for at least a couple centuries.

And yes, Maratha rule of Pakistan did not last long. My point is they put a short end to most of the Muslim Empires ruling modern day India. When the British arrived, they had to defeat the Marathas to control India, as the Mughal "Empire" was only a city-state in Dehli, and it was ruled by a puppet ruler who paid tribute to the Marathas.


Wrong. Ten years after Panipat, the Marathas regained control of North India, and the Durranis were pushed back to Pakistan. And the Mauryans and Guptas remained major powers combined for almost a thousand years. And it is proven Chandragupta Maurya was a Bihari born in Patilputra. And only small kingdoms(Hindu and Muslim) paid tribute to the Mughals. Significant Kingdoms such as Vijayanagar never paid tribute to anyone, and forced Muslim kingdoms(such as the Bahmanis) to pay tribute to them.

Nothing you said changes the fact that
1. For most of the past 10000 years, India was ruled by indigenous empires(Including the British, for only about 500 years was the entirety of India under foreign rule.
Although India was never ruled by an indigenous Empire native to Pakistan(with the exception of some Pashto Empires like the Durranis if you want to count them as Pakistani, but their rule never lasted long), modern day Pakistan was ruled by Bihari Empires for centuries.


If that were true, you would expect there to be some prominent Sanskrit literature from modern day Pakistan. but all you have is unproven claims to the Vedas.




THIS. Alexander only saw a small part of the subcontinent before he was forced to turn back by the Nandas, so his accounts are not valid. The most accurate descriptions of Indika, the origin of India, were written by Megasthenes during the Maruyan Empire, which was based in Patilputra.

Those were sikh Sonny also a product of Indus valley punjab. Who marhata out of North India
your marhata were just busy looting south India and we're given such a whooping one on one by haider ali and tipu
that they had to become goons of British to remain relevant in South India until they were disposed off by there masters
As for your 1000 years bs why don't u post the size expansion with time line child
U would see as I said before they expanded and maintained that large empire barely a century or so then fragmented back into small kingdom for most of your 1000 years

 

[Cobra Arbok]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? It is a fact that indian empires such as the nandas mauryans and guptas ruled india for thousands of years before muslims came. Even after muslims arrived they only ruleed northern india(Up, Bihar, parts of MP) For a couple of centuries. south of MP, almost everything was ruled by vijayanagr, or paid tribute to vijanagar. after vijayanaga fell in the16th century, the deccan sultanates rose to power only to be defeated by the marathas. The mrathas were not limited to South India, i have already posted maps showing the marathas controlled almos the entirety of modern day india when the british arrived. the parts that were not under their control paid tribute to them. And remember the marathas dedeated the british not once but twice, there goes the claims of marathas supporting rhe britis. Nothing any Pakistani says will change the fact that at best, northern india was only ruled by muslims for a couple of centuries the same amount if time as pakistan was ruled by mauryans and guptas. and about india having no civilization prior to muslims, anyone who knows history knows thats bs.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

You can stop whenever you like. No one is forcing you.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

You can stop whenever you like. No one is forcing you.

Not surprisingly you have nothing to counter my facts. Here's a challenge show me one mislim empire thatt controlled the entirety of India for more than a century. Hindis did that with the Mauryans. I am not denying parts of india were ruled by muslims but to say the entirety of india was is ridiculous, and that to 1000 years when it lasted at most half of that.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Actually, I would like this thread to get back on topic. You can find another place to cry foul.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Actually, I would like this thread to get back on topic. You can find another place to cry foul.

Of course you dont have any facts to reply to me so you are just going to run away. Typical.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Of course you dont have any facts to reply to me so you are just going to run away. Typical.

What possible benefit is there to argue with you?

 

[TMA]

You guys are trying to distort the truth because IVC is a shared heritage. We are just putting you in right track.

Shared only with the North West Part of Bharat. Most of Bharat is not part of IVC.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

What possible benefit is there to argue with you?

Who knows, maybe you could learn something? People likely are dangerously deluded, so I am trying to educate you with facts. unfortunately, you only seem interested with propogating your nationalistic bs.

Shared only with the North West Part of Bharat. Most of Bharat is not part of IVC.

Does not change the fact a lot of impirtant ivc sites are in india. but I agree with you, indians from regions that do not encompass the ivc region cannot claim it.

 

[TMA]

River sindhu is a sanskrit name and it is once a part of bharata varsha.

Every one knows Pakistanis invented history, changed their genes from turkic to Arabic.

No gene pool is pure. Even Bharat's. This does not negate that most Pakistanis are native to the Land of the Indus just like most Bharatis are native to the Land of the Ganges.

Just because our (true) Indian ancestors accepted the Religion of Abraham (PBUH) and in a way became more closer to the true Monotheism of the Vedas rather than following the corrupted ideology that came in the later books of Sanatum Dharm, does not mean we lose our heritage.

If a Japanese fella accepts Islam, he does not suddenly lose his Japanese heritage...

Also the first grammarian of the Sanskrit tongue was a coterminous Pakistani....!

 

[Icewolf]

Damn, gangoos have completely polluted this thread with their retarded logic. Why not tell them to go follow their little Dravidian history and take pride in that? Why are these chamars, dasyus, gangoo monkeys are so obsessed with Indus region ?

 

[Cobra Arbok]

No gene pool is pure. Even Bharat's. This does not negate that most Pakistanis are native to the Land of the Indus just like most Bharatis are native to the Land of the Ganges.

Just because our (true) Indian ancestors accepted the Religion of Abraham (PBUH) and in a way became more closer to the true Monotheism of the Vedas rather than following the corrupted ideology that came in the later books of Sanatum Dharm, does not mean we lose our heritage.

If a Japanese fella accepts Islam, he does not suddenly lose his Japanese heritage...

Also the first grammarian of the Sanskrit tongue was a coterminous Pakistani....!

Don't want to make this a religious discussion, but all religions evolve over time. Saying later Hindu texts is a corruption of the Vedas is like saying the New Testament is a corruption of the Old Testament. And I fail to see how Islam is closer to the Vedas than Sanatam Dharma, considering the Vedas are in no way similar to the rigid theology of the Quoran. In a nutshell, Muslims believe there is only one path to God, whereas the Vedas teach all paths lead to God.

And if you want to claim Panini that is fine, but remember that we can claim Aurangzeb, Hyder Ali, and Tiou Sultan. Anyway, the greatest works of Sanskrit literature were written in Northern India.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Who knows, maybe you could learn something? People likely are dangerously deluded, so I am trying to educate you with facts. unfortunately, you only seem interested with propogating your nationalistic bs.

We are from 2 enemy nations, founded on two rival ideologies and historical worldviews, whose leaders cannot even sit to talk about our outstanding issues. Do you honestly expect to change our minds by repeating the same arguments again and again?

These IVC arguments are a direct result of the Two Nation Theory coined by our founder Quaid e Azam, which has found fertile soil in Pakistan. For the last 70 years, we have believed in this and furthered it as a national ideology.

We have never felt part of Hindustan. Our people have a very different history from yours. Just accept it and move on.