Islamic Monuments in India - Whose Legacy?

[Flintlock]

Again, in either case, no. Are these "Islamic monuments" part of Pakistan's history, yes; as much as they are a part of India's history. Similarly, pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan do not belong to India nor do they belong exclusively to India's history. They are a part of India's history as much as they are a part of Pakistan's history.

They are a part of Pakistani history to the extent that Pakistan or Pakistanis was/were a part of the empire that built them...I guess that's the best statement I can come up with.

Why should there be a cutting of the "chocolate cake?" Why seggregate something as wonderful as "history?" Why can't it be shared? Why can't we (the inhabitants of the sub-continent) agree to the notion that our (modern day nation states) history is overlapping and more common than not, and is not an exclusive legion of particular nation state solely due to geography?

It can be shared, and IMO it should.

However, Pakistanis today ( as you must have observed) are stuck with the conflicting notions that "their" history is described as "Indian history", a country which they don't have positive feelings towards, and the fact that that the term "India" originated due to the Indus river that flows bang through the middle of their country, so they think the name actually applies to their country, and their country alone.

The idea is to somehow wrench apart the history (and hence identity) of Pakistan from India.

You must have read about how bloody partition was. Think now of the intellectual bloodshed over the partition of history.

Obviously, the name India isn't going to change in a hurry, and I don't see Pakistan adopting the name "India" either.
Moreover, it will be a huge headache to wrench apart the history of the subcontinent along the current boundaries, so most historians prefer to stick with the phrase "India (now Modern Pakistan)", rather than use the term "Pakistan" outright.

 

[cactuslily58]

That is seriously a narrow minded explanation. 1.6 billion people do not share the same history.

What happened on the land of Pakistan belongs to the people who have always lived there, i.e the people known as Pakistanis. You are blatantly using double meanings to credit the modern People of India the history of the entire subcontinent.

Actions that took place in Baluchistan do not belong to Indians, regardless of what year it was, same with actions that took place in every other Pakistani city. 1947 politics doesnt change ancient history. Lets try and talk sense here.

Sure there is some overlapping, Certain Muslim history in North India, certain Sikh history in Lahore. But try not and abuse this.

No comments

 

[vish]

They are a part of Pakistani history to the extent that Pakistan or Pakistanis was/were a part of the empire that built them...I guess that's the best statement I can come up with.



It can be shared, and IMO it should.

However, Pakistanis today ( as you must have observed) are stuck with the conflicting notions that "their" history is described as "Indian history", a country which they don't have positive feelings towards, and the fact that that the term "India" originated due to the Indus river that flows bang through the middle of their country, so they think the name actually applies to their country, and their country alone.

The idea is to somehow wrench apart the history (and hence identity) of Pakistan from India.

You must have read about how bloody partition was. Think now of the intellectual bloodshed over the partition of history.

Obviously, the name India isn't going to change in a hurry, and I don't see Pakistan adopting the name "India" either.
Moreover, it will be a huge headache to wrench apart the history of the subcontinent along the current boundaries, so most historians prefer to stick with the phrase "India (now Modern Pakistan)", rather than use the term "Pakistan" outright.

Pakistan and India were one as India. Their history is the same as ours. No matter how hard one (they/us) tries to separate the history, it is not going to change. You cannot partition history; it is an abstract concept.

It is a fact that the pre-Independence history will always be broadly referred to as the “Indian History” or the “History of the Indian Civilization.” If Pakistanis do feel that their history is being usurped as Indian history, they should realize that they were a part of "India" once.

Again, I’m not against Pakistan or its creation; my view is India was partitioned into India and Pakistan.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Ok, there's something I don't understand. How can "History" belong to anyone? It is not a material object that can be claimed or possessed. It is just an account of all events that happened in the past. No one can "claim" any history. So I don't understand why you guys keep referring to history. This thread is not about history as such. It is about Islamic Monuments in India which are material objects that can be claimed. Whether or not the claim is legitimate is a different matter.
As you can see three members have voted "Yes" to this poll, but they haven't posted why they feel so. I can only assume that they either did it for fun or they cannot find any justification for their claims.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM:

Any disagreement is welcomed; I just hope it does not lead to animosity.

I am aware that the lands in the current day Pakistan were the first in the subcontinent to be populated. Then again the term "India" originated from the river "Indus." The term "Pakistan" originated much later. This is the reason why the term "Indian history" is more pre-dominant than "Pakistani history."

The term "India" might have been coinde by the Greeks, but again the term "India" predates the term "Pakistan." This does not imply that there is no Pakistani history; all I'm saying is that Pakistani history is more seen as a part of Indian history than vice versa. This is due to chronology. If the term "Pakistan" would have predated "India," reality would have been different now.

I've said that Pakistan history is part of Indian, the nation state, history because the idea of India, the nation state, predates the idea of Pakistan, the nation sate. India, the nation state, originally encompassed the lands that are now in Pakistan. It is a generally held view that India was partitioned between India and Pakistan. Herein, India is seen as a continuation of "India" and Pakistan an offshoot of "India" and to a certain extent India.

Even residents of "India" referred to their lands as "Hind." This term has less to do with "Hindu" and more to do with "Sindh" and "Ind," both referring to Indus. In fact the term "Hindu" was derived from "Hind," and not vice versa.

India as a nation state did not exist originally, but "India" as a region did. However, India is seen as a continuation of "India" largely due to its name, size, and the accompanying dominance. There are however numerous just reasons why this continuation is believed to be true. However, I do agree that the marginalization of the other states is uncalled for. But then again, I don't see any myself.

I agree that the cultural traditions have prevailed in modern day nation states. Again the term "India" is oldest among the terms Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. The modern day nation state of India is seen as a continuation of "India," and consequently the histories of Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc are seen as offshoots of "Indian" and Indian history.

The term "Indian history" is quiet widespread and official action won't achieve much.

No animosity here. I am in fact arguing something different in my later posts than my initial one, and my later posts will find dissenters in both Pakistanis and Indians.

I still see a contradiction in your statement of "Pakistani history being a part of Indian history" due to the argument that the notion of a single Indian political entity may have predated that of Pakistan. The fact is that Modern India and Pakistan came into existence almost simultaneously, and one cannot be part of the others history and not vice versa.

India the nation State never encompassed the lands that also include Pakistan - the only thing that existed was an idea perhaps, but many empires and civilizations have had grand designs of "expansion". That does not then validate a claim on the history of the regions that were only "idealized" as being part of that entity.

There are some scholars who would argue for an Islamic Caliphate or Ummah - but can a case be made that Saudi Arabia has claim to the history of all the Muslim world on the premise that it would be the center of authority of an "ideal" Islamic Caliphate?

Until such an entity actually exists I would argue that it does not, just as the claim of the "idea of a united India" cannot be used to argue that Pakistan's history is a part of India's history, but not vice versa, and even more inaccurate to argue that Pakistan is an "offshoot of Modern India", or even Historical India (South Asia - which is the term I'll use since I keep getting mixed up and going back and adding or deleting quotes).

Pakistan cannot be an offshoot of India because India never existed before Pakistan, and Pakistan cannot be an off shoot of South Asia because it is still very much a part of South Asia, as are Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India etc.

 

[UnitedPak]

Events that became part of history had nothing to do with the confines of borders as we now know them. I suggest we raise our vision from our immediate past & look beyond. The connect will be apparent.

If for some reason it is not evident .. forget it.

I didnt say Borders, I said the People of Pakistan.

 

[Energon]

I have always found this "there never existed an India before 1947" to be a weak argument. There was very much an ancient India which to this day is recognized by historians and academicians world over. True, it didn't exist in the form of a singular political entity or a nation state, which in itself is a European creation. But that doesn't mean that until 1947 there was no India. Practically every neighboring empire (Bactrian, Persian, Chinese, etc), every invader (Alexander, Muslim invaders from the west, Mongolians, Europeans) and contemporary civilization through time (Greek, Roman, Chinese, European powers) have recognized India through their own historical records. Now I can certainly see the proclivity of the Pakistani perspective to deny the existence of India prior to 1947; but it is unlikely that anyone is going to buy into this point of view.

By default modern India has the advantage of laying claim to the historical events of ancient India. Obviously the byproduct states are at bit of a disadvantage in this regard. Sri Lanka however if I'm not mistaken has always been given credence as an independent entity even through ancient Indic literature.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have always found this "there never existed an India before 1947" to be a weak argument. There was very much an ancient India which to this day is recognized by historians and academicians world over. True, it didn't exist in the form of a singular political entity or a nation state, which in itself is a European creation. But that doesn't mean that until 1947 there was no India. Practically every neighboring empire (Bactrian, Persian, Chinese, etc), every invader (Alexander, Muslim invaders from the west, Mongolians, Europeans) and contemporary civilization through time (Greek, Roman, Chinese, European powers) have recognized India through their own historical records. Now I can certainly see the proclivity of the Pakistani perspective to deny the existence of India prior to 1947; but it is unlikely that anyone is going to buy into this point of view.

By default modern India has the advantage of laying claim to the historical events of ancient India. Obviously the byproduct states are at bit of a disadvantage in this regard. Sri Lanka however if I'm not mistaken has always been given credence as an independent entity even through ancient Indic literature.

Energon,

I don't think many people are denying the idea of a region called India before 1947 - that is taking the argument out of context.

What is being argued is that the current political entity of India is distinct from "Ancient India", the region.

As has been pointed out, when the name India was initially used it exclusively referred to the lands primarily comprising current Pakistan.

The "disadvantage" that results from the modern Indian State automatically being given credit for history that is shared between the many nations of South Asia is a genuine concern, and has only arisen, IMO, due to the choice of the name "India" by the Indian founders.

An oft repeated conversation between Jinnah and Nehru (IIRC) is of Jinnah saying that the new nation for Muslims would be called Pakistan, and that the remainder would be called "Hindustan", to which Nehru replied that it would be called India.

The history of the region would still be referred to as "Indian History", without any issues, had the name Hindustan been chosen, and the term would be akin to "South Asia". Therefore the only advantage in claiming this history Modern India has is that fate determined that its name would be identical to the historical name for the region.


The history of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, the historical events of their ancestors, belong to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, not just the modern Indian political entity, though I can "understand the proclivity of the Indian perspective" to amalgamate almost every thing historical related to South Asia under the banner of the modern Indian state to deny Pakistan any opportunity to discredit Pakistan's separate existence as much as possible.

 

[UnitedPak]

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator." -Winston Churchill

"India" was always a Geographical Expression. Like Europe, Asia etc. It doesnt hold the same meaning today so we dont need to use it. Indians obviously feel the need to use it, as it credits them the history of the entire subcontinent.

Imagine the scenario that the European Union became one single country. 100 years later it broke up into the European nations we see today, Except ONE country which takes up the name "Europe".
Does this new country have a right to all European history for all time periods?

Ancient Pakistani history doesnt belong to the people of India, hence its Pakistani history.

 

[HAIDER]

So, its all indigenous. Indian muslims and specially Hyderabadi muslim think we Pakistani are the most inferior.

 

[MIG_ACE]

So, its all indigenous. Indian muslims and specially Hyderabadi muslim think we Pakistani are the most inferior.

Now where did that come from?

 

[UnitedPak]

Hyderabad has its own Muslim history which Pakistanis havent got much claim over. I was referring to Northern Indian Muslim history.

 

[Flintlock]

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator." -Winston Churchill

What year was that? 1945?

You do realize, that Winston Churchill's motive for this statement probably had nothing to do with Ancient History, and more to do with denying us Independence, which by the way, even Pakistan was fighting for, right?

You also realize, that the 'India' being referred to here includes Pakistan here.

I hate to state the obvious, but you are simply undermining your own right to freedom by quoting your colonial master...

"India" was always a Geographical Expression. Like Europe, Asia etc. It doesnt hold the same meaning today so we dont need to use it. Indians obviously feel the need to use it, as it credits them the history of the entire subcontinent.

Well, if you think that the name India gives us all that credit, then who are we to disagree?

 

[Flintlock]

I didnt say Borders, I said the People of Pakistan.

Aren't the People of Pakistan the guys who live within its borders?

 

[vish]

No animosity here. I am in fact arguing something different in my later posts than my initial one, and my later posts will find dissenters in both Pakistanis and Indians.

That makes the two of us!

I still see a contradiction in your statement of "Pakistani history being a part of Indian history" due to the argument that the notion of a single Indian political entity may have predated that of Pakistan. The fact is that Modern India and Pakistan came into existence almost simultaneously, and one cannot be part of the others history and not vice versa.

India the nation State never encompassed the lands that also include Pakistan - the only thing that existed was an idea perhaps, but many empires and civilizations have had grand designs of "expansion". That does not then validate a claim on the history of the regions that were only "idealized" as being part of that entity.

There are some scholars who would argue for an Islamic Caliphate or Ummah - but can a case be made that Saudi Arabia has claim to the history of all the Muslim world on the premise that it would be the center of authority of an "ideal" Islamic Caliphate?

Until such an entity actually exists I would argue that it does not, just as the claim of the "idea of a united India" cannot be used to argue that Pakistan's history is a part of India's history, but not vice versa, and even more inaccurate to argue that Pakistan is an "offshoot of Modern India", or even Historical India (South Asia - which is the term I'll use since I keep getting mixed up and going back and adding or deleting quotes).

Pakistan cannot be an offshoot of India because India never existed before Pakistan, and Pakistan cannot be an off shoot of South Asia because it is still very much a part of South Asia, as are Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India etc.

We do agree that India, the supra-regional entity, has existed since ancient times. With the advent of the British, this “India” became British India. When nationalism took root in the sub-continent, in the late 1800s, the notion of Partition or Pakistan was non-existent. The fight for freedom was for an independent India; this is not an “expansion.”

When the Partition movement picked up steam, the idea was a nation state separate from India (the nation state that erstwhile would have included most of the sub-continent), i.e., Pakistan. So what has happened is that India succeeded “India” and Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (which has been considered “Indian” hegemony since ancient times), Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan (to a certain extent) offshooted from “India.”

However, since India continued “India” and that initially nationalism was pan-sub-continent, there is a perception that Pakistan (and to a certain extent the other states) is an offshoot of India; this is something that I disagree with, though not entirely. But India did continue “India.” The perception that India is the sole continuation of “India” is skewed.

I’m unaware of the Saudi Arabian history with regard to the Caliphate; hence, I’m unable to argue on that matter.