Islamic Monuments in India - Whose Legacy?

[vish]

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

Yes, very true. Initially the term “India” was used to refer to lands that are now in present day Pakistan, but not exclusively. The IVC predates “India.” By the time the term “India” was in widespread use, civilization(s) had evolved across the major rivers of the subcontinent.

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.

I disagree with you thoroughly here. India is given credit for the history of the South Asian nations largely because the entire sub-continent was once, and aptly, referred to as “India.” Modern day India, being the dominant entity within the subcontinent is the continuation of “India,” in more ways than is Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc. Hence the history of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc is seen to lie within the realm of “Indian” history, but Indian history is seen in the same light as “Indian” history.

Nehru did not want to adopt the name “Hindustan” because he was an atheist secularist, and the name “Hindustan” had severe religious connotations.

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.

I’ve mentioned earlier why Nehru avoided the term “Hindustan.” The reasons why India is seen as a continuation of “India” is more than just nomenclature. Whilst it cannot be denied that the first civilizations in the subcontinent today largely lie within the borders of Pakistan, the lands within modern day India have been witness to many events and actors. The reason why Pakistan is seen as an offshoot (I do not intend to be rude here) is because Pakistan (and to a certain extent, the other states) was created as a separate state (from India).

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.

Correct, 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.” I wonder, though, how does the “proclivity of the Indian perspective” arise? It is not that India/Indians have sought this “history mumbo-jumbo.” I do not intend to annihilate Pakistan, or its entity, or the question of its nationality. My only concern is its non-secularism. All I’m saying is that Pakistan’s history is seen as a part of “Indian” history, and nothing will change that. Also, India is a continuation of “India” in more ways than mere nomenclature and that India is seen as more of a torch bearer than Pakistan or the other South Asian states; nothing will change these facts too.

AM, I’m sorry if I sound rude; I’ve no such intention.

 

[roadrunner]

All I said was the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa is part of Indian history too and I'll stick to that. I do not understand your statements with regard to Vasco da Gama, so I'll request you to make it clearer.

Alright, look. The Portuguese (under Vasco da Gama) ruled Goa and parts of India during the Mughal Empire times. Can some Portuguese person come now and say that the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese civilization? If not, how does this differ from an Indian person saying that the IVC was an Indian civilization? In both cases, the Portuguese, and the Indians forned a minor component of the Mughal Empire, and of the IVC. So the IVC cannot be described as an Indian Civilization, unless it's allowed for virtually any country in the world with any connections to an area to claim its history even though the connection is minor.

The IVC is the Indus Valley Civilization, neither Indian nor Pakistani nor Afghanistani. The IVC is as much Indian as much as it is Pakistani. The cities of the IVC may be segregated on the basis of geography. The IVC is seen as a part of Indian history because India, as a term, predates Pakistan, as a term, by millennia. Pakistan's history is seen as part of Indian history because India was partitioned between India and Pakistan; at least this is the majority view. Ancient history cannot be segregated on the basis of modern day national borders.

lol. What utter nonsense. IVC is part of Pakistani, Afghani, Indian and Iranian history. Whatever happened within the borders of those countries is their own histories.

The IVC is not as much Indian as it is Pakistani. If this were the case, then the Mughal Empire is as much Portuguese as it is Indian. Which is absolutely ludicrous. Or Alexander's Empire is as much Pakistani as it was Greek/Macedonian. I'm pretty sure most people will agree that Alexander's Empire was not Pakistani.

The term "India" does predate Pakistan. But this does not mean whatever happened within the borders of Pakistan automatically can be claimed by anyone who calls themselves Indian. Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example), can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time? I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan.

Pakistan's history is only seen as Indian history by nationalist Indians or Westenr subcontinent scholars who find it more convenient to lump everything together so it doesn't get politicial. It's partly the fault of the Pakistanis of course, but this will probably change as the education improves.

It absolutely matters whether Nepal as an entity existed then or not. How can you say that the origins are Nepalese, if Nepal never existed then? Modern-day geography cannot be used to segregate history. I'm not trying to portray a fake version; you are not accepting the distinction between historical sites and abstract historical concepts. Indian history is synonymous with the sub-continent's history simply because the idea of India, both as a supra-regional entity and the nation state, predates Pakistan and other modern day nation states. A lot did occur within the borders of modern day India.

The idea that India as a national nomenclature predates 1947 is nonsensical. UP has given Churchill's quote on this, that India as a country never existed before 1947. It was just a region. Therefore calling Pakistani history Indian history leads to confusion. Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a German invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured? This is exactly what Indian nationalists have been trying to do with the history of Pakistan. For this reason, it is important to clarify what is meant by Pakistani and Indian history.

This does not make it a Pakistani civilization, as Pakistan, as an entity, never existed then. This is the reason why Pakistani history is seen as an offshoot of Indian history and not vice versa. The IVC is part of Indian and Pakistani history equally. The sites of the IVC are a different matter.

What you're saying is this. In 100 years time Germany, calling itself Europe, claims the Roman Empire was a European Empire that belongs to the German people as much as the Italian people. In reality, the Roman Empire was purely an Italian Empire, with no Germanic contribution in it. In reality the IVC was mainly a civilization consisting of Pakistani ancestors with little input from Indian ancestors. Would you think it is alright to call the Roman Empire a German Empire, and if so, your reasons for this?

Nehru had nothing to do with this. Some Muslims in India wanted a separate state and they decided to name their country "Pakistan." The freedom struggle always wanted an independent India; this is long before Nehru was born. My country's names are India and Bharat, and that will never change.

Well, India and Pakistan have not been part of the same country until it was unified by the British in the last couple of centuries. Before then, the Indus Valley was mostly separated from India or Bharat. It was Nehru that decided on the name India. Jinnah disapproved of the name..Perhaps he knew Pakistan's history well enough, and what was the real reason for calling a country after a regional area (equal to calling germany all of Europe).

IVC is equally Indian and Pakistani. Indian, the modern day nation state, history is a continuation of "Indian" history. Pakistani, the modern day nation state, history is seen as an offshoot of "Indian" history.

Certainly if you see it like this, then you couldn't be more incorrect. It is the opposite. Pakistan was from where "Indian" history originated from as described by the Greek texts. Bharat history is in fact the off shoot of Indian history, with Pakistan being the "real" India if you like - the originator.

Nobody invented the term "India;" the term evolved on its own. Again, the term "Pakistan" is much much more modern than the term "India." Hence, the Rig Vedic tribes are seen as Indian and not Pakistani.

Actually, India did not evolve on its own. There has to be an origin for everything. And we know what the origin of the word "India" is. Saptha Sindhu (equal to Pakistan of modern day), is from where India originated from. The Persians called this same land "Haptha Hindu", the Greeks evolved it into "Indu", and from there it came round to being Indus and India. As for the Rig Vedic tribes being Indian, that's nonsense in the historical sense. They were Vedic people that were part of Ancient Pakistani history. They were given the term "Indian" by latter day scholars from the West, and their history has been confused with that of Bharat's. So it makes sense to make this point clear.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The Portuguese culture and monuments are still there in Goa.

What are the famous Churches and the Madri Gras all about?

Now that Goa is a part of India, it automatically embraces that culture but cannot claim that it is only of Indian origin.

 

[vish]

Alright, look. The Portuguese (under Vasco da Gama) ruled Goa and parts of India during the Mughal Empire times. Can some Portuguese person come now and say that the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese civilization? If not, how does this differ from an Indian person saying that the IVC was an Indian civilization? In both cases, the Portuguese, and the Indians forned a minor component of the Mughal Empire, and of the IVC. So the IVC cannot be described as an Indian Civilization, unless it's allowed for virtually any country in the world with any connections to an area to claim its history even though the connection is minor.

The Portuguese rule over Goa is part of both Portuguese and Indian history. If Portuguese rule of Goa interferes with Mughal suzerainty of Goa then, in that case, yes the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa or its (Portuguese) interaction with the Mughals is a part of Mughal history too. I’m not saying that the IVC is an Indian civilization; I’m saying IVC is a part of Indian and Pakistani history equally. IVC is not a Pakistani civilization. Further, please distinguish between “laying claim to one’s history” and “being a part of one’s history.”

lol. What utter nonsense. IVC is part of Pakistani, Afghani, Indian and Iranian history. Whatever happened within the borders of those countries is their own histories.

Precisely, IVC is part of Pakistani, Afghani, Indian, and Iranian (unsure of this) history, but equally. Modern day geography is not the basis by which history is segregated upon; come to think of it, history can never be segregated, only shared.

The IVC is not as much Indian as it is Pakistani. If this were the case, then the Mughal Empire is as much Portuguese as it is Indian. Which is absolutely ludicrous. Or Alexander's Empire is as much Pakistani as it was Greek/Macedonian. I'm pretty sure most people will agree that Alexander's Empire was not Pakistani.

I’ve already explained my viewpoint with regard to “IVC’s nationality” and “Portugal ownership of the Mughal Empire.” The part of Alexander’s history which deals with his advances in the sub-continent is a part of Greek, Indian, and Pakistani history.

The term "India" does predate Pakistan. But this does not mean whatever happened within the borders of Pakistan automatically can be claimed by anyone who calls themselves Indian. Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example), can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time? I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan.

I’m not claiming your history. All I’m saying is that Pakistan’s and India’s history are a part of India’s and Pakistan’s history, respectively. With regard to Germany, isn’t East Prussia (which is now in Poland and Russia) a part of German history?

Pakistan's history is only seen as Indian history by nationalist Indians or Westenr subcontinent scholars who find it more convenient to lump everything together so it doesn't get politicial. It's partly the fault of the Pakistanis of course, but this will probably change as the education improves.

Pakistan’s history is seen as Indian history simply because Pakistan was a part of “India,” the supra-regional pan-subcontinent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of India much more than to the other nation states, once.

The idea that India as a national nomenclature predates 1947 is nonsensical. UP has given Churchill's quote on this, that India as a country never existed before 1947. It was just a region. Therefore calling Pakistani history Indian history leads to confusion. Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a European invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured? This is exactly what Indian nationalists have been trying to do with the history of Pakistan. For this reason, it is important to clarify what is meant by Pakistani and Indian history.

Churchill’s racism and bigotism with regard to Indians (mind you, this India does encompass modern day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) is well known. Further, nationalism took root across the globe during the Industrial Age and as such every place was a “region” earlier. India definitely was more than “just a region.” If Germany calls itself Europe, how will it claim that the telescope is invented by a German? Won’t they, logically, claim that the telescope is invented by a European? Further, this analogy is very much inappropriate.

What you're saying is this. In 100 years time Germany, calling itself Europe, claims the Roman Empire was a European Empire that belongs to the German people as much as the Italian people. In reality, the Roman Empire was purely an Italian Empire, with no Germanic contribution in it. In reality the IVC was mainly a civilization consisting of Pakistani ancestors with little input from Indian ancestors. Would you think it is alright to call the Roman Empire a German Empire, and if so, your reasons for this?

The Roman Empire was a “Roman” empire, and not German or Italian. IVC is the Indus Valley Civilization, and not Indian or Pakistani.

Well, India and Pakistan have not been part of the same country until it was unified by the British in the last couple of centuries. Before then, the Indus Valley was mostly separated from India or Bharat. It was Nehru that decided on the name India. Jinnah disapproved of the name..Perhaps he knew Pakistan's history well enough, and what was the real reason for calling a country after a regional area (equal to calling germany all of Europe).

There were plenty of instances in history when the present day nation states of India and Pakistan were under a common rule. Back then, though, the idea of nationalism was still unheard of and the notion of Pakistan was not there. The notion of “India,” as some form of an entity, was. The IVC was the precursor to the civilizations of the sub-continent. It is a part of “India” and “Bharat.” Nehru decided on the name “India” over “Hindustan” because the INC (Indian National Congress) was fighting for an independent modern day nation state (India) and not a religious Hindu country.

I’ll quote my previous words “IVC is equally Indian and Pakistani. Indian, the modern day nation state, history is a continuation of “Indian” history. Pakistani, the modern day nation state, history is seen as an offshoot of "Indian" history.

Actually, India did not evolve on its own. There has to be an origin for everything. And we know what the origin of the word "India" is. Saptha Sindhu (equal to Pakistan of modern day), is from where India originated from. The Persians called this same land "Haptha Hindu", the Greeks evolved it into "Indu", and from there it came round to being Indus and India as more and more of the subcontinent was discovered. As for the Rig Vedic tribes being Indian, that's nonsense in the historical sense. They were Vedic people that were part of Ancient Pakistani history. They were given the term "Indian" by latter day scholars from the West, and their history has been confused with that of Bharat's. So it makes sense to make this point clear.

“India” and “Bharat” are one and the same, and have been for a long time. Nobody invented the term “India;” the term “India” evolved across centuries and largely became what it is through corruptions of various dialects and languages spoken then. The “Sapta Sindhu,” meaning seven rivers, is universally agreed to be referring to the modern day Punjab region (both India and Pakistan); this implies that your argument is invalid. Vedic tribes were present in many sites across the subcontinent (northern and western India, northern Pakistan, and eastern Afghanistan) roughly during the same period; again, your argument that these tribes are exclusively Pakistani is invalid. Further, there was no Pakistan then.

 

[Flintlock]

From what I know, mainly from a recent BBC documentary, the IVC people are supposed to have migrated eastwards into the Gangetic Plains.

Now I shall go and bury myself in another thread.

 

[cactuslily58]

It is neither stupid nor irrelevant. There are quite a few Pakistanis who think that they are the inheritors of all the real estate in India with Allah's name on it, Webmaster included.

What I want to know, is why.

Point taken.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vish:
No need to worry about coming across as "rude".

Ask Stealth here, we have been over this stuff so many times.

Also, my "proclivity statement" was a tongue in cheek reply to Energon's original "proclivity statement", which I thought grossly misinterpreted the context of the discussion, and was my own "gross misinterpretations" (deliberate) of the "Indian intentions".

One other point is that my intention is not to discuss Nehru's motives on crossing the name "India", but simply point out that the choice of the name has contributed a large part to the impression that India has a dominant right to the history of South Asia - a flawed perception IMO.

As you said, we agree that there was a "region" called India, much like one would say South East Asia.

We also agree that the history of the region belongs to all the people pf the region - Pakistanis Indians and Bangladeshis.

We also agree that currently the perception created by using the term "Indian History" is that of most of the history of the region being that of India's.

I disagree with you thoroughly here. India is given credit for the history of the South Asian nations largely because the entire sub-continent was once, and aptly, referred to as “India.” Modern day India, being the dominant entity within the subcontinent is the continuation of “India,” in more ways than is Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc. Hence the history of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc is seen to lie within the realm of “Indian” history, but Indian history is seen in the same light as “Indian” history.

Vish, the first part of your statement essentially agrees with my point - "India is given credit because the region was referred to as India". That is my argument, that the mere choice of names has given India (not necessarily by ulterior motives) a larger claim than is correct to the history of the region.

Modern India is the dominant entity, but to argue that it is a continuation of India does not make sense - because what exactly is it continuing? There was no all encompassing nation state to continue.

It is a continuation of name only. Modern India does not encompass all of South Asia, so how can Indian history be the same as South Asian history, but Pakistani history only be in the "realm of South Asian history". Yes it is true that India encompasses a larger geographic area, but just by virtue of not having Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. as part of it, Modern Indian history is also a subset of South Asian history, albeit a much larger subset.

The reasons why India is seen as a continuation of “India” is more than just nomenclature. Whilst it cannot be denied that the first civilizations in the subcontinent today largely lie within the borders of Pakistan, the lands within modern day India have been witness to many events and actors. The reason why Pakistan is seen as an offshoot (I do not intend to be rude here) is because Pakistan (and to a certain extent, the other states) was created as a separate state (from India).

I see your point, and I think there is little difference in our arguments - India is a larger subset of South Asia, hence is associated with more history and hence associated more with South Asian history.

But this then lends credence to the argument of describing history in the lands comprising Pakistan as Pakistani history, merely to keep our history as "ours", and not lose it as perceptions of South Asian history associate it more and more with India only.

Vish, I could argue that Modern India was created as a separate state from Pakistan. In 1947 two political entities were created, not one. Therefore either both are offshoots of South Asia, or they are both part of South Asia.

This argument really trivializes the people of Pakistan. Their ancestors were a part of this history, Pakistanis are not offshoots, and neither are modern Indians. We lived in one region, under various empires, multiple civilizations, various Kingdoms etc. It was the British who first united all these disparate people into one colony, and out of occupation we created two nation states.

Both nations continue to be part of South Asia.

 

[UnitedPak]

From what I know, mainly from a recent BBC documentary, the IVC people are supposed to have migrated eastwards into the Gangetic Plains.

Now I shall go and bury myself in another thread.

Very convenient.

Apart from the massive lack of IVC cities of the likes of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in India to prove your claim, its a very wishful theory promoted not by facts but by Hindutva historians.

So many groups use that old "migration" card to steal history from other people. I know white nationalist use a similar theory to show that IVC people moved to Europe.
5000 years was not a long time ago (relatively speaking). Humans inhabited Asia way, way before this period. So to claim they relocated is nothing but desperation.

 

[MIG_ACE]

----Self Deleted-----

 

[Energon]

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.

First, regarding the "discrediting Pakistan's existence", an argument I've heard multiple times here is at least from an Indian and global perspective a farce. As I mentioned previously in another thread, I have as yet to see a main stream Indian movement today that is centered around the illegitimacy of Pakistan's existence or what have you. Even the fundamentalist stand (nowhere near as mainstream as it is perceived by the "Muslim World" on this matter is that all Muslims should have been sent out of Indian territory after the partition). But as far as not recognizing Pakistan or Bangladesh is concerned, I'm afraid this is nothing more than a poor attempt at retrofitting the Israeli conundrum to Pakistan, which just doesn't measure up; and again is a point of view that most people will probably not buy into. If India really didn't recognize Bangladesh and/or Pakistan no territory would have been returned after the 1971 war; and Bangladesh certainly wouldn't have been able to establish itself as a sovereign nation.

As far as the nomenclature is concerned, Nehru was wary of the title "Hindustan" because it would empower the Hindu nationalists who would take the literal meaning: "land of Hindus" to assume power thereby decimating any chance of secularism. He also wanted to adopt an Anglicized name in order to make the nation more marketable on the global front, particularly to the western European industrialists and keep the status quo after independence and maintain as much neutrality within the populace as possible. Moreover, the decision to remove the British prefixes (primarily "British" and "Royal" as in "British India" or "Royal Indian Navy" etc) and retaining the names was a decision made long ago; the partition issue actually came up a bit later. The changes of most major cities and landmarks didn't occur until about a decade ago. Nonetheless, modern India is the remnant of the ancient India which was partitioned and will thereby retain the ability to claim the historical records of the land until its dissection in 1947.

What you want here is for India to press the "reset button" post 1947 and just claim the history within its current borders. That is unlikely to happen.

Edit: I just realized that Vish has already done a far better job of addressing the points of my post.

 

[UnitedPak]

What you want here is for India to press the "reset button" post 1947 and just claim the history within its current borders. That is unlikely to happen.

Edit: I just realized that Vish has already done a far better job of addressing the points of my post.

The history doesnt belong to the name "India". It belongs to whatever people lived in the region. Hence Pakistani history belongs to Pakistanis. Its really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Before the British invasion, nobody referred to themselves as "Indians" in the subcontinent, so your claims are nonsensical.

I gave an example before, and it still holds true:

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?

Modern India has no claim over history which didnt happen to their people.

 

[UnitedPak]

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

And always have. A border doesnt magically make their history shared.

 

[vish]

Vish:
No need to worry about coming across as "rude".

Ask Stealth here, we have been over this stuff so many times.

Also, my "proclivity statement" was a tongue in cheek reply to Energon's original "proclivity statement", which I thought grossly misinterpreted the context of the discussion, and was my own "gross misinterpretations" (deliberate) of the "Indian intentions".

One other point is that my intention is not to discuss Nehru's motives on crossing the name "India", but simply point out that the choice of the name has contributed a large part to the impression that India has a dominant right to the history of South Asia - a flawed perception IMO.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Hope we are able to maintain the civility of the argument.

Nehru did not choose the name “India.” There was always this consensus that an independent subcontinent would be called India. When the Pakistan movement gathered steam, Jinnah suggested that India adopt the name Hindustan (I do not know why but I’m pretty certain it had nothing to do with “history”). Thus, Nehru had a choice between “India” and “Hindustan” (a choice which wasn’t there earlier as India was the chosen nomenclature), and he decided to stick to the name “India” so as to maintain and foster his model of atheist secularism. Further, Pakistan sought its creation as a separate state from India; as in it wanted a part of India to be its. Hence, I say that India is seen as a continuation of India, the supra-regional entity.

As you said, we agree that there was a "region" called India, much like one would say South East Asia.

“India” then was not merely a region. It was a cultural, social, and pseudo-political entity of a far greater degree of integration than South-East Asia.

We also agree that the history of the region belongs to all the people pf the region - Pakistanis Indians and Bangladeshis.

Very true.

We also agree that currently the perception created by using the term "Indian History" is that of most of the history of the region being that of India's.

There is a perception; but then that perception is not entirely unreal.

Vish, the first part of your statement essentially agrees with my point - "India is given credit because the region was referred to as India". That is my argument, that the mere choice of names has given India (not necessarily by ulterior motives) a larger claim than is correct to the history of the region.

Modern India is the dominant entity, but to argue that it is a continuation of India does not make sense - because what exactly is it continuing? There was no all encompassing nation state to continue.

I’ve stated that the reason why India succeeds “India” is more than just mere nomenclature. Primarily, the notion of Indian nationalism predated the notion of Pakistan. India, the nation state, is thus a continuation of “India” through an intermediary, British India. Some sections of the Muslim society in undivided India sought a Muslim state carved from India, the nation state which would have erstwhile included the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. You are correct there wasn’t an all encompassing “nation” to continue; however, British India can be considered to be a “national” entity. Further, the concept of nationalism arose only after the British had consolidated their position in India. So the argument that there was never a “nation” is somewhat invalid, as the concept of a “nation” is itself pretty modern.

It is a continuation of name only. Modern India does not encompass all of South Asia, so how can Indian history be the same as South Asian history, but Pakistani history only be in the "realm of South Asian history". Yes it is true that India encompasses a larger geographic area, but just by virtue of not having Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. as part of it, Modern Indian history is also a subset of South Asian history, albeit a much larger subset.

This is where you and I disagree. Modern India is a continuation of “India,” in more ways than nomenclature. Other states in the subcontinent “came” (sorry for the word choice; was unable to find a better word) from “India,” but “India,” whatever that was left of it, morphed into India. Modern geography cannot form the basis on which history is categorized.

I see your point, and I think there is little difference in our arguments - India is a larger subset of South Asia, hence is associated with more history and hence associated more with South Asian history.

But this then lends credence to the argument of describing history in the lands comprising Pakistan as Pakistani history, merely to keep our history as "ours", and not lose it as perceptions of South Asian history associate it more and more with India only.

I thoroughly agree with you. But you have to realise that India/Indians had no role in this “mess.” Nobody is denying Pakistan its history; it is just that Pakistan’s history is a part of “Indian” history. It is a part of Indian history as “Indian” history is largely Indian history for India is seen as a successor (and to a certain extent, rightfully so) to “India.”

Vish, I could argue that Modern India was created as a separate state from Pakistan. In 1947 two political entities were created, not one. Therefore either both are offshoots of South Asia, or they are both part of South Asia.

This is where your and my views diverge. Both entities were created from “India;” one, however, “separated” from “India,” and the other continued being “India.” Please respect my choice of words here; was unable to find better alternatives. Both are part of “South Asia.”

This argument really trivializes the people of Pakistan. Their ancestors were a part of this history, Pakistanis are not offshoots, and neither are modern Indians. We lived in one region, under various empires, multiple civilizations, various Kingdoms etc. It was the British who first united all these disparate people into one colony, and out of occupation we created two nation states.

Both nations continue to be part of South Asia.

I’m sorry if that is so; I had no such intention. I am not denying Pakistan or its people their history; nevertheless, I’m also stating that Pakistan’s history is a subset of “Indian” history. Further, Pakistan is an offshoot of “India” while India is a continuation; at least this is what the majority view is. Further, the reason why Pakistan is seen as an offshoot is because India is seen as the continuation and also Pakistan was created out of the need for a seperate state (from India).

Note that there were plenty of instances when the regions of modern day India and Pakistan were ruled by pan-subcontinent empires. British rule wasn’t the first such instance; however, it was during the British Raj that the concept of “nationalism” evolved itself in the world. Hence, the British Raj is seen as the unifying force.



Energon:
Thanks for the appreciation; you’ve raised some very valid points yourself.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

pakistan is not an ethnicity or race, that's what the indians are trying to use to their advantage. however, pakistan is coined from the many ethnicities living in the region including sindh. from sindh, we derive hind and hindu.

half of pakistan lies in the indian plate, half of it lies within the eurasian plate. likewise of half of pakistan would fall under the region of "hind", half of pakistan would fall under the region of khurasaan. pashtuns(or should I say afghans) and balochis do not share any ancestry with indians.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Earthquake_Information_for_Pakistan.gif

actually, pakistan can be considered a buffer zone between hind and persia. afghanistan does not share any history with indian sub-continent. it has been home to the Greco-Bactrian and Kushan kingdoms. other than that, I've yet to come across the term "ancient India" in anything other than indian sources. modern day pakistan is viewed as the home of the "ancient Indus Valley civilization" not ancient India, according the our text books in the United States.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vish:

The major sticking point that I see, and what the arguments with Stealth always boil down to as well, is that of modern India somehow being a continuation of a prior entity, which gives it, per your argument, greater rights to the history of the region.

Primarily, the notion of Indian nationalism predated the notion of Pakistan. India, the nation state, is thus a continuation of “India” through an intermediary, British India. Some sections of the Muslim society in undivided India sought a Muslim state carved from India, the nation state which would have erstwhile included the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. You are correct there wasn’t an all encompassing “nation” to continue; however, British India can be considered to be a “national” entity. Further, the concept of nationalism arose only after the British had consolidated their position in India. So the argument that there was never a “nation” is somewhat invalid, as the concept of a “nation” is itself pretty modern.

India the nation-state cannot be a continuation of anything but a nation-state.

Why is Pakistan not a continuation of ancient India? You say that "Indian nationalism" existed before "Pakistani nationalism", but the mere existence of an idea, or the time frame of its conception, does not make it the sole idea or the true idea.

The fact is that when time came to actually implement the "idea" of a nation out of the British colony of India, which was created out of the amalgamation of various States, kingdoms, territories and peoples, mostly by force, there was a competing idea and a competing nationalism.

Therefore I would argue that Pakistan has just as much right to the history of South Asia, and is not an off shoot of anything, as does India.