Islamic Monuments in India - Whose Legacy?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

The delineation of history according to geographic boundaries has already started, and the process will accelerate.

 

[roadrunner]

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.

Just a minor point: the plates were formed millions of years ago, humans made their way to the "Indian plate" well after it had fused with the "Eurasian one". So the plates don't have anything to do with the ethnic groups, though the map was informative.But as you say, Pakistan has many different ethnic groups, none of them define a Pakistani.

 

[Flintlock]

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.

Don't blame "Hindutva Historians" buddy. Take up the issue with the BBC

I'm sure they have a couple of "Hindutva turncoats" in their ranks churning out the propaganda, unnoticed by naive Britons....

 

[roadrunner]

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.”

Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2% of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.

Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?

If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.

One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?

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.

IVC is not part of all 4 histories equally. The Iranians can mention one or two IVC sites were located within their borders. That's fine. But to say that the IVC was as much an Iranian civilization as it was a Pakistani civilization is inocorrect. It's probably better to use the term Indus Valley for this, but the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.

Again, can the Portuguese person claim that Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese civilization? No, even though Goa came under the suzeranity of the Mughals. The Portuguese made a small contribution to the Mughal civilization, but nothing like an equal contribution.

It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.

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.

I agree, it is PART of Greek and Pakistani history (it's not part of Indian history because Alexander never stepped foot into modern day India). However, Alexander's Empire is not or was not EQUALLY Pakistani as it was Greek.

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?

"All I'm saying is that Pakistan's and India's history are a part of India's and Pakistan's history"? So now Pakistan's history is India's history, and India's history is Pakistan's history? Thanks, but I think most Pakistanis would want Pakistan's history to be Pakistani history.

You're missing the point on the German history. Looks like you're twisting it. Poland was invaded by Germany and ruled by Germany for a bit, so was Russia. Alright, but that has nothing to do with the example we're discussing about the IVC.

Here is my question again. Answer it, don't twist.

"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 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.

Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.

Let's rephrase your statement in 100 years time when Germany renames itself to Europe:

"French history is seen as German history simply because France was a part of "Europe,” the supra-regional pan-continent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of Europe much more than to the other nation states, once."

Can you see how absurd this is? Can you see any French person accepting such an idea?

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.

Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.

I'm sure you do understand my point about the telescope. Let me rephrase it.

"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?" - The telescope was a European invention, but Germany is called Europe now, and most people don't remember Europe ever being applied to a whole continent, making it look like the Germanic people invented the telescope. Confusion and blatant misdirection.

Let me rephrase the above for the Indian, this time 2,500 years ago:
"Take the example of Bharat calling itself India in 2,500 years time. Let's say the Indians claimed to have invented Sanskrit (according to official history Pakistani, Panini, invented it), because Panini was Indian and since Bharat is now called India and Panini was a Indian, then his invention was a Indian 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?"

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

The Roman Empire was part of Ancient Italian history. It was an civilization made up of the ancestors of modern day Italians. Therefore it can be described as an Ancient Italian civilization.

“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.

Incorrect. The term "India" originated from Saptha Sindhu. This is the recognized etymology of the word. It evolves into "India" from this origin.

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.

The seven rivers mainly flow in Pakistan, and it's definitely not referring to Punjab alone. The Rig Vedic origins lie most likely all over Pakistan (the Indus Valley). Even if you take the river system, hardly any of the rivers (perhaps only 1), runs into India. So, you can't claim Sapta Sindhu was equally an Indian civilization as a Pakistani one!!

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.

That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.

 

[Flintlock]

First of all RR, That was VERY, VERY GOOD POST.

Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2% of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.

Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?

There are a couple of questions here:

1. Was the IVC an empire at all? Did it have a capital in the modern sense of the word, along with a common administration, a sense of loyalty towards the empire, a common identity and awareness spreading throughout its reach?
Or was it a collection of independent city-states, each unaware, or vaguely aware, or having no loyalty, towards the other?

2. What is the basis for deciding who can claim the IVC? You argue that the basis is solely the current International Borders. However, have you considered that the IVC people may have migrated elsewhere, or been wiped out completely?

3. What is your argument for stating that anyone in India or pakistan can claim the IVC at all.

If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.

What Vishnu is saying here, is that since very significant Harappan cities have been found within the boundaries of Modern India, IVC is also a part of Indian history.
Now if you want to boil it down to percentages, and say that IVC is 20% Indian history and 70% Pakistani history and so on, then why depend solely on geography for deciding the percentage?
Why can't we use things like cultural continuity, racial continuity, significance of individual sites (like weighted means), etc. etc. to decide?

One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?

That is indeed a logical fallacy. (However, I'd like to point out that the Greeks didn't actually mix around with Harappans)

It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.

I think what Vish is saying, and I agree with him in principle, that history belongs to those who created it, and not to the present occupiers of the land, irrespective of whether or not these occupiers descended from the creators.

Its a question, really, on where we choose to draw the line.
Does the history of my grandfather's haveli belong to me, my village, my district, my country, or the whole of humankind, or just my grandfather?

Perhaps the whole concept of owning history is flawed?

Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Original India".

If you mean that much of what is now Pakistan was first called by a name (not necessarily 'India') which was derived from the river Indus, then you are right.

However, if you are implying that Modern India is wrong to use this name because it actually belongs to Pakistan, then you are wrong.
The name 'India' (or a similar name derived from Indus) was quickly adopted for most of what is now the Indian Subcontinent, so the chronology (I got there first) doesn't have any significance.

Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.

I agree, we must not use character assassination to justify our arguments.

Churchill's personal views on racism don't automatically invalidate his knowledge of history.

However, we can definitely question his motives for making such a statement.

On the other hand, what qualification does he have as a historian? I would attach more value to a quote from a famous historian rather than a quote from a politician trying to achieve his end by any means possible.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Just a minor point: the plates were formed millions of years ago, humans made their way to the "Indian plate" well after it had fused with the "Eurasian one". So the plates don't have anything to do with the ethnic groups, though the map was informative.But as you say, Pakistan has many different ethnic groups, none of them define a Pakistani.

roadrunner, of course i know that people came way after. i simply stated this because an indian on this forum stated the same idea of pakistan "belonging" to india because it lies within the Indian Plate.

however, i'm sure you understand my point that some ethnicities in residing in what is now known as pakistan, are of persian and central asian stock. also, Sindh is a part of Pakistan. So "hind" that is derived from Sindh, originates from what is now known as pakistan.

even if we go ahead with what the indians, or should I say akhand bharatis claim(sorry just couldn't resist), only half of pakistan would fall under their claim. what about NWFP+FATA (or should I say afghanistan/afghania) and Balochistan? Condolezza Rice stated Pakistan was a part of the Greater Middle East, to an extent that claim is true considering the role of Gwadar.

Pakistan is considered to be a part of central asia according to the world bank. it plays a significant role in holding asia together.

 

[vish]

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.



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.

After this discussion I've come to realize certain flaws in both our, yours and mine, arguments. My assertion that Pakistani history is a part of Indian, the nation state, history is incorrect.

But I do stick to my argument that modern India is a continuation of "India" and the other nation states have decided to chart their own seperate (from India) course in history, and as a consequence are "offshoots." If this triviliazes Paistan or any other state than I'm sorry. But I'll maintain my stand; Pakistan was a part and is an offshoot of "India" whereas India is a continuation of "India."

Further, I've already stated that the sub-continent was ruled by pan-regional empires multiple times in history. These, however, cannot be called "nations" because the idea of "nationalism" was absent then. The British Raj is seen as the unifying force because it was during the British occupation the inhabitants of the sub-continent got introduced to the concept of "nationalism" and the "strength of unity."

Pakistan's history is a part of "Indian"/South Asian history.

 

[vish]

Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2% of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.

Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?

If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.

One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?

Firstly, modern day geography can never be the basis on which history is segregated. What I’ve said is “The part of history dealing with 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.” When did I say anything about percentages or “claiming” or “controlling?” Again, distinguish between being part of history, which is what I’m suggesting, and claiming history, which I presume is what you’re comprehending my argument to be.

What do you mean by “the Indian person?” Please enlighten me.

The IVC is an “Indus Valley” civilization; neither Indian nor Pakistani. The IVC is part of both Indian and Pakistani history equally. Indian and Pakistani histories are part of “Indian,” the pan-subcontinent pseudo-political entity, history. The IVC is an “Indian,” the pan-subcontinent pseudo-political entity that is distinct from modern day India, civilization.

IVC is not part of all 4 histories equally. The Iranians can mention one or two IVC sites were located within their borders. That's fine. But to say that the IVC was as much an Iranian civilization as it was a Pakistani civilization is inocorrect. It's probably better to use the term Indus Valley for this, but the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.

Again, can the Portuguese person claim that Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese civilization? No, even though Goa came under the suzeranity of the Mughals. The Portuguese made a small contribution to the Mughal civilization, but nothing like an equal contribution.

It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.

The IVC is a part of all the four countries’ history equally. Further, it seems that you’ve mistaken my views on Portuguese rule in Goa and its relationship with the Mughal Empire, which I've explained above, again. The Inca example is a very inappropriate analogy in our context.

My aim, which in this case I never knew existed, is none of your concern; refrain from making this personal.

I agree, it is PART of Greek and Pakistani history (it's not part of Indian history because Alexander never stepped foot into modern day India). However, Alexander's Empire is not or was not EQUALLY Pakistani as it was Greek.

All I said was that the part of Greek history dealing with Alexander’s invasion of “India” is a part of Greek, Indian, Pakistani, and “Indian” history. Whatever happened in modern day Pakistan prior to 1947 is a part of Pakistani, Indian, and “Indian” histories. Whatever happened in modern day India prior to 1947 is a part of Indian, Pakistani, and “Indian” histories.

"All I'm saying is that Pakistan's and India's history are a part of India's and Pakistan's history"? So now Pakistan's history is India's history, and India's history is Pakistan's history? Thanks, but I think most Pakistanis would want Pakistan's history to be Pakistani history.

I’ve already stated the distinction between “India” and India. Pakistani history is a part of “Indian” history.

You're missing the point on the German history. Looks like you're twisting it. Poland was invaded by Germany and ruled by Germany for a bit, so was Russia. Alright, but that has nothing to do with the example we're discussing about the IVC.

If my example (East Prussia) has nothing to do with the IVC, may I ask what do your examples (vis-à-vis Goa and Europe) have anything to do with the IVC?

Here is my question again. Answer it, don't twist.

"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 did answer it; however, since you are not satisfied with my response I’ll answer it again and I’ll try not to twist it.

Why would Germany call itself Europe? What will happen to the original Europe then? Won't there be a clear distinction between this new Europe and old Europe?

Even if Germany did name itself Europe, the new formerly-Germany Europe can only “claim” German history; this German history will include parts of German history that deal with regions which were once in its sphere of influence but currently are not inside its borders.

Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.

This argument is invalid for the idea of modern day nation state of Pakistan is predated by the idea of the modern day nation state of India, which is predated by “India,” which is predated by the IVC. Modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated. Pakistan was a part of “India,” and theoretically speaking pre-partition India.

Let's rephrase your statement in 100 years time when Germany renames itself to Europe:

"French history is seen as German history simply because France was a part of "Europe,” the supra-regional pan-continent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of Europe much more than to the other nation states, once."

Can you see how absurd this is? Can you see any French person accepting such an idea?

I’ve already stated my stance on this issue. However, I do not see any parallel between the scenario that you’ve mentioned and the history of the subcontinent.

Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.

Churchill is not a historian and consequently his argument is not that credible. Further, the context in which he made the concerned statement must also be taken into account.

I'm sure you do understand my point about the telescope. Let me rephrase it.

"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?" - The telescope was a European invention, but Germany is called Europe now, and most people don't remember Europe ever being applied to a whole continent, making it look like the Germanic people invented the telescope. Confusion and blatant misdirection.

If Germany calls itself Europe, why would it claim the telescope to be a German invention? Wouldn’t the new, formerly-Germany Europe claim the telescope to be a European invention? Further, won’t there be a clear distinction between the Europe that we know now and the new, formerly-German Europe?

Let me rephrase the above for the Indian, this time 2,500 years ago:
"Take the example of Bharat calling itself India in 2,500 years time. Let's say the Indians claimed to have invented Sanskrit (according to official history Pakistani, Panini, invented it), because Panini was Indian and since Bharat is now called India and Panini was a Indian, then his invention was a Indian 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?"

“Bharat” and “India” are one and the same. The IVC predates both these pseudo-political entities. How is it that Sanskrit is a Pakistani invention (if one can actually call the evolution and development of a language an invention) when the idea of Pakistan wasn’t present then? Sanskrit is an “Indian” “invention” and since India is seen as a continuation of “India,” it is seen as an Indian invention.

The Roman Empire was part of Ancient Italian history. It was an civilization made up of the ancestors of modern day Italians. Therefore it can be described as an Ancient Italian civilization.

True, the Roman Empire is a part of Ancient Italian history. It, however, is not an ancient Italian civilization because the idea of “Italy” never existed then.

Incorrect. The term "India" originated from Saptha Sindhu. This is the recognized etymology of the word. It evolves into "India" from this origin.

Very true.

The seven rivers mainly flow in Pakistan, and it's definitely not referring to Punjab alone. The Rig Vedic origins lie most likely all over Pakistan (the Indus Valley). Even if you take the river system, hardly any of the rivers (perhaps only 1), runs into India. So, you can't claim Sapta Sindhu was equally an Indian civilization as a Pakistani one!!

Again, modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated. The Sapta Sindhu region is the Punjab region, modern day India and Pakistan. The IVC is older than the initial culture of the Rig Vedic tribes.

That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.

The Rig Vedic tribes are different from the original inhabitants of the IVC. The Rig Vedic tribes came to “India” during the late-Harrapan period. The Rig Veda, the oldest text in Hinduism, was written and compiled across centuries and across regions which straddle both modern day India and Pakistan. Most historians do consider Hinduism to have many similarities to the religions practiced in pre-Rig Veda cultures and civilizations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

RR:

Excellent post!

Vish,

Please understand that there is no animosity here nor do I think that you are being rude, and I hope I am not either.

Perhaps its just a case of not being able to see the argument from the other person's perspective, so forgive me if I am being repetitive.

The point about "empires", as an example of an entity modern India could be a continuation of, has been raised by Stealth as well. I disagree with that notion because empires have existed throughout history, often without the approval of the people they govern. Yet it would be flawed to argue that the Islamic, Roman or Greek empires justify at some point in the future the existence of a nation state based on that territory.

Empire is merely one individual or a dynasty forcing their control. It is not an indication of unity or nationalism or any such thing.

Modern India can be a continuation of the regions of ancient India that comprise the nation-state created in 1947, while Pakistan is a continuation of the regions of ancient India that it is comprised of. They are both in that sense a continuation of ancient India, just different parts of it.

Of course scholars and empires crossed current geographical borders, so we share history where that occurs, but I also think that the argument RR raises of the IVC being a Pakistani civilization, by virtue of the majority of it being centered in current Pakistan, is also a valid one.

After all, the Maurya empire cannot be considered a Pakistani empire, even if it did touch include parts of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, since the majority of it lay in Modern India.

Similarly with the Mongols, or the Greeks, Arabs etc.

It is an extremely valid argument to attribute an empire and civilization to the region it originated from or was centered on.

 

[Flintlock]

My question is, that was IVC an empire? There is no evidence to support the theory that it had a ruler or a capital.

 

[vish]

Vish,

Please understand that there is no animosity here nor do I think that you are being rude, and I hope I am not either.

Perhaps its just a case of not being able to see the argument from the other person's perspective, so forgive me if I am being repetitive.

The point about "empires", as an example of an entity modern India could be a continuation of, has been raised by Stealth as well. I disagree with that notion because empires have existed throughout history, often without the approval of the people they govern. Yet it would be flawed to argue that the Islamic, Roman or Greek empires justify at some point in the future the existence of a nation state based on that territory.

Empire is merely one individual or a dynasty forcing their control. It is not an indication of unity or nationalism or any such thing.

Modern India can be a continuation of the regions of ancient India that comprise the nation-state created in 1947, while Pakistan is a continuation of the regions of ancient India that it is comprised of. They are both in that sense a continuation of ancient India, just different parts of it.

Of course scholars and empires crossed current geographical borders, so we share history where that occurs, but I also think that the argument RR raises of the IVC being a Pakistani civilization, by virtue of the majority of it being centered in current Pakistan, is also a valid one.

After all, the Maurya empire cannot be considered a Pakistani empire, even if it did touch include parts of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, since the majority of it lay in Modern India.

Similarly with the Mongols, or the Greeks, Arabs etc.

It is an extremely valid argument to attribute an empire and civilization to the region it originated from or was centered on.

Well I guess we have just discovered a new disagreement.

The IVC by mere virtue of having most of its "discovered and important" sites within the present day state of Pakistan is not a "Ancient Pakistani civlization."

I would not like to refer to the IVC as an ancient "Indian" civilization (I may have mistakenly done this earlier) for the IVC is the pre-cursor to the civilizations of the subcontinent and to the notion of "India."

My assertion is that modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My question is, that was IVC an empire? There is no evidence to support the theory that it had a ruler or a capital.

Does it matter?

Lets say that the IVC was comprised of various City-States.

Is there any evidence to support that there wasn't an alliance between the various Cities, like the Aztec City States had?

At this point at least the consensus is that the majority of this "civilization" was centered in modern day Pakistan.

The Mauryan empire was primarily in India, so it would continue to be a primarily associated with Modern India.

So I would imagine the IVC should be primarily associated with modern Pakistan.

 

[Neo]

Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2% of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.

Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?

If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.

One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?

IVC is not part of all 4 histories equally. The Iranians can mention one or two IVC sites were located within their borders. That's fine. But to say that the IVC was as much an Iranian civilization as it was a Pakistani civilization is inocorrect. It's probably better to use the term Indus Valley for this, but the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.

Again, can the Portuguese person claim that Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese civilization? No, even though Goa came under the suzeranity of the Mughals. The Portuguese made a small contribution to the Mughal civilization, but nothing like an equal contribution.

It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.

I agree, it is PART of Greek and Pakistani history (it's not part of Indian history because Alexander never stepped foot into modern day India). However, Alexander's Empire is not or was not EQUALLY Pakistani as it was Greek.

"All I'm saying is that Pakistan's and India's history are a part of India's and Pakistan's history"? So now Pakistan's history is India's history, and India's history is Pakistan's history? Thanks, but I think most Pakistanis would want Pakistan's history to be Pakistani history.

You're missing the point on the German history. Looks like you're twisting it. Poland was invaded by Germany and ruled by Germany for a bit, so was Russia. Alright, but that has nothing to do with the example we're discussing about the IVC.

Here is my question again. Answer it, don't twist.

"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 was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.

Let's rephrase your statement in 100 years time when Germany renames itself to Europe:

"French history is seen as German history simply because France was a part of "Europe,” the supra-regional pan-continent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of Europe much more than to the other nation states, once."

Can you see how absurd this is? Can you see any French person accepting such an idea?

Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.

I'm sure you do understand my point about the telescope. Let me rephrase it.

"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?" - The telescope was a European invention, but Germany is called Europe now, and most people don't remember Europe ever being applied to a whole continent, making it look like the Germanic people invented the telescope. Confusion and blatant misdirection.

Let me rephrase the above for the Indian, this time 2,500 years ago:
"Take the example of Bharat calling itself India in 2,500 years time. Let's say the Indians claimed to have invented Sanskrit (according to official history Pakistani, Panini, invented it), because Panini was Indian and since Bharat is now called India and Panini was a Indian, then his invention was a Indian 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?"


The Roman Empire was part of Ancient Italian history. It was an civilization made up of the ancestors of modern day Italians. Therefore it can be described as an Ancient Italian civilization.

Incorrect. The term "India" originated from Saptha Sindhu. This is the recognized etymology of the word. It evolves into "India" from this origin.

The seven rivers mainly flow in Pakistan, and it's definitely not referring to Punjab alone. The Rig Vedic origins lie most likely all over Pakistan (the Indus Valley). Even if you take the river system, hardly any of the rivers (perhaps only 1), runs into India. So, you can't claim Sapta Sindhu was equally an Indian civilization as a Pakistani one!!



That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.

Wow...great post RR!

 

[Flintlock]

Lets say that the IVC was comprised of various City-States.

Is there any evidence to support that there wasn't an alliance between the various Cities, like the Aztec City States had?

At this point at least the consensus is that the majority of this "civilization" was centered in modern day Pakistan.

The Mauryan empire was primarily in India, so it would continue to be a primarily associated with Modern India.

So I would imagine the IVC should be primarily associated with modern Pakistan.

If the IVC comprised various city-states, then they wouldn't have a central capital.
If it didn't have a capital, then why would it be "centered" around anything?
Each city developed and flourished independently, or perhaps traded with other cities, but there wasn't a central political order.

In such circumstances, it should not be primarily associated with any country.
Please refer to my reply to RR's long post.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There are a couple of questions here:

1. Was the IVC an empire at all? Did it have a capital in the modern sense of the word, along with a common administration, a sense of loyalty towards the empire, a common identity and awareness spreading throughout its reach?
Or was it a collection of independent city-states, each unaware, or vaguely aware, or having no loyalty, towards the other?

2. What is the basis for deciding who can claim the IVC? You argue that the basis is solely the current International Borders. However, have you considered that the IVC people may have migrated elsewhere, or been wiped out completely?

3. What is your argument for stating that anyone in India or pakistan can claim the IVC at all.

Stealth,

A slight digression, but the questions you raise in your first point are exactly the questions raised to debunk the idea of modern India being a continuation of ancient India, in terms of ancient India being any sort of unified entity.

But back to the topic, the question of whether the IVC were city states rather than a single empire is moot because the argument is that empire or city states, they existed in modern day Pakistan.

As to what happened - the most plausible theory is probably that like the Mayan and Aztec City States, they made very tantalizing targets, and their breakdown probably resulted in the IVC people moving into smaller settlements in the surrounding areas.

Even if they were wiped out completely, the fact that the majority of the civilization was present in Pakistan gives Pakistan the right to claim it as their history. We are after all not going to tell the Greeks that their ancient history is not theirs just because they cannot explain every single event and attribute associated with it.

If the people migrated, and their customs and way of life evolved as they interacted and mixed with other peoples, then they were not the IVC any more were they?

One definition of civilization is "the type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch".

If migration (out of Pakistan or merely out of their cities) was the cause of their disappearance, then I would argue that they did not meet the requirements of a civilization any more, but that still does not diminish the fact that as a civilization they lived and prospered in the lands of modern Pakistan primarily.

Once the civilization itself ceased to exist, shreds of the culture, customs and knowledge would still be passed onto the ancestors of modern Pakistanis through the remnants of the IVC, and hence Pakistan's claim to that history.