Kashmir Has Always Been a Part of Pakistan

[Joe Shearer]

What ever you trying to convey is beyond me..............
-- Crown Colony on India existed from 1858 onwards.............OK
-- India existed within British legislation......................eh, from when Nations or state states existed from legislation of other nations......?

That is how colonies were governed. From 1858 to 1947, India was not a nation-state, she was a colony.

-- In fact, India existed from the time of 1498................. ek, what if Vasco Day Gama has not come, then India has not existed?

LOL.

Droll, very droll.

The mention of da Gama was to remind you of the explicit mention of India at that time. Even though she had existed for nearly 2100 years by then.

Why is that, you are trying to show the existence of nation of India, by this report of a visitor, or to a historical reference in books of Greeks etc.

Because the name India was never used by Indians to describe themselves. They used Bharat first, Hindustan for the northern portions thereafter; India, and a variation, Hind, was the word used by the rest of the world for what an Indian would have called Bharat.

A convoluted response; I asked that "People (mostly Indians) say that Pakistan didn't exited before 1947; and in same breath, also say; India or Kashmir existed for thousands of years" .When asked, how so, one would say, Greeks mentioned in this b.c. the Kasperia; the Indus: the Indica:

There would be 1.3 billion Indians that would say India existed from thousands of years.

Follow the below link for "5000 year of Pakistan"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/5000-Years-Pakistan-Archaeological-Outline/dp/B003UI5EY6

Yes, I have come across this and similar mistakes before.

What you have sent a link for is the record of archaeological discoveries spanning 5000 years in the territories that now constitute Pakistan. You must not make the elementary mistake of thinking that an administrator's use of a consolidation of a scientific field represents a country.

Yes I am ignorant to peoples claims that two countries came into being by carving a single state (British India), how come one existed from "ancient time'' and other existed from 1947.

If you read the India Independence Act (not, it might be noted, the India and Pakistan Independence Act), you will find out for yourself.

Here is a brain injection:
Indus river is flowing for millions of year, and only recently, about the vedic time', land of the seven rivers (Indus+ 5 rivers of Punjab+now dried-up Saraswati) was called Sapta-Sindhu- roughly Area roughly now Pakistan: Few centuries down, the Mahabharata time...We have Mahajanapadas and now Area under consideration is extended up to present day Bengal, and in south the to vindhya range (that is, present peninsular India excluded).
and further few centuries later, here came the Greeks and there history; again they called the land on both sides of Indus called the Indica (not the eastward of Indus only);
Further down the time line, the Persians called the land adjacent to their Kingdom, present day Baluchistan and Sindh, as Sind, which became as Hind etc..
Main point is that all nomenclature used was to refer to certain different geographical locations during different times, Not to a state or nation or any other political entity....


So your assertion "was" is totally absurd and ridiculous. as for your "will be" go ahead and rewrite the history books.
You may get for yourself a dozen brain injections from Joe Shearer, surely at a discount.

I am sorry, that is only an 'addled' idea of what happened. Here a brain injection will not do, major neurological surgery, perhaps, as a last resort, lobotomy is called for.

1. There was no Sapta-Sindhu prior to the Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan time. If this is seen as a backward extension of the Mahabharata period, which belongs to proto-history, not to history, certainly; if this is intended to convey that the Indus Valley Civilisation, for instance, knew the great river as the Indus, the Sindhu or the Hindu, that is wrong.
2. There were several centuries at least, assuming Pargiter was correct, between the Mahabharata, assuming a date of between the 15th century BC and the 9th century BC for it, and the Mahajanapadas.
3. The Mahajanapadas spanned the Vindhyas, so why India south of the Vindhyas is considered distinct is not clear.
4. The people of the Mahabharata, if we assume for a moment that some history was involved in writing it, never called the lands they lived in anything but Bharata. Their geography extended to almost all of India, if we go by their internal king-lists.
5. The Persians came first, the Greeks came later. The Greeks came there as merchants and explorers for nearly a century before Alexander's armies turned up. The Persians, under the Achaemenids, were in Europe in the 5th century BC. Alexander's attack was a revenge attack, in the 4th century BC.
6. The Persian name for a river and the Indian name for the same river were identical; their pronunciation differed.
7. It was the Greeks, from the 5th century BC onwards, who started using the name Indika, giving rise to a European and generally western practice of calling the land India.
8. There were no nation-states in the 5th and 4th century BC, so it is not clear what point you are making. That there were political units is clear from Megasthenes. Since you seem to have done some cursory digging around with less than satisfactory results, you might have encountered this name; you might even have encountered the name of his description of his journeys.
9. Please try to get this clear: India was a name given by foreigners for what Indians themselves called Bharat. Bharat had several points of political coalescence, just like Persia did; Bharat was an entity with shifting boundaries, just like Persia; throughout the period, there was a recognisable separate culture, religious system, high language and shared literature throughout the extent of the country.
10. Bharat, that is India, went through colonial rule in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which brought the different political entities of that time into the same framework.
11. When independence came, the original unit reminded everyone that it was Bharat that is India. The same colonial act that gave India independence defined India as the Crown Colony that was India, except for the portions to be excluded, to be called Pakistan. And that was the first mention of Pakistan in legislation, after an undergraduate had proposed the name some years previously.

All these facts are verifiable. No injections needed for that purpose. Those injections come in useful at the time of understanding all this.

 

[JattPanjabi]

What's the point of having a democracy when you force people who don't want to be part of your country to remain with you? This is the definition of a tyrant.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I would like to ask if Pakistan (or Hindustan) even exists today, or are we still a bastardized form of British India? But then, it will hurt a lot of feelings here, so I remain quiet in these rhetorical discussions.

An intellectual question can never hurt. If it is meant in a genuine spirit of enquiry, even the use of otherwise disparaging phrases cannot - must not - hurt.

The position is that Pakistan exists today; she willed herself into existence, in a sense; the leaders responsible impressed upon our common colonial masters that this was a dire necessity, and the act that gave us both independence did so saying that the old colony of India was being given independence (strictly speaking, Dominion status, an intermediate stage) as India, except for a portion of the crown colony which would be excluded, and would be given Dominion status as Pakistan.

Hindustan is not a legal term. It exists in casual conversation, in poetic whimsy, in film songs, and so forth.

Colonial India continues today in name, as the Republic of India. This was the foreigners' name for us, both for the part now India and the part now Pakistan, and it was the name given to their conquests by the British when they seized power in different parts of India.

The Indian name for India is India when we speak foreign languages and speak it to foreigners as well, it is Bharat when we speak our own languages, and to each other. India has citizens known as Indians; Bharat has citizens known as Bharatiya.

 

[JattPanjabi]

I would like to ask if Pakistan (or Hindustan) even exists today, or are we still a bastardized form of British India? But then, it will hurt a lot of feelings here, so I remain quiet in these rhetorical discussions.

It is an imperfect slice of the diverse genetic pool of the subcontinent between people who were outsiders (Aryans) and people who've mingled enough with the previous inhabitants (Dravidians) The cultural differences are obvious, more so because of the adoption of a common religion. Pakistan is not perfect but it's a big improvement over the idea of India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You will have to follow the whole chain of arguments and counter arguments,........ to make it meaningful. Nitpicking will not work.

India as a state existed from 1947.... India as a nation existed after the conquest of British.... when native of Indian Subcontinent settled on a common identity. When British said .... oh you Indian to all and sundry.
All the historical references to Indus, Indica, Sapta Sindhu, Mahajanada, Bharata Versha, Hind, are reference/names of different geographical areas (not a same area) given by different people/cultures/nations in different time frames/eras.

That is a misunderstanding created by not knowing what is a nation and what is a nation-state, and what is a state.

Since there was no nation-state until a very recent time, it is a mistake to extend that modern term back into time, and try to find nation-states there.

You will have to follow the whole chain of arguments and counter arguments,........ to make it meaningful. Nitpicking will not work.

India as a state existed from 1947.... India as a nation existed after the conquest of British.... when native of Indian Subcontinent settled on a common identity. When British said .... oh you Indian to all and sundry.
All the historical references to Indus, Indica, Sapta Sindhu, Mahajanada, Bharata Versha, Hind, are reference/names of different geographical areas (not a same area) given by different people/cultures/nations in different time frames/eras.

That is precisely his point, that the term existed long before the British used it in India. But the term existed as a term for the nation used by outsiders; those who lived in that nation called themselves Bharatiya, and their nation Bharat; some of them called their nation Hindustan, and called themselves Hindustanis. This latter continues to be in use culturally, in poetry, in literature, in the cinema, and so on; but not legally.

 

[JattPanjabi]

But the term existed as a term for the nation used by outsiders; those who lived in that nation called themselves Bharatiya, and their nation Bharat; some of them called their nation Hindustan, and called themselves Hindustanis..

This is typical Hindutva supremacist nonsense, Sikhs called themselves Sikhs or Khalsa, people in Punjab identified by their tribes (Jatt, Arain, Gujjar) and still do.

 

[Tom M]

This is typical Hindutva supremacist nonsense, Sikhs called themselves Sikhs or Khalsa, people in Punjab identified by their tribes (Jatt, Arain, Gujjar) and still do.

But if you are an Indian, you have to live with it.

 

[JattPanjabi]

But if you are an Indian, you have to live with it.

Haha yeah, luckily I'm not I live in a free country where I can identify as whoever I want and eat beef without getting lynched if I desire.

 

[django]

So you want to allow plebiscite in Baluchistan, let them decide whether they want to be with Pak....

Baluchistan is an integral part of Pakistan under international law whereas Kashmir is disputed territory

 

[JattPanjabi]

Baluchistan is an integral part of Pakistan under international law whereas Kashmir is disputed territory

Do you think Pakistan should just allow the UN to conduct a plebiscite in Baluchistan? Pretty sure they will overwhelmingly select Pakistan and then the ball is in India's court in terms of Kashmir. It will be a brilliant move strategically but takes balls of steel to implement.

 

[The Sandman]

Do you think Pakistan should just allow the UN to conduct a plebiscite in Baluchistan? Pretty sure they will overwhelmingly select Pakistan and then the ball is in India's court in terms of Kashmir. It will be a brilliant move strategically but takes balls of steel to implement.

As django said Balochistan is not a ''Disputed'' territory Kashmir is no one is demanding freedom in Balochistan except a few 100 people who are not even living in Pakistan and are paid stooges of our neighbors but we all know what's going on in Kashmir so having a plebiscite in Balochistan doesn't make any sense but still if india agrees to what you said than please we welcome UN to do a plebiscite in Balochistan but first ask the patriotic Pakistani's living in Balochistan about this ''plebiscite'' because i think i know how they gonna react to this.
ifykwim @django

 

[Mugwop]

Honga par ab hamara hai

You just proved why the Kashmiri people hate indians

 

[JattPanjabi]

As django said Balochistan is not a ''Disputed'' territory Kashmir is no one is demanding freedom in Balochistan except a few 100 people who are not even living in Pakistan and are paid stooges of our neighbors but we all know what's going on in Kashmir so having a plebiscite in Balochistan doesn't make any sense but still if india agrees to what you said than please we welcome UN to do a plebiscite in Balochistan but first ask the patriotic Pakistani's living in Balochistan about this ''plebiscite'' because i think i know how they gonna react to this.
ifykwim @django

I agree with you, I'm saying doing the plebiscite can be a good political maneuver for your government as it will force the Indian side's hand on Kashmir

 

[The Sandman]

I agree with you, I'm saying doing the plebiscite can be a good political maneuver for your government as it will force the Indian side's hand on Kashmir

That actually is a good advice
a bit off topic you're a Punjabi from Indian side?

 

[django]

Do you think Pakistan should just allow the UN to conduct a plebiscite in Baluchistan? Pretty sure they will overwhelmingly select Pakistan and then the ball is in India's court in terms of Kashmir. It will be a brilliant move strategically but takes balls of steel to implement.

No need for one it is not disputed territory.