London museum showcases India’s contribution to science

[pothead]

Please do hold on to the dhoti.

Was on a night ride to Talegaon with my Turk cycling buddy when you called.

75 km, 2:57:00, 25+ average. Am maha stoked.

Cheers, Doc

You were cycling on Talegaon road?!!

Worked out of the GM plant for a bit of time and that particular stretch is full of heavy vehicles.
It is dangerous for cyclists to even ride that stretch in day time let lone at night.

if you are in Pune, there are much safer cycling routes than that buddy!

 

[jetray]

Yeah, of course I descend from mostly converts with a bit of South West Asian dna thrown in. So I am a mongrel, is that your point of contention with me? Are you a pure Indo Aryan? Or are you perhaps a pure Pre Indo Aryan person? Are you even pure Homo Sapian? And why does that matter?

dont get emotional and start throwing around.

Your point about Egyptians keeping their culture is hilarious, are they still burying their Presidents in pyramids? And then even this point opens up another Pandora box, which point in time are you actually asking about culture? The Greco-Egyptian culture? Or the Romano-Egyptian culture under the Romans? The Arab-Egyptian culture or the one from archaic times?

They still consider it as their legacy & heritage. They dint disown it.

My history is full of invasions sure, please tell me which country, nation or people have not been invaded? Successive invasions/migrants always build on the previous civillisations, unless it's a genocide of the magnitude of European expansion in the new world, the people of Pakistan will no doubt have great affinity to the local people who have always lived here. For example, my paternal haplogroup is J2b2, this is supposed to have in to the Sub-continent around 5k-10k years ago. Does that make me native enough?

most of your country men have already thoroughly dismissed that pakistanis are not from local populace. Their claim is that they are descendants of arabs and have nothing do with sub continental ppl. You can take a look at our own country's missiles which are named after invaders not of local ppl.

As far my location it is from southern part of India. My mother tongue is one of the languages which has claim to one of oldest languages in subcontinent not branched from sanskrit.


Irony is that you throw a fit saying that you are a local but you dont produce any thing of your local heritage or culture.

Does it matter? All rivers are called different things at different point in history by different people.

Nope, my contention is ppl relate to their lands ,river, customs ..etc It becomes part of their lives. Historical references like rajatargini (for kashmir) or kalidasa raghuvamsa or mritchikatika show case the way locals lived, their customs , culture ...etc.

Ganga or kaveri has had the same name for eons no change. Why in the world would pakistan call a river ravi or sutlej which are hindu names? go check other countries rivers they are certainly not named after enemy country language or culture!

You ppl have none of it. Even taxila which derives its name from sanskrit. Why on earth would you ppl name a university which is alien from your language?

 

[DoTell]

Ramanujan: Making sense of 1+2+3+... = -1/12 and Co.

Haha good one Thanks mate! I'll pass it around.

 

[Indx-techs]

Funny, quite funny.
"Our work"

Was Pakistan created on basis of region?
No, it's religion. They suddenly shift their ancestry, being heirs of "superior" invaders and become Indians whenever to claim Indian territory or some credit.

At first place, Islamic roots have nothing to do with South Asia. It is an Arabic religion, not Indic and Pakistan has been created on basis of Islam, not ethnicity or region.
Nor Pakistanis must be brothered about heritages before idea of Pakistan, their culture doesn't much resemble with em either.

 

[Peshwa]

How? Please tell me which political entity of ancient times best matches the modern day state of India? This is a question you have not answered. You keep saying samples of people living there means that India is the best representative, what does that even mean? History is tied to the land and people, how can a nation claim to be a representative of the people of a different nation? And who made this criteria of best representation? What is this criteria for?

(I apologize upfront for my short retort as I have a busy day ahead of me)

Why does a political entity have to be a baseline equivalent? The concept of nation states is a modern phenomenon. Clearly no political entity from the past is going to match the current scenario of nation states.

I've stressed enough in my previous posts that I'm referring to the geographic area that is the subcontinent (India,Pak, BD, Nepal, Sri Lanka).
And political entities only define the rulers, NOT the people that live within. so you harping on finding a political equivalent to make this comparison is quite wrong.


Now focusing on the highlighted.
Given that the boundary between India and Pak is a political boundary and not a natural one, logic dictates that those areas that border current day Pakistan and India should have a similar cross section of people. Pakistans most heavily populated areas are bordering India. Punjab which accounts for 50% of your population has an equivalent representation in Indian Punjab, Haryana and Himachal. Same can be said for the people that live in Sindh who are similar to those across the border in Rajasthan and Gujrat. Lets leave Kashmir for now since its sensitive topic for PDF Pakistanis.
Your sparsely populated areas are Balochistan and KPK. That's only 17% of your population that has little or no representation in India.

Now on the Eastern side. BD and West Bengal are identical sans religion.

There are significant people of Nepalese origin, Gorkha and Madhesis who live in India. I'm sure you're aware of them.

In the South, Tamils in TN have similarity to the Sri Lankan Tamils.

Now in all of this, India shares ethnicities with all of its neighbors, but goes much beyond that.

A lot of the ethnic people that live in South, South West, North East, and Central India have literally no equivalent populations in Pakistan or BD or SL and Nepal.

Then point Ive been making is that India is the median in the subcontinent. Which more or less covers a general cross section of all areas that form the Indian subcontinent.

So if any country in the subcontinent were to be called INDIA as has been referred to in history, it would be the Republic of India.
Sorry again, I have to run, but can dive deeper later.

Here you try to claim once again that there is such thing as "Indian" culture. You want to put all these different cultures under the modern state of India just because it suits your own self defined marker of representation. That's not how history works, you don't take a nation and say, ah yes, this will fit the representation best. You take the land from whence the history comes from, you take the people that live there. Not transport it across the Wagah border over some self made "representation".

Again, youre simply putting words in my mouth. Ive said no such thing as "Indian culture"
Ive simply stated that India as the being the biggest entity in south asia has a cultural similarity with many of its neighbors but goes beyond that to include those cultures that are unique only to the modern state of India and are part of the larger subcontinent.

Calling yourself India is not the problem, my issue was not mentioning Pakistan in the OP, when Bakhshali is in Pakistan. The people who wrote this were more than likely the ancestors of Pakistanis, yet magically it becomes the contribution of the modern state of India.

Sorry, but I see this as your misinterpretation.
The exhibit is representing India as a geography not the nation.
Maybe you read it that way.

And it doesn't matter what we choose to focus on, aren't most Indians very excited to tell us of our converted past? I've already been told that once on this thread, yet it is you folks yourselves who want to completely not mention Pakistan or Pakistanis as if we are aliens. Bakhshali is in Pakistan, the manuscript was found in Pakistan, for all purposes and intents, it represents the history of ancient Pakistan and some parts of North west India. That would be closer to the truth.

Please focus on what I say and not on what other Indians have thrown at you.
I'm not responsible for every tom dick and harry as I'm sure you aren't going to take on the burden of the bad apples from Pakistan.

And frankly, this is a perception problem with you. You choose to call it Pakistani history rather than history of the sub continent. There is nothing called inherently "Pakistani" except a political entity created in 47. Same goes with Republic of India.
The Bakshali manuscript is shared history of the subcontinent.