Myths of Pakistani History-Dawn

[Samudra]

The locals were not wiped out, indeed even the culture was not wiped out considering Hinduism exist to this day

AM.

I think you just mentioned the problem. Hindu's exist.

As much as we have some noticeable Muslim rulers of the sub-continent a vast majority of them were always not so pleasant when dealing the native 'Hindu' population. The damn name 'Hindu' was given by the Persians and the Muslims cemented it. They inadvertently instilled a sense of belonging to one religion amongst the perpetually divided sub-continental society of idol worshiping kaffirs. With temples being deconstructed and made into mosques on a regular basis - the 'Hindu' religion was strengthened. But for the Muslims butchering kaffirs this unity would not have come around.

The Hindu narrative came about and it will only be a whine fest full of gory stories about how aliens came about to destroy what was theirs. The Hindu - whatever he maybe, survives and identifies himselves as the victim of so many centuries of alien rule.

I'll give you a good example. Have you ever wondered why many north Indian rural women hide themselves in the goonghat? The Rajputs and many other communities had to save their women from the prying eyes of aliens. Have you heard about the story of Padmini ? She was the Hindu women who committed jauhar to escape a Muslim King's lust. The Rajputs are a proud people and they won't forget the story about Padmini. The story will have to remind them that the Mughals came from Central Asia and went after their native land and women. I know exactly after which Hindu's dynasty's fall (400 years ago) my tribe migrated down south, the rivers we crossed and kings who helped us en route, how we did manage to protest our idols. I know at least three other friends of mine who remember their family story - even after migration all the way from Gujarat to South India, 300 years before.

In Europe - the pagan or druid or whatever does not exist. They were finished off and absorbed into Christianity.

In India - the Hindu exists and he happens to remember - through stories of Shivaji, Padmini and traditions such as goonghat and jhauri, the persecution he underwent. It is natural he feels not too well towards the Muslim.

Has that translated into ridiculous persecution of Muslims or 'aliens' ? Thankfully, we've had enough sense to act civilized AND more importantly we found a enemy in the form of Pakistan. Pakistan - the punching bag!

All the anger towards 'aliens' built up by oral narratives of persecution passed down through the centuries found a convenient vent through Pakistan - a state for the Muslims.

When the partition was being talked about fundamentalists on both the sides imagined that their job was unfinished. The Hindu radicals wanted Muslims finished. The Muslim mullahs wanted Hindu's finished. That is perhaps one of the reasons why both of them wanted an undivided India.

But for Kashmir some form of reconciliation could've occurred and the Hindu might have slowly forgotten. Kashmir led to renewed enmity which the politicians did fan through religious fundamentalism - I speak of both Islamic and Hindu parties on both sides of border.

For my country - I'm glad we've turned out into what we have. We continue to carry forward the Indus Valley Civilization and what not. Pakistan could've turned out fine but for Kashmir.

As you said - its all part of the evolution. The rivalry included.

What does get my goat though is some Sindhi or Punjabi gloating about Hindustani's getting massacred by Mussalman warriors from Central Asia. That individual forgets that in the list of those who were given the jhappad his forefathers name appears first! Why, your nation state has in itself forgotten the fact and goes on to glorify Afghans with very silly names for its missiles.

 

[Samudra]

Two very important events I've missed from the folklore : The Sikh guru tortured and killed by the Moghuls. Directly lead to long lasting enmity between Sikhs and Mussalman. The riots in Punjab during the partition were horrifying.

The twenty seven year war waged by Shivaji is next along with the execution of his son etc. The Marathi people referred to Mughals as aliens. Evident in the plates issued by Sambaji, son of Shivaji. Yavanarambha gritat mlechakshaydiksha: It means shivaji has taken oath and was on mission to finish off invaders. (From wiki)

The Maratha's entered Delhi in a few decades after Aurangazeb had Sambaji killed. Shivaji and Sambaji are still big icons down South.

 

[Awesome]

For the record I studied in a Pakistani Highschool and though the timeline begins from Jinnah onwards there were chapters dedicated to Ancient History about SouthAsia.

There was a mention of Mohammad Bin Qasim along with the city of Mohenjadaro, Taxilla, Buddhists, Alexander the Great, Indus valley civilization.

I mean we say the same about India's heroic depictions of Prithvi Raj Chauhan, on that stupid TV show.

About the Pakistan Resolution, it's been shown time and time again that Pakistan was supposed to be a union of Muslim rule in the North west and North East of British India with the Hindu central area (Present day India).

The plan DID change in 1946 when Congress started to back off on it's word and Jinnah called for Direct Action to show the Muslim resolve. Till then the congress didn't take the Pakistan demand seriously. After the Direct Action which turned enormously violent congress realized that there is no living together between our two people.

 

[salman nedian]

Two very important events I've missed from the folklore : The Sikh guru tortured and killed by the Moghuls. Directly lead to long lasting enmity between Sikhs and Mussalman. The riots in Punjab during the partition were horrifying.

The twenty seven year war waged by Shivaji is next along with the execution of his son etc. The Marathi people referred to Mughals as aliens. Evident in the plates issued by Sambaji, son of Shivaji. Yavanarambha gritat mlechakshaydiksha: It means shivaji has taken oath and was on mission to finish off invaders. (From wiki)

The Maratha's entered Delhi in a few decades after Aurangazeb had Sambaji killed. Shivaji and Sambaji are still big icons down South.

You should also remember the event that Babur forgave Guru Nanak.

I had read somewhere that the tenth guru wrote a letter to the king in Farsi. After reading that letter Aurangzeb than said that anyone that touched the tenth guru should be killed. And it was one of the relatives of the fifth guru who asked the king to kill him.

Aurangzeb was the first ruler who liberated the Hindu women from the inhuman tradition of” Sati”.

 

[Flintlock]

What does get my goat though is some Sindhi or Punjabi gloating about Hindustani's getting massacred by Mussalman warriors from Central Asia. That individual forgets that in the list of those who were given the jhappad his forefathers name appears first! Why, your nation state has in itself forgotten the fact and goes on to glorify Afghans with very silly names for its missiles.

Great post man. This is exactly what happens when the native culture vanishes in to obscurity.
The locals lose their affinity and sense of belonging with the old world and their history is wiped clean.

Pakistan and Afghanistan suffered the worst when it came to conquest. They were continuously overrun by Persians, Central Asians, Greeks, and not to mention local empires.
Unfortunately or Forunately, their past has been effectively erased from memory, and for them, history starts with the arrival of the muslims. They now identify with the conquerers and their achievements.

India on the other hand, has retained strands of its past throughout history. Perhaps because it is well guarded by mountains and deserts on all sides, it remained relatively peaceful.

This is true especially in South India, where an uninterrupted thread of culture can be seen stretching almost 3000 years.

 

[Vinod2070]

I don't have any issues with the separation of East Pakistan, in hidsight, given the problems we have now, the situation would only have exacerbated.

I am sure that you think that way, but I am talking of the way that most Western Pakistanis looked at the issue in 1971. They definitely considered the Bengalis (majority of Pakistanis) as traitors, and some do that even now, you just have to look at the posts in this forum itself calling them traitors and implicitly justifying the violence (but underplaying the numbers).

And it was just a colonial reorganization for 24 years!

The arrangement was definitely very difficult to sustain over a long period, but may be it need not have ended on such a note.

So if just 24 years of togatherness can evoke such emotions (minus many of the factors that complicate India-Pakistan relations), you can well imagine why many Indians think what they think.

There is a nation called Pakistan now, which is why I disagree with Ralph Peters -there was never a nation called India before 1947. However extreme circumstances, such as the inter ethnic hatred and massacres seen between the Serbs and the Kosovar Albanians, might result in necessitating a separation. The situation in Baluchistan is nowhere close to that, and I am not sure why Indians keep bringing up Pakhtoonistan, when there is hardly any evidence of a seperatist movement there.

Gotta go - I'll respond to the rest later.

AM, you have a nation called Pakistan which has been in existence for 60 years but I am sure that your feelings (or any Pakistani's feelings) for your country would be patriotic and you won't like your country to break for whatever reasons.

Here I gave the two examples not to show whether the movements are strong or week (or even non-existent) but just to highlight that if you have such strong feelings for a nation of 60 years of age, you can't just assume that Indians should not have any feelings for their nation, which is a thousands of years old civilization.

Even if you don't go into ancient history, at least for the last 500 years we were one country under a common central rule. It was united under the Mughals and the British! Much longer than the 60 years Pakistan has been a nation.

Even before that there may have been separate small kingdoms but there was a common civilizational underpinning and anyway that is true even for the parts that now comprise Pakistan itself. So this talk about independent kingdoms does not carry any weight for me.

And the whole basis of the partition was Muslim separatism (for whatever reasons). Pakistan came up in the parts of India which were Muslim majority and they happened to be the north-eastern and north-western parts of India (with majority of Pakistanis in Eastern Pakistan). Had the muslims been majority in the southern part of India, Pakistan would be there. So I find it strange and disingenuous when some other color is given to the reasons for partition.

India and Pakistan are separate nations now with separate destinies. Most people in both countries want them to remain independent nations. So I feel there is no need to change history after 60 years and come up with innovative reasons for the creation of Pakistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

You should also remember the event that Babur forgave Guru Nanak.

I had read somewhere that the tenth guru wrote a letter to the king in Farsi. After reading that letter Aurangzeb than said that anyone that touched the tenth guru should be killed. And it was one of the relatives of the fifth guru who asked the king to kill him.

Aurangzeb was the first ruler who liberated the Hindu women from the inhuman tradition of” Sati”.

Babur forgave Guru Nanak! For what? He was an invader here, what business he had to forgive anyone? What crime Guru Nanak had done that he had to be forgiven by an alien invader! It was Babur who needed to be punished for attacking another country.

It will be like saying that the USA pardoned some Shia cleric in Iraq after occupying Iraq. Does it make sense to you?

Aurangzeb did get the Guru murdered in the most inhumane way. Nothing can take that away, not any of these unsubstantiated stories. If someone writes a letter, does it entitle someone to murder the Guru inhumanely! Strange logic to say the least.

But then he did not spare his own father and brother! And he was ruthless enough to present his father the head of his own son in a plate.

You may consider him a great hero, but then for you even Mahmud Gazhani is a hero, so is Abdali and may be Nadir Shah and Timur Lame.

We have a different definition of what humane behavior is all about. And what Aurangzeb did was not humane in my dictionary. He was one of the most cruel and bigoted rulers India has ever seen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno, I agree with you from a certain perspective.

However, this isn't about the large picture, but the smaller, more subjective one. Heck, if we go even larger, then history itself is of no consequence bcause man has existed for less than 50,000 years. A blip in time.

Indian society is different from other societies, and handled invasions differently. The current state of India, some historians comment, is a direct result of the invasions over a period of time.

There is something called a "civilizational wound", which tends to linger, in spite of what historians might have to say.

Classical "pagan" europeans were completely supplanted by the Christian ideology. As a result, these societies have little memory of their pre-abrahmic days. On the other hand, hinduism survived, and would definitely react adversely.

Of course, on top of this is the secular layer, which makes it all the more complicated. Indeed, civilizational wounds need to be absorbed, especially since chauvinism is becoming outdated pretty fast.

I guess I'm rambling...but ah well....no time to polish my replies.

Stealth:

Any nation/civilization that has been invaded and under the rule of an alien culture for an extended period of time will absorb a certain amount of the culture and customs of the invading peoples. India is hardly unique for that. But my point was that you choose to look at a "smaller slice of history" because as a Hindu, and a nationalistic Indian, it fits your particular narrative. But as you acknowledged yourself, go back far enough and there are most likely cultures/faiths that were in turn supplanted by Hinduism. Its quite similar to what the Muslim conquerors did, except that they did not wipe out Hinduism - so why get emotionally hooked on "Muslim Invaders" when what they did was what has repeatedly occurred in history, and was most likely done by the peoples in the subcontinent as well.

Now, I can understand the "civilizational wound", but I cannot support it- especially when it manifests itself in violence (I am not specifically referring to Hindus here - but Hindu, Muslim and Sikh narratives have fed into the psyche of each group to the point where the violence of the partition occurred, and even now hate is fostered), and it manifests itself in violence, or dislike, or contempt for not the original invaders and their vassals (who are long gone) but the same people! The Sikhs and Pakistani Punjabi Muslims are the same ethnicity. South Indian Muslims are the same ethnicity as South Indian Hindus - Bengali Muslims are the same people as Bengali Hindus. The only thing is that the Muslims adopted the faith of the "invaders".

Now my post was primarily in response to this comment of Vinod's:

It is surprising for Indians when they see Pakistanis praising their own invaders who possibly looted and murdered their forefathers and people who are universally recognized as being cruel and looters.

Since Pakistanis primarily identify themselves with their faith, Islam, it is but natural for them to look at those who brought it to the subcontinent as "heroes". We do not lament the "invaders" similar to the European Christians who do not lament those who ended the "pagan" religions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vindod:

The Mughal empire extended into Afghanistan as well. And the Durrani Empire encompassed modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan and Western India for hundreds of years as well. Why should Indians think that they have any right to consider us part of this "Indian Nation"? We were also part of an "Afghan Nation". The history of the subcontinent is not cut and dry. There was never a "Indian civilization". There were various civilizations that existed in the region known as India. The Indus Valley Civilization existed in Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan and India.

What you are suggesting is that one set of autocrats, the Mughals, justifies in your eyes the concept of a "United India". Well for me the set of autocrats that established the Durrani empire sounds much better. I consider myself a part of that "united nation". In both cases you had a strong set of rulers conquering weaker peoples, who had no choice but to submit - that does not validate the argument of "single nation". It only shows the existence of empire by force.

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth:

Any nation/civilization that has been invaded and under the rule of an alien culture for an extended period of time will absorb a certain amount of the culture and customs of the invading peoples. India is hardly unique for that. But my point was that you choose to look at a "smaller slice of history" because as a Hindu, and a nationalistic Indian, it fits your particular narrative. But as you acknowledged yourself, go back far enough and there are most likely cultures/faiths that were in turn supplanted by Hinduism. Its quite similar to what the Muslim conquerors did, except that they did not wipe out Hinduism - so why get emotionally hooked on "Muslim Invaders" when what they did was what has repeatedly occurred in history, and was most likely done by the peoples in the subcontinent as well.

Ultimately, its the 'smaller slice' that affects us as individuals in our lifetimes.

Which is why the subjective view is so important. You can go on ignoring it, saying things like 'history repeats itself' or 'civilizations rise and fall all the time', but the fact is that the narrower view is the needs to be studied.

I didn't get your point about Hinduism wiping out other faiths. Hinduism itself wasn't a single coherent faith till it was labeled by outsiders.

Again, the reason why the muslim invaders are so important because they are the ones who shaped over 700 years of subcontinental history.

Now, I can understand the "civilizational wound", but I cannot support it- especially when it manifests itself in violence (I am not specifically referring to Hindus here - but Hindu, Muslim and Sikh narratives have fed into the psyche of each group to the point where the violence of the partition occurred, and even now hate is fostered), and it manifests itself in violence, or dislike, or contempt for not the original invaders and their vassals (who are long gone) but the same people! The Sikhs and Pakistani Punjabi Muslims are the same ethnicity. South Indian Muslims are the same ethnicity as South Indian Hindus - Bengali Muslims are the same people as Bengali Hindus. The only thing is that the Muslims adopted the faith of the "invaders".

Look, we both know the big picture....that faith is inextricably linked with politics. Those with desire power, inevitably use faith to get it, because faith moves mountains.

However, politics is also a necessity as an organizing tool for societies. People cannot self-organize, they need a leader. So it works both ways.

However, if we acknowledge the political process as an intrinsic part of society, then we can begin to appreciate the clash of cultures/civilizations.

Ultimately, the hindutva movement is a sort of self-expression that had long disappeared from the hindu political scene. It has started off as a very lowly, violent one, but hopefully, it'll graduate soon.
What it needs is intellectuals to transform it into a more progressive and useful movement, rather than just an allergy towards cow slaughter. It needs secular leaders who appreciate the need for unity rather than division.


As you say, the present day muslims have little to do with the original central asians/arabs.

Lets take a lesson from the Japanese for example. Their national movement transformed the country during the 19th century, into a global power. However, this ultra-nationalism also fed her imperialistic desires, and ultimately led to the rather nasty confrontation with the USA.

Now my post was primarily in response to this comment of Vinod's:

Since Pakistanis primarily identify themselves with their faith, Islam, it is but natural for them to look at those who brought it to the subcontinent as "heroes". We do not lament the "invaders" similar to the European Christians who do not lament those who ended the "pagan" religions.

Of course, that is true.

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, I think we are having a very good discussion. The idea here is to understand each other's perspective even if you may not agree with that.

I am learning a lot from this discussion, even though I don't agree with some of the basic premises behind the arguements. It is like a whiff of fresh air to be able to have such discussion without passions getting involved.

 

[Vinod2070]

Your starting premise is incorrect - Indians today may feel that "their land was violated" because they are projecting the sentiments of nationalism and identity created after 1947 backwards in time to encompass the lands and peoples that composed the "region known as the Indian sub continent". The basic flaw is that at that time there were several small nations, Kingdoms, empires what have you - not a nation called India ( the Word India itself was coined by Europeans, and initially referred to the parts of the subcontinent that compose Pakistan today). Individual peoples may choose to hold grudges against the alleged "destruction of their ancestors" or they may not, but it is not "India's burden" - however you can choose to make it yours, as an Indian, I think it is simply incorrect.

I feel that is a strong comment to use. It is a matter of perception and in my perception your premise is incorrect.

Let's see it this way. Pakistanis feel the pain when Afghanistan or Iraq is attacked. For Indians the pain of the people and areas that are now Pakistan will be at least as great or greater. It is not correct to assume that this thinking is new or started after 1947. This feeling of their country being invaded by aliens has existed for a thousand years.

The origin of the word "India" Vs. the indigenous "Bharatvarsha" is a matter of detail and I feel it is confusing the issue unnecessarily. It is just a name, let's not try to attach more significance to it. It is the idea that we are talking about.

It is as much (or more) India's (actually indian people's) burden as Muslims anywhere may feel when a Muslim nation is attacked. In India's case it's not a even case of some distant happening bound only by religion. It was something they very much feel was a part of them.

You may well feel that feeling is not correct based on your basic premise. Obviously we don't agree with the basic premise of your's and we have to agree to disagree here.

What happened in the subcontinent is no different from what happened elsewhere during those ages - the Mongols, Romans, Vikings, Europeans in the New World, in Africa etc. It was a time when Emperors and Kings embarked on grand campaigns to expand their empires, and within the sub continent itself there was fighting between various Kingdoms. It just so happened that stronger "rulers" came about and managed to conquer those small states and expand their empires. The locals were not wiped out, indeed even the culture was not wiped out considering Hinduism exist to this day, but in certain areas the culture and customs of the "invaders" took root and supplanted the existing ones. So what? That is what has happened in nations throughout history.

The entire world cannot sit back and lament that what they are today was the result of some invader or the other at some point in history impacting their land and culture - events such as those are what shape nations and societies. Before Islam, perhaps there was Hinduism, and before that whatever the Indus Valley Civilization practiced, and before that who knows. In Europe before Christianity there were the Druids, the Greek, Roman and Viking Gods and Goddesses - should the Europeans lament the "destruction and invasion of their lands by alien beliefs"? Its part of the evolution and development of societies and cultures.

I agree with many parts of it. The only issue is that the Islamic period is believed to be extraordinary in it's brutality and intolerance. The destruction os thousands of temples, murders, rapes, loots, enslavements etc. are too fresh in people's minds.

And to top it all, the same people are considered to be the heroes by the other side. That does complicate matters.

I am not familiar with those events, and I am unclear about the point you are making here...

This kind of corraborates the same point I made above. The attachment of Indian Muslims to the mythical Ummah (without reciprocation as I mentioned above) and the willingness to murder other fellow Indians for purely Islamic issues even when they had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If you want to learn about the events (They are related to the Khilafat movement after WW-1), you can easily find lots of material on internet.

You are correct that I am simplifying to the extreme by suggesting that "people decided to go their own way" - however while the reasons and dynamics behind the eventual creation of two states, India and Pakistan, are many, the eventual outcome can indeed be expressed as two communities (or at least one - a large section of the Muslim population of the subcontinent) deciding that they wanted to exist as a separate nation.

I would argue that people such as the ones you mentioned are in the minority, and exist with their own peculiar prejudices in both countries. There are Indians still who would like nothing better than to see Pakistan divided and destroyed, if not merged into India (such posters can be found on the WAB - you don't even have to go to the more bigoted forums like BR). But I hope they are not in the majority.

I am not saying that people having prejudice towards Pakistan don't exist in India. This discussion started form the point you made that Pakistanis ridicule Indian secularism because Indians flaunt it. I don't think that's a fact. It is ridiculed because first it is about India and Hindus and second because it is contradictory to their own Islamic system and so has to be ridiculed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vinod:

This discussion started form the point you made that Pakistanis ridicule Indian secularism because Indians flaunt it. I don't think that's a fact.

No, that was a reply to malang on a different thread - and in hindsight, I shouldn't generalize the sentiments of Pakistanis. The secularism comment was more my own sentiment (and its not about ridiculing secularism, but attempts to suggest that it is the only panacea for societal ills), though I don't typically post "negative issues" about India, and definitely not related to treatment of minorities in India, unless within the context of responding to criticism of treatment of Pakistani minorities.

Just wanted to clarify so we don't end up mixing discussions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I feel that is a strong comment to use. It is a matter of perception and in my perception your premise is incorrect.

Let's see it this way. Pakistanis feel the pain when Afghanistan or Iraq is attacked. For Indians the pain of the people and areas that are now Pakistan will be at least as great or greater. It is not correct to assume that this thinking is new or started after 1947. This feeling of their country being invaded by aliens has existed for a thousand years.

The origin of the word "India" Vs. the indigenous "Bharatvarsha" is a matter of detail and I feel it is confusing the issue unnecessarily. It is just a name, let's not try to attach more significance to it. It is the idea that we are talking about.

It is as much (or more) India's (actually indian people's) burden as Muslims anywhere may feel when a Muslim nation is attacked. In India's case it's not a even case of some distant happening bound only by religion. It was something they very much feel was a part of them.

You may well feel that feeling is not correct based on your basic premise. Obviously we don't agree with the basic premise of your's and we have to agree to disagree here.

The analogy of Muslims having sentiments about events in other Muslim countries isn't quite apt - those sentiments are driven by a sense of "brotherhood through faith" and in some cases do indeed extend into viewing the Muslim world as a "single Caliphate", that has been broken apart. But I and many others ridicule that latter sentiment, that a commonality of "culture and faith" can be an argument for a "unified Ummah". If at all some form of unification must occur, let it be through shared interests, rather than faith or culture. Even within those who desire a "unified Ummah", there are even fewer who would wish to see those lands that are now "non-Muslim", also unified within that caliphate.

Your argument of "united India" has to it the very same basis as the "united Ummah" argument, in fact the insistence of viewing lands that no longer possess one of the factors - commonality of faith - tends towards the more radical fringe of the "United Ummah" apologists, those who would see even Eastern Europe return to "the fold". There is no doubt that from Afghanistan and Iran in the west, to Burma in the East, and Sri Lanka in the South, there are cultures and peoples dissimilar in their customs, physical features, faith, language etc. The only arguments in favor of "similarity" are those that proclaim a descent of faith from the Vedic religion, and those of various empires through history encompassing those regions. This is no different from the arguments in favor of Ummah that also use faith and commonality of customs (so many being influenced by ritualistic aspects of Islam). So why is it alright to criticize the "United Ummah" argument, but not the "United India"?

I agree with you that peoples in the subcontinent throughout history have felt the pain of being "invaded", but I do not agree that the "pain of invasion" was felt only when invaded from "outside". No empire in India came about because the people "democratically" agreed to a unification of their lands - they came about from conquests by emperors and Kings. Lets leave alone the concept of which King was good or bad for the moment, since I find the thought of a monarchy distasteful to begin with, and very basically analyze two empires - The Mauryan (an "inside" one by your argument) and the Durrani (by an "outsider").

Maurya had to conquer the modern day Sindhis and Punjabis, as lets say an Eastern Indian. For a Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi or kashmiri, how is that any different from being conquered by a Pashtun (Ahmed Shah Abdali for example)? They were both invaders from "outside" (well, Abdali was supposedly born in Multan).

As you mentioned, the problem lies in our perceptions of the peoples of the subcontinent - I don't see the Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchs and kashmiris having any more relationship to South Indians and East Indians than to the Iranians or Pashtun - The Punjabis, Sindhis, baluchis, Kashmiris, Gujratis, South Indians etc. individually felt the pain of invasion, not as a united entity of "Indians" (or what have you).

I agree with many parts of it. The only issue is that the Islamic period is believed to be extraordinary in it's brutality and intolerance. The destruction os thousands of temples, murders, rapes, loots, enslavements etc. are too fresh in people's minds.

And to top it all, the same people are considered to be the heroes by the other side. That does complicate matters.

I cannot comment on the "extraordinary level of brutality", since I haven't read much on it, exhibited by during Muslim rule (feel free to point out some neutral sources on the matter) but I do feel that it is wrong to suggest that the peoples of the subcontinent were the only ones to experience such acts. Also, we are talking about emperors - dictators and autocrats (Muslim, Hindu or Sikh) - very few of whom tend to show the wisdom and maturity we have come to expect from rulers/regimes in the present.

This kind of corraborates the same point I made above. The attachment of Indian Muslims to the mythical Ummah (without reciprocation as I mentioned above) and the willingness to murder other fellow Indians for purely Islamic issues even when they had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If you want to learn about the events (They are related to the Khilafat movement after WW-1), you can easily find lots of material on internet.

I am not in favor of the "United Ummah" argument, based on commonality/similarity of culture and faith, which is the same reason I disagree with the "One India/one Indian people" argument, as I argued above.

 

[Flintlock]

I agree with you that peoples in the subcontinent throughout history have felt the pain of being "invaded", but I do not agree that the "pain of invasion" was felt only when invaded from "outside". No empire in India came about because the people "democratically" agreed to a unification of their lands - they came about from conquests by emperors and Kings. Lets leave alone the concept of which King was good or bad for the moment, since I find the thought of a monarchy distasteful to begin with, and very basically analyze two empires - The Mauryan (an "inside" one by your argument) and the Durrani (by an "outsider").

Maurya had to conquer the modern day Sindhis and Punjabis, as lets say an Eastern Indian. For a Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi or kashmiri, how is that any different from being conquered by a Pashtun (Ahmed Shah Abdali for example)? They were both invaders from "outside" (well, Abdali was supposedly born in Multan).

Well, some people argue that warfare between subcontinental armies was significantly different from the attacks from outsiders.

Due to the caste system, the act of war was restricted to only a section of the population, namely the warrior class. The peasants, traders and priests were excluded from the bloodshed.
There were strict warfare codes that were followed. Women, Children, farms and villages were spared, war was fought only from dawn to dusk, etc. etc.

Kautilya's "Arthashastra" is a good reference for the codes of war.

However with the coming of the central asians and middle eastern raiders, Indians were not used to such a united and brutal assault.
Islam's egalitarian principles meant that the entire population would be considered as the enemy.
Moreover the nomadic nature of the attacking tribes also meant that they were perhaps a lot more battle hardened than the forces on the Indian side.

As you mentioned, the problem lies in our perceptions of the peoples of the subcontinent - I don't see the Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchs and kashmiris having any more relationship to South Indians and East Indians than to the Iranians or Pashtun - The Punjabis, Sindhis, baluchis, Kashmiris, Gujratis, South Indians etc. individually felt the pain of invasion, not as a united entity of "Indians" (or what have you).

Ultimately, the foreign invasions are what united India in spirit. So, what might have never been, was created due to a common enemy.