Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[vsdoc]

I am not asking them to change who they are. But just saying stop pretending what you are NOT.

KS, cut them some slack man.

In many ways, civilizational India is a unique case study.

A civilization which Islam could not completely convert. Over a thousand years.

Persia was different. Yet they are going back increasingly to their Zoroastrian roots. And they converted 1300 years ago.

That is still ahead on the time scale than muslim undivided India.

So this thought process is not new or unexpected in any way.

It bolsters my theory of religion being a weak glue when compared to blood.

Please also rember that for every Developer, there are still many fundamentalist Pakistanis out there who are still more Arab than the Arabs.

Its not a done deal.

 

[Developereo]

And the one fact that you keep avoiding,deflecting is that the father of your nation rejected any notion of [Pakistani] Mussalmans having to do anything with anything other than Islamic in nature [as shown from his Lahore speech]

That speech is a little extreme, for effect, as many political speeches are. The fact is that Muslims and Hindus do dine together and intermarry, and have done so for generations. As Jinnah claimed that Hindus, Muslims, etc. can go and be what they are without it being a concern of the State shows he meant for Pakistan to be a multicultural society.

and that your own Prophet condemns Jahiliya.

I am not an expert on Islam, but all (Abrhamic?) religions claim to be the true voice with calls to reject alternative interpretations. Again, I don't have to believe in the spiritual sanctity of Ram or Krishna to appreciate the historical legacy of Harappa and Patanjali. I can do so perfectly well from a neutral, academic view.

 

[krash]

How about the fallacy that Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the Founder of Pakistan. The real Founder of Pakistan was Jawahar Lal Nehru who created Pakistan the moment he walked away from the " Cabinet Mission " Plan. Jinnah had already agreed to undivided India as envisaged under the Cabinet Mission plan and signed the document. It was Nehru who walked away from the Cabinet mission plan after he already signed up on the plan but later reneged. After Nehru reneged on the agreement, Jinnah was left with no option other than asking for Pakistan.

The historical account which you have stated is true. But the alleged fallacy is based on a very flimsy technicality. Ill present an analogues example so as not to waste time: England wins a cricket match against Pakistan with one wicket intact and their last two batsmen contributing a cumulative score of 52. Was it the tail-ender partnership which won England the match or was it the Pakistani bowlers who couldn't bowl them out?

If your hardliners had held sway during independence and managed to reject the foreign name India, that would have been that.

As it is, ...

I truly believe that one of the reasons why some Pakistanis reject the ancient heritage is precisely because the name India now belongs to you, so any acceptance of "Indian" heritage is seen as acquiescing to Republic of India. If your name were Bharat and the term India remained neutral, more Pakistanis would be open to the ancient heritage. Anyway, that is not India's problem; that is something for these Pakistanis to come to grips with.

Might very well be a contributing factor. The way one sees us Pakistanis denouncing, rejecting and disowning our own history and then claiming part, by word and song, in the Fatimid, the Muslim Spanish and the Arab history makes our identity crisis quite apparent. However this phenomena is rampant in many minorities around the world. One could argue that it is a self-devised mechanism working against assimilation and towards safe guarding one's separate identity from that of the overwhelming majority. The irony, in our case, is that the very thing which is meant to be saved is in result being mutilated i.e. our identity.

 

[Joe Shearer]

From MA Jinnah's Lahore speech :
Address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League, Lahore, 1940



As I said, for the sake of some brownie points dont chop at the very roots of the raison d' etre of the Pakistan. You have nothing to do with our civilization. Your identity is Islamic and Islamic alone. You have nothing to do with the pre-Islamic history of the subcontinent especially the Vedic civilizations.

Ok to clarify when I meant Pakistanis I meant Pakistani Muslims. Not Pakistani Hindus, Sikhs.

We have moved on and reconciled to the fact that a nation to our West was formed on the basis of Islam and they have a different perspective to the history of the sub-continent. I fully sympathize with that. But just don't try to be a [lame] revisionist and lay claim on what you have no rights on.




Are you a Christian ? Did not your Prophet condemn jahiliya ?

This is incorrect on several dimensions.

First, please read Jinnah's speech carefully. There is nothing in that speech which cuts at the roots of his three-homeland solution. His stress was on the difficulties faced by a minority when minority and majority alike were of conflicting ways of life. His emphasis was on a creation of space for these minorities to be able to live without complete self-abnegation in front of the others.it will come out of these lines that a separate Pakistan separately constituted would not solve the problem, as it would have its own minorities in turn, who, again in their turn, would find living with the majority very difficult. Which is exactly what happened,when his triple homeland scheme was roughly rejected. I find the speech prophetic, not divisive.

Again, Pakistan's reason was to provide a safe haven for Muslims. There were no calls to expel Hindus from Pakistan to create a pure, Muslim-only state.

History is full of bad decisions and displays of bigotry. At some point, people have to move on.

Again, you are confusing practicing a religion with historical respect. The Brits respect druid culture as a historical part of their culture; it does not mean they have to spiritually accept druid deities. Swedes can be devout Christians and still accept Thor as part of their cultural heritage.

Precisely so. But neither you, nor we will get anywhere as long as we are unable to get under control those who wish to see the other side punished for daring to differ. These elements want a public, humiliating admission of guilt, of fault, of culpability. It is not going to happen. They know it as well as we do. Asking for the impossible is a gambit to put the monkey on the back of the other faction, and to disclaim responsibility for a widening gap. To these souls, whatever they are reacting to is nothing that can be set right. It is irrevocable hurt and suffering, and cannot be undone.

The crux of the identity dissonance here is simple, and its frankly churlish on the part of us Indians to deny those Pakistanis who are increasingly seeing the light and wanting to embrace their roots.

Truth be told, a Pakistan that is comfortable in its Indian skin and lifeblood, becomes a muslim India. We can live with that much better than an Arabic vassal state on our borders.

That obviously does not mean we have to give up our birth-right so that they can reclaim theirs.

60 years is not even the blink of an eye in the history of our civilization.

And that is precisely what was originally sought - a Muslim India, one bloc of three between which residents of any bloc could pass easily and conveniently. I blame the desiccation of that country, the distortion of this concept on the catastrophic degeneration of the Pakistani leadership following Jinnah's death, when their uncertainty and insecurity drove them to the path of least resistance, of abandonment of their independent thinking in favour of a dependence on clerics. Maududi finally won, after having abused Jinnah, the League and the very concept of Pakistan in a sustained manner for years.

We are going in circles. The basic fact that I keep stressing, and you keep discounting, is that respect and acknowledgement of a culture or spirituality is not contingent upon believing it.

I will refer you again to the examples of druids in Britain and vikings in Scandinavia. The OP mentioned Egypt and Greece. The same logic applies to Vedic culture and Pakistani Muslims.

You won't get understanding or comprehension from a person who does not want to listen.

That is where you have still not got them. If they want to return to their roots or even are prepared to face upto history and recognize the atrocities perpetrated on their own people by the people they now claim as their heroes or ghazis, then I have no problem with that.

But that is not what is happening.They want the best of both worlds. They will continue to honor the likes of Ghazni, Ghori, Abdali as their heroes, their saviours while at the same time lay claim to something that is the very anti-thesis to the afforementioned personalities. This is where I have a problem.

And here is the problem.

Unless you apologize, as a nation, for the long list of crimes listed, you are unforgivable. Period.

It is not possible to have a dialogue between the fanatics in Pakistan and the fanatics in India. They do not want anything but a state of permanent war. Or at best a complete shutting out of the other from all recognition.

They cannot afford to view themselves as a part of the larger Indic civilization.

Why?

And the one fact that you keep avoiding,deflecting is that the father of your nation rejected any notion of Mussalmans having to do anything with anything other than Islamic in nature [as shown from his Lahore speech] and that your own Prophet condemns Jahiliya.

Why do you keep bringing in Britons and Swedes when you are neither ? Yes, people can carry on with their faith systems while respecting their native culture...but that facility is not available in Islam nor is the former logic applicable here. Jahiliya is a concept unique to Islam I think.

You are supposed to look down upon your pre-Islamic past as an age of ignorance, of stupidity, of Jahiliya..not through any other lens. I don't say so..your Holy Book says so.

In other words, you don't know what you really think, so we will tell you.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Did you read my post above yours?

Persia was different. Yet they are going back increasingly to their Zoroastrian roots. And they converted 1300 years ago.

Yes, that's true.

The elites of Iran cannot credibly use anti-Zoroastrianism as a plank for legitimizing themselves.

Pakistan has made some fragile progress but there is a long and uncertain way to go.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If your hardliners had held sway during independence and managed to reject the foreign name India, that would have been that.

As it is, ...

I truly believe that one of the reasons why some Pakistanis reject the ancient heritage is precisely because the name India now belongs to you, so any acceptance of "Indian" heritage is seen as acquiescing to Republic of India. If your name were Bharat and the term India remained neutral, more Pakistanis would be open to the ancient heritage. Anyway, that is not India's problem; that is something for these Pakistanis to come to grips with.

Unfortunately, you are making a ghastly kind of sense. That analysis is logical.

Now if you turn the argument on its head, if you understand that accepting Indian heritage equates with rejecting Islamic heritage, condemning mass conversion at sword point (reality has nothing to do with the ideological view), and proclaiming that the mediaeval kings and chiefs who pillaged and killed during the early stages of establishing Muslim kingdoms in India were mass-murdering psychopaths.

If the French and the British, or the French and the Germans, or the British and the Germans had believed similarly, there would be blood on the streets of Paris, London and Berlin.

Iran can be proud of its heritage because the Zoroastrians there are politically marginalized and insignificant.

Pakistan on the other hand has to sustain its conflict with India.

While I am critical of many of your views and positions, I have to agree that the unreasoning bellicosity that we face from sections of the Pakistani population are difficult to accommodate in any reasonable way.

 

[Rafi]

The land of Pakistan is geo-graphically and historically unique, there has always been an Indus based civilization, though sharing some small similarities with "bharat" it has been largely different.

Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.



http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Indus-Saga-Making-Pakistan/dp/0195776933

 

[krash]

Precisely so. But neither you, nor we will get anywhere as long as we are unable to get under control those who wish to see the other side punished for daring to differ. These elements want a public, humiliating admission of guilt, of fault, of culpability. It is not going to happen. They know it as well as we do. Asking for the impossible is a gambit to put the monkey on the back of the other faction, and to disclaim responsibility for a widening gap. To these souls, whatever they are reacting to is nothing that can be set right. It is irrevocable hurt and suffering, and cannot be undone.

It is childish, immature and disingenuous is what it is. Pakistan and India have problems, major ones at that, true and accepted. We cannot trust each other, will not trust each other, ill take that. But need we act as two different troops of monkeys hollering and pouncing on every moronic reason to make this feud more than what it is? Our bases of conflict are not religious, ideological, historical, personal or natural. If they ever were then they died with the partition. The reasons today are political in result from territorial. Come that and ill be like any Pakistani with my hockey stick in my hand standing on the border. But remove that and what have you? Two different countries like any other. Im not asking anyone to play merry and run across the border with hugs and kisses in their bag. And I wouldn't care if what im asking is not reciprocated across the border. What WE need to do is act a bit more maturely, in a manner more respectable, more deserving of a nation. A behavior which is of an educated people.

Now if you turn the argument on its head, if you understand that accepting Indian heritage equates with rejecting Islamic heritage, condemning mass conversion at sword point (reality has nothing to do with the ideological view), and proclaiming that the mediaeval kings and chiefs who pillaged and killed during the early stages of establishing Muslim kingdoms in India were mass-murdering psychopaths.

If the French and the British, or the French and the Germans, or the British and the Germans had believed similarly, there would be blood on the streets of Paris, London and Berlin.

"accepting Indian heritage equates with rejecting Islamic heritage", hardly so. I wont go into the debate concerning "mass conversion at sword point" (But I would advise you to read the works by Ayesha Jala and Sugata Bose. These two are considered to be the foremost academics on South Asian history). Now even if considered and accepted the notion to be true what results does it bear? The "mediaeval kings and chiefs who pillaged and killed during the early stages of establishing Muslim kingdoms in India" hold no significance in Islam. The only importance they hold is of introducing Islam in the subcontinent (although there are credible reports of earlier traders from Arabia already having done that). What bearing does what they were have on what Islam is or what I am? My Islamic beliefs are independent of these people. They are independent of everyone barring the Prophet and to a certain extent his companions. What these kings are is a part of my history; the South Asian history. They will be accepted as will be my Hindu ancestry or my Kashmiri descent.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The land of Pakistan is geo-graphically and historically unique, there has always been an Indus based civilization, though sharing some small similarities with "bharat" it has been largely different.

Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

Interesting, but not conclusive.

It is childish, immature and disingenuous is what it is. Pakistan and India have problems, major ones at that, true and accepted. We cannot trust each other, will not trust each other, ill take that. But need we act as two different troops of monkeys hollering and pouncing on every moronic reason to make this feud more than what it is? Our bases of conflict are not religious, ideological, historical, personal or natural. If they ever were then they died with the partition. The reasons today are political in result from territorial. Come that and ill be like any Pakistani with my hockey stick in my hand standing on the border. But remove that and what have you? Two different countries like any other. Im not asking anyone to play merry and run across the border with hugs and kisses in their bag. And I wouldn't care if what im asking is not reciprocated across the border. What WE need to do is act a bit more maturely, in a manner more respectable, more deserving of a nation. A behavior which is of an educated people.



"accepting Indian heritage equates with rejecting Islamic heritage", hardly so. I wont go into the debate concerning "mass conversion at sword point" (But I would advise you to read the works by Ayesha Jala and Sugata Bose. These two are considered to be the foremost academics on South Asian history). Now even if considered and accepted the notion to be true what results does it bear? The "mediaeval kings and chiefs who pillaged and killed during the early stages of establishing Muslim kingdoms in India" hold no significance in Islam. The only importance they hold is of introducing Islam in the subcontinent (although there are credible reports of earlier traders from Arabia already having done that). What bearing does what they were have on what Islam is or what I am? My Islamic beliefs are independent of these people. They are independent of everyone barring the Prophet and to a certain extent his companions. What these kings are is a part of my history; the South Asian history. They will be accepted as will be my Hindu ancestry or my Kashmiri descent.

I am more than a little nonplussed. Those views that you see me state are not my views, those are my paraphrases of the views of the intransigents.

 

[ifesvr]

So gentleman ( ladies ) I put it to you that this is all about nomenclature. I have avoided the term India to prove my point. We all know that Bharat has used that label and continues to use it, although as a nation state, it is as young as Pakistan. But by using the name India it as gained a historical link goin back to 5,000 years.

Something tells me that the point of starting this thread is because you are peeved at how India, the country is recognized with a 5000 yr old civilization and Pakistan as a 65 yr old nation.
Pakistan no doubt is today the birthplace or inheritor of the Indus valley civilization. But has it ever acknowledged it earlier, particularly the people. But is is not their sole property, it is the history of India (the country) too.

When we talk about India, the country i.e. Union of India or Republic of India, and the 5000 year old history it has, don't just deduce it to the IVC,which spanned 5000 yrs ago, between 3500-1000 BCE. The Indian civilization is rightly claimed by India, (Bharat, ROI, UOI whatever) because we celebrate, glorify, respect and preserves everything about it that spreads across all these 5000 yrs.
Whether it is the Hindustani or Carnatic music; various Indian classical dances; the spiritualism and culture of the Indian religions, also the adoption of foreign religions; the admiration of heroes from Rama, Ashoka to Bhagat Singh; scientists and philosophers from Aryahbhatta, Bhaskara to CV Raman and Abdul Kalam; the martial arts of Gatka to Kalraipayattu;the rich literature of Ramayana, Mahabharat to Gitanjali, writers from Panini, to Kalidas to Rabindranath Tagore. Whether its about Natyashastra(drama), Nrityashastra(Dance), Dharmashastra(religion and legal duty), Arthasashtra(politics and economics), Vastushastra(architecture), Bhautika Shastra (physics), Rasayana Shastra (chemistry), Jeeva Shastra (biology) or even Kamashastra (Kamasutra)
Or whether it is the various Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Mongloid languages and its own indigenous scripts of Devanagari and Brahmi. Whether it the various cuisine or the dress like saree and dhoti. WHether it about respecting and preserving the rivers, environment and animals like the lion, tiger and elephants. Or the modern day resurgence of Yoga, Nirvana and Karma or the adoption of cremation by non-indian religions. Even the tiny popularity of Bollywood.

It is all about this. Does Pakistan follows this? If there is any country which can claim this Indian civilization( i.e of South asia or subcontinent) then it is Union of India alone and no other country. And not just Indians even the outsiders understand that Indian civilization is all about the above, right from IVC to 1947.
I guess only Pakistan consider the Indian civilization is synonymous to IVC only and so the sole property of Pakistan.

 

[Rafi]

Yet, this is exactly what happened.



And yet the case is different with Pakistanis (and Muslims in general).

And for the reasons which have been discussed so often.

The Christian faith didn't compel the Brits and Swedes to deny their roots as Islam did to you and others.

Again BS assumptions, who told you that Islam makes people deny their roots, like I have stated on numerous occasions, I am a Pakistani, I am also a Punjabi, I am also a Jatt, I am also a Shia, my profession also has a part to play on my identity. I am all these things and proud of them also. The vast majority of Pakistanis are the same.

Pakicetus

Pakicetus is a genus of extinct terrestrial carnivorous mammal of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to Pakistan from the Eocene (48-49 Ma).[1] Many paleontologists regard it as a close relative to the direct ancestors of modern day whales.

Pakicetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakicetids or Pakicetidae (meaning Pakistani whales) are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya—40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]
As Cetacea, Pakicetidae precede the whales and dolphins in transition from land. Because their fossils were found near bodies of water, they are presumed to have spent part of their life in water.
Pakicetus was the first discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich, Neil Wells, Donald Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, and all species are known only from a few sites in Pakistan, hence the name of the first genera and the family as a whole. The region is believed to have been coastal to the Tethys Sea when the pakicetids lived, some 53 million years ago.
The pakicetids are presumed to be ancestors of modern whales because of the three following features unique to whales: peculiarities in the positioning of the ear bones within the skull, the folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth. The current theory is that modern whales evolved from archaic whales such as basilosaurids, which in turn evolved from something like the amphibious ambulocetids, which themselves evolved from something like the land-dwelling pakicetids.

Pakicetid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Academia is changing to except Pakistani contentions of ownership of our cultural and historical heritage, which is a good thing, apparently when this animal was discovered, indians wanted it named after india, but the Pakistani academic community fought and won the right for it to be named after Pakistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

The crux of the identity dissonance here is simple, and its frankly churlish on the part of us Indians to deny those Pakistanis who are increasingly seeing the light and wanting to embrace their roots.

Truth be told, a Pakistan that is comfortable in its Indian skin and lifeblood, becomes a muslim India. We can live with that much better than an Arabic vassal state on our borders.

That obviously does not mean we have to give up our birth-right so that they can reclaim theirs.

60 years is not even the blink of an eye in the history of our civilization.

I agree with your post. It is just that moving to different stages is a long term evolution. I will repeat what I posted four years back on ths topic. Nothing changes in our part of the world in a hurry.

I somehow see the current thread as stage two in a three stage evolution of Pakistani thinking. This is a bit over simplified obviously.

Stage 1: Totally dissociate from the past. call it Jahiliyah. Don't even accept that you are native to the land. Call yourself Arab origin etc. Basically totally dissociate from your pre-conversion identity. Hate others who shared that identity with you.

Stage 2: Start to discover your pre-Islamic identity but violently deny that you share that with any non-Muslims. Try to claim that exclusively. This is still limited to a very small section of the population. Most folks are in stage 1.

Stage 3: Be totally comfortable with your Muslim identity as well as with your pre-Islamic history. No problem in accepting that the ancient history is a shared heritage and being able to take pride in it without necessarily having to first appropriate that exclusively. this stage has even lesser people than stage 2. But there are some who are here and many of the stage 2 people can gradually progress to this with a little more broadening of their horizons.

And a little digression here.

What is more important to the Pakistani friends here?

To have pride in their ancient history and accept it and get it accepted by the country at large by giving its due place in history books, national discourse etc.

OR

First making sure that this history is identified as an exclusively Pakistani history with no links to India whatsoever.

Sadly I see most people (certainly one honorable member with a lot of prejudices included) more interested in the 2nd part. It gives the feeling that more than actually being interested in any ancient history some people just want to make sure that it is denied to India.

While I am sure such an effort just can not succeed (because I don't think it really has legs to stand on. The ancient history is not nearly as cut and dry as the 60 years old Radcliffe line), it would be good to see some members trying to honestly discover the answers instead of coming through as the know-alls they pretend to be.

 

[Rafi]

Again BS assumptions, who told you that Islam makes people deny their roots, like I have stated on numerous occasions, I am a Pakistani, I am also a Punjabi, I am also a Jatt, I am also a Shia, my profession also has a part to play on my identity. I am all these things and proud of them also. The vast majority of Pakistanis are the same.

Pakicetus

Pakicetus is a genus of extinct terrestrial carnivorous mammal of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to Pakistan from the Eocene (48-49 Ma).[1] Many paleontologists regard it as a close relative to the direct ancestors of modern day whales.

Pakicetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakicetids or Pakicetidae (meaning Pakistani whales) are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya—40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]
As Cetacea, Pakicetidae precede the whales and dolphins in transition from land. Because their fossils were found near bodies of water, they are presumed to have spent part of their life in water.
Pakicetus was the first discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich, Neil Wells, Donald Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, and all species are known only from a few sites in Pakistan, hence the name of the first genera and the family as a whole. The region is believed to have been coastal to the Tethys Sea when the pakicetids lived, some 53 million years ago.
The pakicetids are presumed to be ancestors of modern whales because of the three following features unique to whales: peculiarities in the positioning of the ear bones within the skull, the folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth. The current theory is that modern whales evolved from archaic whales such as basilosaurids, which in turn evolved from something like the amphibious ambulocetids, which themselves evolved from something like the land-dwelling pakicetids.

Pakicetid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Academia is changing to except Pakistani contentions of ownership of our cultural and historical heritage, which is a good thing, apparently when this animal was discovered, indians wanted it named after india, but the Pakistani academic community fought and won the right for it to be named after Pakistan.

Our land, our people, our history, hands off to all foreigners.

 

[indushek]

This is fundamentally wrong, whether or not you get support from a section of Pakistanis for your statement.

Pakistan was formed not to reject or to destroy the Hindu heritage, but to protect the Muslim heritage. It was to preserve not to destroy, no matter what untutored zealots tell you.

There is no need of support for my statement from Pakistanis Joe, you have provided the requisite support with yours. You say that Pakistan was created for protecting Muslim Heritage, from what did the Muslim heritage need protection from? from the Hinduor the ancient 'Indian' heritage isn't it?? when u say it (Muslim Heritage) needs protection doesn't it mean naturally that it (Hindu heritage) is deemed alien and is shunned??

I never said they wanted to destroy that heritage, just as Muslims live and prosper here there are Hindus in Pakistan too. However while the constitutional nature of our country makes us Secular theirs makes it Islamic. Without popular support u cannot make it work can you?? So when Pakistan is a Islamic republic and has been created to 'preserve' Islamic heritage and is majority Muslim where they revel in heros of Arabia who plundered the subcontinent, u still say that they are entitled to the Hindu heritage??On basis of what i would really like to know.

This is a real doubt on my part, there has always been debates on this and never a middle ground is achieved.

 

[Sinnerman108]

There is no need of support for my statement from Pakistanis Joe, you have provided the requisite support with yours. You say that Pakistan was created for protecting Muslim Heritage, from what did the Muslim heritage need protection from? from the Hinduor the ancient 'Indian' heritage isn't it?? when u say it (Muslim Heritage) needs protection doesn't it mean naturally that it (Hindu heritage) is deemed alien and is shunned??

I never said they wanted to destroy that heritage, just as Muslims live and prosper here there are Hindus in Pakistan too. However while the constitutional nature of our country makes us Secular theirs makes it Islamic. Without popular support u cannot make it work can you?? So when Pakistan is a Islamic republic and has been created to 'preserve' Islamic heritage and is majority Muslim where they revel in heros of Arabia who plundered the subcontinent, u still say that they are entitled to the Hindu heritage??On basis of what i would really like to know.

This is a real doubt on my part, there has always been debates on this and never a middle ground is achieved.

You are double dealing on a very fine line.
There is no question of Heritage upon the creation of Pakistan.
Historical heritage of India is Hindu heritage, and India is most welcome to keep it.

Pakistan was created to promote Islamic way of life, not to be diluted or pressurized by pagan majority.