Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
LoL putting words and expressions to another people, the height of hubris.
What is your objection to the post you have cited?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LoL putting words and expressions to another people, the height of hubris.
Whilst cat was away I can see the children have been playing!
There two type of fanatics here:-
The Pakistani fanatics.
They have had 65 years of being stuffed with this arty farty fairtale which runs something like this. Your Muslim, you dropped from the heavens in 1947 ( bit like the Jews from Europe settled in Isreal in 1947 ) and since then they established Pakistan, fort of Islam. Or alternatively they all were Arabs and landed with Bin Qasim in 9th century.
This is load of bollocks. With the exception of the migrants who moved from India to Pakistan in 1947 the rest of the people ( 95% ) are native to the land. No doubt over the millenia as happens with all populations invaders came and in time they melted into the general population. The Indus valley has been a mixing pot. This happens everywhere. The British people carry the blood of Celts who were the original inhabitants as well as the waves who came over time. The Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans. Today the British are a mix of all strains. Of course they had to wait last for the best wave, which was me !!! You can't unravel their mixed up ancestry.
The exact same process has been happening in the Indus Valley ( todays Pakistan occupies the majority of this valley ) ever since the time of Mohenjo Daro. Now this is a very simple and plausible suggestion I am making. I realise the fanatics in Pakistan are going to oppose this view because it conflicts with their worldview which has been informed by 63 years of Pakistan government sponsored propaganda because 'hey we are all Arabs'.
But I got news for these people. There is a natural law that if something does not fit with reality eventually the bubble will burst. It is going to take time but rest assured I say to these fanatics the people of Pakistan, one by one will eventually reconnect with their land and their forefathers - And before you Indian's pull your pants down and start masturbating ' Yeh but you guys will be just another India' if that happens I say 'Piss off'.
The Bengalis managed to get out of this bubble and I ask the Indian's go along and check the map and you will see a small blob fast sinking in the Bay of Bengal - What do you call that ........... Yes Bangladesh. So no they have not become another India. They have become very nationalist and gone to their roots as Bangali. Bravo to them. Of course they are still Muslims but they do not live in denial of their roots, that is Bengali.
But of course this process is going to take time for this tide unleashed since at least 1949 to recede. Of course being fanatics they are not open to reason or facts. If they had it their way some of the fringe would blow up all ancient ruins or history similar to the Taliban.
INDIAN FANATICS.
The Indian fanatics are no differant from the Pakistani and this thread has attracted them like flies to honey. They have been pressure pumped with all sort of garbage. Because the Mullah is missing on the Indian side they come across more progressive, modern but underneath the gloss they are same. They rewrite history and at times even geography, where rivers bursts out from the ground where there was desert before and mountains split apart. Then ample use of scripture ( just as on our side scripture is used ) as referance. It would appear Rig Vedic frequently smokes that pipe.
Everything suddenly becomes 'Hindu'. Of course the unity in diversity argument is propunded, if you have a square that does not fit into the circle. I mean the the Pygmy people of Africa must also be Hindu. Well they do have two legs, they do use their mouths to talk and would you believe it they even use their hands to eat. All attributes in common with Hindu of India. Ping!!!
I suppose that is the Muslim equivalent of the common held view that everybody is born a Muslim. That is why the term 'revert' is used for those who convert. So wild claims bordering fantasy where Harapans become Hindus. Or Proto-Hindus. I suppose you could argue that primitive man was also Proto-Hindu because some of them evolved into modern Hindus. I can see a Mullah screaming 'No he was born a Muslim.' The Indian fanatic saying no he was Proto-Hindu. Crazy!!!
I came across a article which claims that ( might be mistaken here ) that Lothal is part of IVC. Because they used the same measures. So desperate are the Indian fanatics that they will find the most pathetic reason as proof. Besides anything else the Lothal site is no where near the Indus Valley. Does anybody know what a valley is? Lothal falls well outside the Indus River catcment area thus it is not erven within the Indus Valley.
Of course you can claim that plate tectonic activity shifted the entire mantlepiece causing the gradient differantials. I used Google Earth as a rough guide. There is at least 300 feet plus elevation between Lothal site and the nearest riverine zone of the Indus in Sindh, Pakistan. Of course maybe the the gravity was pulling in reverse and the water gushed uphill is a possiblity.
And I checked Lothal site, all it is is a tiny site. The actual ruins are possibly hundred feet plus. Is that a joke? Is that what all the drama is about. If that is your golden site I wonder what rest are, just a footprint? You guys have made a mountain out of molehill. For comparison I checked Mohenjo Daro which is at least 15 times more extent. I will back to have more fun later.
I just like to ask the Indian's you crow on about secularism then you start peddling the same concept as the Mullahs. Hinduism creeps in. Yes, I am well aware of culture, civilization realm etc. Europe is an example of that in fact you could add modern day US, Canada as well.
Ciao.
Joe-S. I will get to your post after I have done some research. I think your post deserves some thinking. What you see here is just pulp for the masses.
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.
1, CLAIM EVERYTHING ON EVERY SQUARE INCH OF PAKISTAN. CELEBTRATE IT. IT IS YOURS.
2. ACCEPT EVERY EVENT SINCE TODAY AND EVERY YEAR GOING BACK TO SINCE TIME BEGAN.
IS THAT SIMPLE? DO YOU SEE ANY DENIAL THERE?
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.
Just like the Turks have nothing to do with the Holy Roman empire just because they currently control Istanbul (Constantinople).
PS: Think of why you are not even able to give examples from the Muslim world.
Does Pakistan follows this?
I guess only Pakistan consider the Indian civilization is synonymous to IVC only and so the sole property of Pakistan.
who told you that Islam makes people deny their roots
If we start calling India as Bharat will westerners suddenly think IVC only belongs to Pakistan?
Pak's only claim to IVC heritage is that it now controls the land where IVC once flourished.
Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam
Those Pakistanis who feel the inadequacy of their Islamic identity, but still hate India, are the ones who clutch at the IVC as a drowning man clutches at straw, while ignoring everything in between the IVC and Muhammad bin Qasim.
Well, technically speaking British India came first; then Pakistan (14th) and then India (15th).
Do remember "India" existed only as part of the British Raj, and before that it was simply the name for the whole Subcontinent. "Bharat" also existed the name way, but not as a solid political entity.
That interpretation is not only incorrect, it contributes to the problem being discussed here. The idea that acceptance of IVC stems from an "inadequacy of Islamic identity" is flawed in the extreme. In fact, it is precisely self-assured confidence in our own Islamic identity which enables us to appreciate diversity in thought without feeling threatened.
Secondly, we are not jumping history. We, obviously, appreciate the parts of history which took place within the present geographical boundaries of Pakistan more than, say, something that happened in India's deep South.
What I am looking for is a pride in the larger Indic civilization, and an acknowledgment that the areas that now comprise Pakistan were a part of it.
Because there is no larger "indic" civilization ...
I as a Punjabi share no cultural affiliation to a Maharashtran ...
Thank you for admitting the inherent problem in Pakistan claiming the Indic heritage
What I am looking for is a pride in the larger Indic civilization, and an acknowledgment that the areas that now comprise Pakistan were a part of it.
Some of these conquerors are now viewed as mythical heroes in India/Hinduism even though, at the time, the people they conquered were also Indian. We don't always know of the losing side's belief systems because it's lost in antiquity.
And yet you deny us the right to take pride in the larger Islamic civilization, decrying it as acting 'Arab'. Do you see the contradiction?
As for taking pride in pan-Indian culture, that is always a matter of degree. While we certainly appreciate the accomplishments of Indian culture as a whole, realistically, the affinity will diminish with distance, unless reinforced by other factors. For example, Pakistani Hindus would doubtless be more appreciative of Tamil Hindu scholars than Pakistani Muslims would, because the former's geographic bond is supplemented by religion. In the same way, Indian Hindus doubtless feel no emotional connection to Mecca as Indian Muslims do. This is not being dismissive; this is just the reality of human nature and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.
The same thing is doubtless true within India. South Indians would be more appreciate of South Indian accomplishments than, say, Bihari or Bengali accomplishments, and vice versa.
Certainly they can claim Byzantine as part of their cultural heritage, just as Spaniards can claim the Moorish culture and Australians can claim the Aborigine cave paintings.
You are in no position to dictate to people what part of history they may and may not accept.
Muslim examples have been given. Repeatedly. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, to name but a few.
You seem to have a self-serving, simplistic view that Muslims across the globe are identical clones of some Arabian mold. If you bother to study the customs and rituals in Muslim communities, you will be amazed at the cultural diversity.
See above. Pak's claim is that our lands and ancestors were instrumental in the early history of civilization and contributed to the cultural heritage of the region (and beyond).
"without fear of persecution". That last part is crucial because the motivating factor was freedom from persecution. There is nothing in that doctrine that requires renunciation of ancient history.
That interpretation is not only incorrect, it contributes to the problem being discussed here. The idea that acceptance of IVC stems from an "inadequacy of Islamic identity" is flawed in the extreme. In fact, it is precisely self-assured confidence in our own Islamic identity which enables us to appreciate diversity in thought without feeling threatened.
Secondly, we are not jumping history. We, obviously, appreciate the parts of history which took place within the present geographical boundaries of Pakistan more than, say, something that happened in India's deep South.
Let me try to explain it this way. We know that, in antiquity, there were any number of military conquests within the subcontinent itself. Some of these conquerors are now viewed as mythical heroes in India/Hinduism even though, at the time, the people they conquered were also Indian. We don't always know of the losing side's belief systems because it's lost in antiquity.
From our point of view, both the Muslim and local cultures are part of our heritage, so the conquests were between two parts of our heritage. Now you may say that we favor the more recent part of our heritage over the ancient part, but that is normal human behavior across the world. All cultures do that.
And yet you deny us the right to take pride in the larger Islamic civilization, decrying it as acting 'Arab'. Do you see the contradiction?
As for taking pride in pan-Indian culture, that is always a matter of degree. While we certainly appreciate the accomplishments of Indian culture as a whole, realistically, the affinity will diminish with distance, unless reinforced by other factors. For example, Pakistani Hindus would doubtless be more appreciative of Tamil Hindu scholars than Pakistani Muslims would, because the former's geographic bond is supplemented by religion. In the same way, Indian Hindus doubtless feel no emotional connection to Mecca as Indian Muslims do. This is not being dismissive; this is just the reality of human nature and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.
The same thing is doubtless true within India. South Indians would be more appreciate of South Indian accomplishments than, say, Bihari or Bengali accomplishments, and vice versa.
Developreo let me make one thing clear, i have no problem with Pakistani's claiming the Indic heritage along with Muslim tradition as their own. However ur voice is a minority, majority take pride in the Arabic tradition heck i even seen people here linking their family to some Arab general and say that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Indian heritage.
They talk as if they were in control of low life hindus for centuries till the british came. If ghanznis and ghoris and bin kasims are reveled in by these people how do u think they would accept this age old culture?? It will be a big task for u to convince them than convincing me an Indian.
Developreo let me make one thing clear, i have no problem with Pakistani's claiming the Indic heritage along with Muslim tradition as their own. However ur voice is a minority, majority take pride in the Arabic tradition heck i even seen people here linking their family to some Arab general and say that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Indian heritage.
They talk as if they were in control of low life hindus for centuries till the british came. If ghanznis and ghoris and bin kasims are reveled in by these people how do u think they would accept this age old culture?? It will be a big task for u to convince them than convincing me an Indian.
That we have a thread like this here itself is a tectonic shift.
However, its not difficult to maintain perspective when we see how many Indians have participated here versus the number of Pakistanis.
But as they say - boond boond se darya banta hai.