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

[AUSTERLITZ]

Well u wanted to share a 'personal view' so i asked u for ur personal opinion on both emigrations.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am neither Hindu nor Muslim. But I have grown up with a very strong sense of nationalism. And cultural affinity, debt of gratitude, and deep rooted ties to the land of my forefathers.

Neither my grandfather (I did not get to know my paternal grandfather), nor my father, nor me, can see the logic of partition.

And all three of us have very strong views on it.

Its dimmed in my son's generation. I don't know what the scene is at your end.

My 'roots' are in Bangladesh, on both sides. My grandfathers took it differently. The city guy from Dhaka had lots of Muslim friends, and was bewildered that what happened actually happened. My father had to take leave and go to Dhaka and yank out his extended family, almost forcibly. My father himself kept saying mildly pro-Hindu things through his life, but when he was writing about his friends, I pointed out that the majority were Muslim. He was utterly taken aback, not having realized what was emerging. I am secular, through and through. My daughter thinks that even secular is giving oxygen to the possibility of humanity divided on religious lines. Her generation has no time for that.

The other one, the zamindar from the villages, hated communalists with a cold fury. It was implacable, to his last day, a trait I found strange in a man who to me was the perfect gentleman, a model to be emulated. His sons inherited it. The admiral took a professional pride in blowing up more tonnage than the rest of the Navy, and his fixed attitudes continued even when greeting General Musharraf at a reception in Delhi, in the little gift he had made for the General. His son tried to organize a literary Festival in Srinagar, had it wrecked by the hate campaign whipped up, and then watched the attacks on the Jaipur Festival which followed. He is secular, too, and his sons are uncomfortable at the amount of time the older generation spends on these irrelevancies.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Austerlitz: The senior man around here, Joe-S has advised that I was tad harsh on you. So in respect of his wishes I take back that comment I made about you.

And why are you guy's still flogging the Dravidian thing? Now this is getting tedious, so hear loud and clear. It is possible that the original ethnic group in the Indus Valley was Dravidian. I can't discount that possibility and neither can you prove that. You can read views of the late Prof. Ahmad Hassan Dhani. So there are two views on this and I do not think both can be reconciled until either they find DNA sample or they manage to read the tablets found at the ruins.

But I think at end of the day it is irrelevant because if indeed the Dravidians were there than it would mean the present people in Sindh - Punjab, Pakistan had forefathers who were Dravidian's. What is so profound about that, if indeed that is the case?

And yes, I am aware about the Brahui of Balochistan, a people linked to Dravidians.

Raja Chola: So you would rather have me think I am stupid? Great.
What am supposed to look out for on the coins? A stamp at the back which says ' Made by a Hindu'?
Correct me but the bull is found all over South Asia so what would be so shocking about it's use in symbols?. As a example the eagle is found all over the world. It is a symbol in use by US, by the German's, some Arab countries. Point taken? Many cultures can use the same symbol.

And can youplease find out what a valley is? Then can you also find out what a catchment area is. Could you possibly then explain how is Lothal in the Indus Valley?

Well we are not discussing about this world.. We are taking about IVC and its history and in that sense, the coins found in IVC is a matter of discussion,...

 

[Developereo]

The question faced by several new age pakistanis is -"How to proudly claim ancient hindu heritage while distancing themselves from evil hindus?"..After all,logic is for sissies..

I agree, with a slightly different placement of emphasis.

The challenge is to accept Hindu heritage without being swayed by evil Hindus, i.e. the extremist fringe of Hinduism. The challenge is to associate Hinduism (and its history) with the moderate Hindus, not the rabid Hindutva fringe.

 

[vsdoc]

I agree, with a slightly different placement of emphasis.

The challenge is to accept Hindu heritage without being swayed by evil Hindus, i.e. the extremist fringe of Hinduism. The challenge is to associate Hinduism (and its history) with the moderate Hindus, not the rabid Hindutva fringe.

Brother, very very few of you even make the delineation.

A fringe by its very definition is an outnumbered minority.

You do not need to create a different nation to escape that.

 

[Developereo]

For the record - In India, there was no concept of warfare for imposition of belief systems.

Military conquests, for whatever reason, are invariably followed by missionary legions. There is a view that the Muslim conquests of India were primarily commercially motivated. The only difference with India is that the details are lost in antiquity and mythology. At the risk of going off-topic, I had mentioned the myth of Agastya and how he came from the North and defeated the "evil beings" in the South. Just a myth, or a sanitized version of an ancient conquest where the victors wrote the history?

The process of Islamization resulted in a loss (to a varying degree) of ancestral cultural identity, and the taking up of a newly imagined identity.

What you call a 'loss', we call 'transformation'. There is nothing 'imagined' about our identity: we are Muslims from a land with a long history of civilization. Some aspects of that ancient linkage we retain in our rituals, and our spiritual view is shaped by the Islamic identity.

 

[Developereo]

Brother, very very few of you even make the delineation.

A fringe by its very definition is an outnumbered minority.

You do not need to create a different nation to escape that.

There was sufficient concern pre-1947 that this fringe would be influential enough to substantially affect the life of Muslims, hence the need for Pakistan. Now you can debate whether the fear was justified or overblown but, at this point, it hardly matters.

 

[Developereo]

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.

I think you get a false picture from the internet. In real life, Bollywood and Indian media are very popular in Pakistan. Do you really think people would identify with something they consider vile and beneath them?

Yes, there is wariness and apprehension towards India. I, myself, am the first to stand in line when debating Kashmir or various conflicts between India and Pakistan. I make no secret that I believe India is actively working against Pakistani interests, but we see it as a political conflict, not religious.

However, I will agree that there are people on both sides who promote it as a religious issue.

 

[vsdoc]

Military conquests, for whatever reason, are invariably followed by missionary legions.

Seen mainly by two world religions that aim for the harvest of souls through inorganic growth afforded by mass scale conversions by force.

Missionaries and their subtle and oftentimes not so subtle "conversions of peace" are driven by economics and social manipulation in an environment where force is not an option.

The pressing sentiment behind both is no different though.

There was sufficient concern pre-1947 that this fringe would be influential enough to substantially affect the life of Muslims, hence the need for Pakistan. Now you can debate whether the fear was justified or overblown but, at this point, it hardly matters.

It has been the historical trend for Islam to take over entire nations, cultures, and civilizations, with no tolerance for what is not Islam.

Pakistan was the result of the one instance where Islam could not complete its divinely ordained duty.

In effect a stop gap. A face saving solution when the gains of a thousand years were in danger of coming to nought.

I must bring Islam into the discussion, because the minorities from no other religion had an issue with undivided India.

 

[Developereo]

Even if they were the ones who consider themselves (and actually are) descended from invaders who came to destroy exactly that empire?

Once again, history is replete with conquests back and forth. Given enough time, people take a dispassionate view of history.

Whether you like it or not, the examples I gave about Byzantine and Turkey, Moors and Spain, Aborigines and Australia are true. You can deny it all you like; it won't change how these people view their history.

The difference in culture is despite the attempt to enforce uniformity by Islam, not because of Islam.

Again, you pick specific interpretations of Islam to substantiate your preconceptions. There mere fact that Islam encompasses such a vast cultural landscape belies your statement. You can try to qualify your claims with "despite" this and that; it won't change the reality of cultural diversity within Islam.

Pakistan is not about location at all. It's location is just an accident.

Pakistan is about an idea and that idea brooks no such "appreciation".

Once again, I am not too concerned about reasons and justifications. I only touched the subject of rationales because it is being discussed. As far as I am concerned, this is 2012 and we are two separate countries, albeit with shared history and culture.

The focus for Pakistanis is to chart a course for the future, regardless of what fears, justifications and rationales had been active in the past.

I must bring Islam into the discussion

I don't want to get into the history Islam; there have been enough threads about that and people have debated these claims, along with comparative analyses of other religions, including Hinduism.

The issue here is about Pakistan and its ancient history, so let's stick to that.

 

[vsdoc]

I don't want to get into the history Islam; there have been enough threads about that and people have debated these claims, along with comparative analyses of other religions, including Hinduism.

The issue here is about Pakistan and its ancient history, so let's stick to that.

That's perfectly ok and I respect your sentiment.

But a thread about India/Bharat, Pakistan, and British India, as well as Pakistan's ancient history, cannot be divorced from Islam.

Because technically Developer, as a nation, Pakistan has no other history but that of an Islamic state.

 

[Developereo]

Because technically Developer, as a nation, Pakistan has no other history but that of an Islamic state.

Well, technically, the Republic of India also has no history before 1947. However, the lands comprising said political entities, and the ancestors of people living in these entities, were party to various events which constitute the ancient history.

Your guys' contention is that we cannot claim that history unless we have a spiritual connection with those events and people; we reject that claim as an invalid prerequisite. We gave examples of Brits, Swedes, Spaniards, Egyptians, Iranians, etc. where your criteria do not match.


P.S. Well, time for me to leave this thread and let Atanz take it forward the way he wants.

 

[vsdoc]

Well, technically, the Republic of India also has no history before 1947.

Of course. But India is much bigger, older, and all pervasive than its current boundaries.

Pakistan for the world will always be the state that broke away from India.

Its your choice whether to accept your Indian links or not.

But asking us to change and give up what's always been ours just because you are not comfortable that what was (and is) yours is also equally ours and still rightfully associated with us - and the fact that we/us are not going anywhere anytime soon - is something that cannot happen. Will not happen.

However, the lands comprising said political entities, and the ancestors of people living in these entities, were party to various events which constitute the ancient history.

As already said many times over, this viewpoint of yours is still a minority amongst your people. You would do better to start with them than with us first. Though I agree we are easier to work with and hence the natural gravitation in your discourse.

Your guys' contention is that we cannot claim that history unless we have a spiritual connection with those events and people; we reject that claim as an invalid prerequisite. We gave examples of Brits, Swedes, Spaniards, Egyptians, Iranians, etc. where your criteria do not match.

No one is claiming that. Accepting your Indian history and heritage as a common people would be a great start (Which includes no BS about the IVC being separate from ancient civilizational and cultural India and hence unique only to you).

But that would mean proving the Father of your Nation a liar.

Can you afford to do that?

 

[karan.1970]

Well, technically, the Republic of India also has no history before 1947. However, the lands comprising said political entities, and the ancestors of people living in these entities, were party to various events which constitute the ancient history.

Your guys' contention is that we cannot claim that history unless we have a spiritual connection with those events and people; we reject that claim as an invalid prerequisite. We gave examples of Brits, Swedes, Spaniards, Egyptians, Iranians, etc. where your criteria do not match.

we even fight on claiming something as intangible as history...

btw, on a little trivia, India was one of the founding members of UN and the original signatory on the 1945 UN charter as an independent country.. So India kind of did come into existence before 1947
UN|DPI — OD|Dag Hammarskjöld Library: Member States|On the Record

 

[Rig Vedic]

What you call a 'loss', we call 'transformation'. There is nothing 'imagined' about our identity: we are Muslims from a land with a long history of civilization. Some aspects of that ancient linkage we retain in our rituals, and our spiritual view is shaped by the Islamic identity.

All identities are in the mind; the term "imagined" was used in that sense.

It is for Pakistanis to ponder whether the loss / transformation brought about by the Islamization process was good for them.

If we see a fragile beginning of a soul-searching process, that is a good thing. No doubt such an internal debate will continue for many decades. As Vsdoc points out, Iran is further along on the path than Pakistan is.