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

[vsdoc]

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.

Generations man.

Iran has an advantage. They have a strong racial and sociocultural dislike going back millenia for those who claim global leadership of Islam.

They also have lost most of what it means to be Persian. That goad is omnipresent. They gag on it.

Pakistanis have not lost most of what it means to be Indian. Therefore they are more comfortable.

These are two immensely intersting case studies in hatred:

Indians and Pakistanis - Same people, different religions.

Iranians and Arabs - Different people, same religion.

Where is the hatred stronger?

Where are the differencs more irrevocable?

 

[vsdoc]

During 1950s,West Pakistan tried to change script of Bengali language to Arabic Script because West Pakistanis considered Eastern Nagari Script of Bengali language as non-Muslim and were ready to provide official status to Bengali only if they change their script to Arabic. Ayub Khan once himself said,"East Pakistanis are still under considerable Hindu effect." It is always strange to see that for Pakistanis celebrating Nowruz festival is not bad but they have different attitude for Bengalis celebrating Pohela Boishakh.

Nowruz = Persian = Not Indian (regardless of the fact that its not Islamic either)

Pohela Boishakh = Indian (regardless of the fact that their Punjabis celebrate much the same)

One is pre-conditioned from the days of the Partition.

The other is simply racist.

East Pakistan/Bangladesh was always an eyesore for West Pakistan/Pakistan.

You have heard what they have to say about Tamils and what possible connection they could have with them?

Well for them this was as bad. Much like the resentment towards the more "Indian" mohajirs from Bihar and UP.

Were it not for the burden of Islam forced on to them by the subterfuge of the Two Nation theory.

What galled them about 1971 was not that they were finally rid of the dark Bengali speaking banglas.

But that India forced their hand on it.

Something Kayani's generation of officers has still not been able to live down from their YO days.

 

[vsdoc]

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.

Fascinating as it was, old school upbringing made me control my inquisitiveness till now.

But I'm fighting a losing battle and am agog with curiosity

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

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.

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 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.

Same facts, different viewpoints.

We can live with that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Fascinating as it was, old school upbringing made me control my inquisitiveness till now.

But I'm fighting a losing battle and am agog with curiosity

Curiousity about what?

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

That was India the Crown colony. That was the seat given to the Dominion of India, and that became the point at which Zaffrullah Khan argued that Pakistan should have equal rights of membership being an equal successor. The UN agreed with India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

About the small gift made by the Admiral for the General.

Very childish. A copy of the RCDS directory flagged to the page where chaps who had raided Karachi in 65 and Bangladesh in 71 were listed.

He looked up his own batch mates, Lt Gen Mehta and another whom I forget, invited them to Pakistan and gave them a gorgeous time. Now that things are quietening a bit, MEA has said it's open to the idea of these reciprocal visits. Something is being planned for the time after the next Indian chapter meeting on 30th May.

 

[Rafi]

Independence has been achieved and the glorious past, is part and parcel of our nation - we are proud of our ancestors, and all of us Pakistanis should strive to make them proud, by working hard and achieving our goals. We must increase our co-operation with China and Iran and Turkey, nations that have stood by us shoulder to shoulder in our dark days. We must also give consideration to Malaysia and Indonesia. What happened at independence is history now.

 

[Avatar]

A question arose in another thread thats quite interesting. Which is did Pakistan get partitioned from India? I noticed the majority view amongst the Indian's was their country 'India' was carved up..

I absolutely reject this contention. My view is that a territory was divided into two states from British India which is not the exact same entity as today's Indian Union.
I stated in my previous argument that at the heart of this fallacy is that it was not 'India' as in the present Indian Union that was divided in 1947 and that this misunderstanding rests in the nomenclature. This untruth has been peddled since 1947 and today it's almost accepted as a given.

My argument is subtle but the result if I can prove my contention is profound. We in Pakistan don't have to sit like some new upshot in the shadow of a mature, established state to our east. We can look at our neighbour in the eye as a equal.

First of all I would suggest we sort out the nomenclature issue, which is and has been the cause of this misunderstanding in South Asia and the world. I will give numbered points for ease of discussion and referance.

1. Today we have two nation states, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Republic of India. To avoid the nomenclature mixup I will henceforth refer to the Republic of India as Bharat and of course Republic of Pakistan as simply Pakistan.

2. Prior to 1947 there was no nation state ( I stress this point ) in the sub continent There existed a territory acquired by a foreign power, piece by piece through hook and crook and driven by imperial greed.

3. This foreign power had over time taken over almost a entire region ( a geographic defintion ) called India.

4. This label 'India' had been around in various forms since antiquity. It had derived from the Sanskrit Sindhu for the river Indus. The Greeks had used label 'India' and it's meaning would have been the land adjacent to Indus River. That is the Sindh Province, today in Pakistan.

5. Over time this very restricted meaning or understanding of the word 'India' extended eastwards until almost the entire geographic region we call South Asia today came be known as India. Therefore the term India was synonymous with the region we call today South Asia.

6. Thus not only was the term India synonymous with todays South Asia much like other geographic regional names in use today like Iberia, Scandinavia, Balkans, Maghreb or Indochina.

7. Maghreb as a region has been known as such for over a millenia, as has Scandinavia but Libya or Finland are recent 'inventions'. If Finland decided to appropriate the regional geographic name Scandinavia for itself it would not then mean that this nation state now going as the Scandinavian Republic has been around since antiquity.

8. Also just because it ( Finland ) had appropriated a geograhic regional name for itself it would not mean that it could claim everything within that region, that is the entire history of that region as its own. That would be tantamount to intellectual fraud. That is exactly what Bharat has been doing since 1947. It is almost bordering on identity fraud.

9. Now lets go to before 1947. We had a British colony. It's borders were drawn arbitrarily and represented the maximum extent of British power, Had the British been weaker, those borders would have been less extent. Had they been even stronger those borders would have been even more extent.

10. That British colony existed within a region, we would call that South Asia today but then it was known as India ( like Scandinavia etc ) thus this colony was titled 'British India'. Today's Pakistan or Bharat share the exactly the same relationship to British India. The only advantage Bharat has gained is because it also chose the style 'India' which happened to to share the same nomenclature with the British Colonial entity and before that the geograhic region.

11. In a strange twist of history a name 'India' that had meant just the land adjacent to River Indus, came over time to mean the entire region we call South Asia and now in a total leap of disconnect it has come to refer to a nation state called Bharat. The disconnect being that it originally just meant a area in today's Pakistan and now has come to mean a area that is a total disconnect from the original land ( which is in todays Pakistan ) , to what is today Bharat ( which is well to east of the original meaning ). This can 'identity theft' today can throw up all sort of strange situations as I shall point out later.

12. Indian independance Act 1947:-

(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

(2)The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as “the new Dominions”, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”.

2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) (4) of this section, the territories of India shall be the territories under the sovereignty of His Majesty which, immediately before the appointed day, were included in British India except the territories which, under subsection (2) of this section, are to be the territories of Pakistan.

13. We can adduce certain facts from the above Act.

(i) That there existed a British Colony known variously as 'British India' or just plain 'India' ran by a London appointed official called a Viceroy which was part and parcel of the British Empire.

(ii) That this adminstrative structure would cease to exist in 1947 and in it's place two nation states shall come into existance viz Republic of Pakistan and Bharat Republic.

(iii) That the territory adminstered by the said structure would be apportioned out betwen both nation states.

(iv) That as a function of decribing the precise apportionment it states that Bharat shall be British India minus Pakistan.

(v) That when you cut something you slice the smaller piece from the bigger, not slice the bigger piece from smaller. The language of the act just follows that function.

(vi) We cannot use the fact that the term India is being used because that only proves my contention, that is it goes back to the heart of what I have been saying, namely the nomenclature. That is why I am using the term Bharat to prove my point. Both Republics, Pakistan and Bharat if I may draw the analogy just plain wines.

(vii) Whereas the impression given is Pakistan is some new immature wine lacking any pedigree whereas Bharat is some vintage Champagne thats been cultivated for centuries.

14. The truth is both Republics are modern creations dating from 1947. Both are as vintage or lack of as much as each other. The nomenclature is just a dupe, a gloss that obfuscates the reality. Just because Bharat decides to appropriate the name 'India' unto itself does not mean that it suddenly becomes a vintage wine as much as a cheap wine does not become a true Chamapagne just because it labels itself as such.

15. A point was made that Bharat is indeed the sole successor to British India. That is absurd notion. It indeed was a successor state to British India but so was Pakistan.

16. How else would the assets that belonged to British India get divided to both Bharat and and Pakistan? Why and how did the territory held by British India be apportioned to both with some going to Pakistan and some to Bharat if the former was also not also a succerssor state?

17. Contention was made that Bharat the is the sole successor state by stating that United Nations seat held by British India was given to Bharat contrary to Pakistan's efforts.

18. Well the person who made this point (16) should know that not all things can be apportioned. If a father left a horse as inheritance to two sons, they could not divide it into two. By the same logic you cannot apportion a seat. Only one party can have it.

19. If my father left a club membership to me and my brother we very well could not both demand it, when there would only be one. Clearly we would have to resolve the matter by some other means, perhaps the older one getting it. In the instance of the UN seat Bharat gets it because clearly it was the largest piece out of the defunct British India.

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.

Could people please do me enormous favour, please only contribute to this thread if you can add something for or against based on the points made, preferably reasioned out. Lets keep this focussed.

Your curiosity is inspiring but conclusions are too far away.

The only thing I'd like to point out is that India embraced freedom without any delusions, without having to tell one lie to its people. I dont know about other Indians, but personally I believe that all that matters is NOW, because the world changes to rapidly it is difficult to keep tabs. There is no need to dwell into the past and hurt some egos while caressing some other egos.

Lastly, try keeping it brief.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The two persons whose views are worth anything are Developereo, at a very mature, somewhat disillusioned, yet still hopeful and optimistic plane, and Atanz, who reminds me in an uncanny way of RoadRunner. I would rather wait to hear from them continuing the themes they introduced so lucidly. I may not agree with every particle of what they say, but do agree that there are elements in their argument which are irrefutable. It will be interesting to see if they build successfully on those core elements.

It is really not worth bickering with anyone who gets out of the wrong side of his bed, and finds in himself a need to rush into print.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Independence has been achieved and the glorious past, is part and parcel of our nation - we are proud of our ancestors, and all of us Pakistanis should strive to make them proud, by working hard and achieving our goals. We must increase our co-operation with China and Iran and Turkey, nations that have stood by us shoulder to shoulder in our dark days. We must also give consideration to Malaysia and Indonesia. What happened at independence is history now.

100% Yes from me!!!

Rig Vedic and the rest:

We are not saying that we are a island unto ourselves. The Indus Valley ( Pakistan ) is also part of broader human drama played out over the 5,000 years of history. At the regional level and even beyond. All cultures are synthesis of various stands and there are bound be shared strands with your neigbhours.

As a examle take modern day Europe. Without doubt it shares a common culture, language similarities, with Greek or Latin used as root for many words, a common history, Christian tradition and even in appearance most Europeans are identical. As such Europe is a cultural, civilizational realm. All Europeans regard Greece as the birthplace of European civilization.

Today they are also being politically integrated in the form of European Community. Even the defence pact NATO on the whole is a Western/European grouping

Almost every European capital boasts buildings that ape ancient Greek cities like Athens. From Moscow to Dublin you have Roman-Greek influenced buildings, indeed the British even left some of these Greco-Roman influenced structures in South Asia. So without doubt Greek influence on European thought and culture is profound.

Even United States, Canada etc built by European settlers share this common civilizational root. Washington is littered with Greco-Roman structures. That is why this tradition is now called 'Western' because it has expanded far outside it's European homeland.

Yet, there are scores of countries in Europe, each one with it's own identity and is proud of it. Frankly I struggle to sometimes see the differance between the Irish ( who were until recently at war with the British ) the British, German, Dutch, Swedish. I see more differances in appearance and culture between a Pashtun, Punjabi, Bangali, Assamase etc.

Yet I don't I see any contradiction in the fiercely independant Irish, the proud British, the Germans ( despite the differances between them being bare shades )and the rest from being PROUD of their own history and culture and at the SAME time being aware that they are part of a larger European realm.

All European's accept that lot of their traditions have been informed by Greeks. They are also aware that their religion is from outside Europe and that it is from the Middle East. They know they have abandoned the old gods that their forefathers worshipped. Yet they don't have a problem with that.

They also know that each country has been subjected to invaders, rape, destruction. In the UK the bloodthirsty Vikings from Norway used to raid the English coast. They would rape, pillage and wreak havoc. The sight of their devil helmets would strike fear into the Angles and Celtic tribes in England. The Vikings were just blonde haired savages.

Yet today in York ( often subjected to brutal Viking onslaught ) there is a Jorvik Viking Centre. Which is dedicated to everything Viking. They celebrate their rapists and savages!!!

Jorvik Viking Centre | Home page


Now these Viking were crude, idol worshippers, who raped and did all the hideous things that Ghaznavi and rest of the invaders might have done. Today the UK openly has accepted the Viking strand in it's composition, heritage and history. I have come across English who are proud of having Viking blood in their veins. The reason is it is their history, the Vikings did play a role be it positive or negative. No point in denying it.

Now I went off to Europe to illustrate my argument. If each of those European countries, with some having less differances than pair of twins can jealosly uphold their own unique identity yet at the same time be part of a larger whole why can't you guy's accept Pakistan in the same way?

Instead you come here and make pathetic comments like 'how can you celebrate Ghaznavi and claim IVC at the same time'? Yes sir, we can and we are going to. I think I have given enough examples above to establish that. We can accept our IVC forefathers ( god knows what ethnic group they belonged to ) and at the same time take in all the rest in a amalgam. Each strain has contributed inn the making of the 'Indus man' which today is Pakistan.

So yes, I will say we in Pakistan are proud inheritors of all and everything that the Indus Valley has seen in the long march of history. Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa is ours. Ghaznavi is also part of us. Yes, we are Muslim today and proud of it. We are all these things. A 5,000 years COMPOSITE.

Just the like the Greeks can claim everything as their, yet at the same time rest of Europe shares its roots with them. The Ancient Greeks wwere not Christian. Yet today rest of Europe credits the Greeks and at the same time recognize that they are part of that broader realm that they all belong to.

NOW TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION MANY INDIAN'S KEEP BRING UP. YES, THE INDUS VALLEY/PAKISTAN IS UNIQUE BUT WE ACCEPT THAT WE ARE ALSO PART OF THE BROADER SOUTH ASIAN IDENTITY.

WE CAN CELEBRATE OUR UNIQUE IDENTITY WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE MAKING FOR 5,000 YEARS

AT THE SAME TIME, AT ANOTHER LEVEL BE PART OF SOUTH ASIA.

AND AT ANOTHER LEVEL BE PART OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD.

AND WE DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME INDIA.

The point of my thread was not to deny any of the above. The problem happens is if you say we belong to India, my blunt answer is no because today India refers to a political state that does not occupy the entire region. Are we prepared to stand next to the Sri Lankan, Nepali, Bangladeshi, Indian. If you label this composite 'Indian' NO SIR we won't agree with that, because is unfair to the rest. You call this shared culture South Asia , yes sir we will be proud to stand and be counted.

So essence the name today obfuscates this issue, because in the past it meant an entire region. Had our neigbour been called Bharat we could have lived with composte being called India. But because today that name only covers one state in the region we will refuse be part of a grouping called India. We are South Asian. We are not India. If we agree to the latter that is unfair to us and gives India a unfair advantage just because of a name.

Thats what I meant by nomenclature. Was IVC, is Pakistan part of a greater realm/cultural area? YES.

Is that India? NO. NO.

Is it part of SOUTH ASIA. Yes sir.

Again I will say NO we do not want the name India. Please read this carefully if you are going to reply.

 

[Rafi]

Identity is composite, a Greek person is a part of the Judea/Christian world, he is also a inheritor of the Hellenic civilization, he is also a European, he is also a member of the Mediterranean culture, he is also a result of the hundreds of years of Ottoman rule.

 

[Joe Shearer]

100% Yes from me!!!

Rig Vedic and the rest:

We are not saying that we are a island unto ourselves. The Indus Valley ( Pakistan ) is also part of broader human drama played out over the 5,000 years of history. At the regional level and even beyond. All cultures are synthesis of various stands and there are bound be shared strands with your neigbhours.

As a examle take modern day Europe. Without doubt it shares a common culture, language similarities, with Greek or Latin used as root for many words, a common history, Christian tradition and even in appearance most Europeans are identical. As such Europe is a cultural, civilizational realm. All Europeans regard Greece as the birthplace of European civilization.

Today they are also being politically integrated in the form of European Community. Even the defence pact NATO on the whole is a Western/European grouping

Almost every European capital boasts buildings that ape ancient Greek cities like Athens. From Moscow to Dublin you have Roman-Greek influenced buildings, indeed the British even left some of these Greco-Roman influenced structures in South Asia. So without doubt Greek influence on European thought and culture is profound.

Even United States, Canada etc built by European settlers share this common civilizational root. Washington is littered with Greco-Roman structures. That is why this tradition is now called 'Western' because it has expanded far outside it's European homeland.

Yet, there are scores of countries in Europe, each one with it's own identity and is proud of it. Frankly I struggle to sometimes see the differance between the Irish ( who were until recently at war with the British ) the British, German, Dutch, Swedish. I see more differances in appearance and culture between a Pashtun, Punjabi, Bangali, Assamase etc.

Yet I don't I see any contradiction in the fiercely independant Irish, the proud British, the Germans ( despite the differances between them being bare shades )and the rest from being PROUD of their own history and culture and at the SAME time being aware that they are part of a larger European realm.

All European's accept that lot of their traditions have been informed by Greeks. They are also aware that their religion is from outside Europe and that it is from the Middle East. They know they have abandoned the old gods that their forefathers worshipped. Yet they don't have a problem with that.

They also know that each country has been subjected to invaders, rape, destruction. In the UK the bloodthirsty Vikings from Norway used to raid the English coast. They would rape, pillage and wreak havoc. The sight of their devil helmets would strike fear into the Angles and Celtic tribes in England. The Vikings were just blonde haired savages.

Yet today in York ( often subjected to brutal Viking onslaught ) there is a Jorvik Viking Centre. Which is dedicated to everything Viking. They celebrate their rapists and savages!!!

Jorvik Viking Centre | Home page


Now these Viking were crude, idol worshippers, who raped and did all the hideous things that Ghaznavi and rest of the invaders might have done. Today the UK openly has accepted the Viking strand in it's composition, heritage and history. I have come across English who are proud of having Viking blood in their veins. The reason is it is their history, the Vikings did play a role be it positive or negative. No point in denying it.

Now I went off to Europe to illustrate my argument. If each of those European countries, with some having less differances than pair of twins can jealosly uphold their own unique identity yet at the same time be part of a larger whole why can't you guy's accept Pakistan in the same way?

Instead you come here and make pathetic comments like 'how can you celebrate Ghaznavi and claim IVC at the same time'? Yes sir, we can and we are going to. I think I have given enough examples above to establish that. We can accept our IVC forefathers ( god knows what ethnic group they belonged to ) and at the same time take in all the rest in a amalgam. Each strain has contributed inn the making of the 'Indus man' which today is Pakistan.

So yes, I will say we in Pakistan are proud inheritors of all and everything that the Indus Valley has seen in the long march of history. Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa is ours. Ghaznavi is also part of us. Yes, we are Muslim today and proud of it. We are all these things. A 5,000 years COMPOSITE.

Just the like the Greeks can claim everything as their, yet at the same time rest of Europe shares its roots with them. The Ancient Greeks wwere not Christian. Yet today rest of Europe credits the Greeks and at the same time recognize that they are part of that broader realm that they all belong to.

NOW TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION MANY INDIAN'S KEEP BRING UP. YES, THE INDUS VALLEY/PAKISTAN IS UNIQUE BUT WE ACCEPT THAT WE ARE ALSO PART OF THE BROADER SOUTH ASIAN IDENTITY.

WE CAN CELEBRATE OUR UNIQUE IDENTITY WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE MAKING FOR 5,000 YEARS

AT THE SAME TIME, AT ANOTHER LEVEL BE PART OF SOUTH ASIA.

AND AT ANOTHER LEVEL BE PART OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD.

AND WE DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME INDIA.

The point of my thread was not to deny any of the above. The problem happens is if you say we belong to India, my blunt answer is no because today India refers to a political state that does not occupy the entire region. Are we prepared to stand next to the Sri Lankan, Nepali, Bangladeshi, Indian. If you label this composite 'Indian' NO SIR we won't agree with that, because is unfair to the rest. You call this shared culture South Asia , yes sir we will be proud to stand and be counted.

So essence the name today obfuscates this issue, because in the past it meant an entire region. Had our neigbour been called Bharat we could have lived with composte being called India. But because today that name only covers one state in the region we will refuse be part of a grouping called India. We are South Asian. We are not India. If we agree to the latter that is unfair to us and gives India a unfair advantage just because of a name.

Thats what I meant by nomenclature. Was IVC, is Pakistan part of a greater realm/cultural area? YES.

Is that India? NO. NO.

Is it part of SOUTH ASIA. Yes sir.

Again I will say NO we do not want the name India. Please read this carefully if you are going to reply.

Personally - I speak for myself alone in this, and compromise nobody's right to disagree - I am fine with this.

Atanz is quibbling on emotional and sentimental grounds about 'India' and 'South Asia', but then, so are those who choose the rubric 'Indic', which to me is almost criminal, for reasons that do not belong here.

For hyper-patriots on either side, tread carefully. You are treading on the bones of our ancestors.

For Indian hyper-patriots, it is useful to realize that Atanz has adopted a formula that works exceedingly well to compose our regional differences and allow us to assemble as children of one culture. Even to be able to welcome south-east and even east Asians as slightly distant members of this clan.

For Pakistani hyper-patriots, you can now brag about Khaleed bin Waleed and Asoka in the same breath. There will be fools whose feathers are ruffled - largely by their own doing - at this grouping. To them, this brings absolution to their otherwise ridiculous glorification of castes in the same breath that they strut their Islamic stuff.

PS: I would really like to read Developereo on this developed theme.

 

[indushek]

That is true. Musharaff was high in 'street-smartness'. A great quality in any Cadet or Subaltern. Maybe even in a Company Commander.

However in a General; its a dubious quality! Especially if it is the major attribute. That got demonstrated on many occasions.
I certainly don't admire 'street-smartness' as a major quality in an Army Commander or a President of a Nation or even the CEO of a Corpn.

Totally offtopic but my branch head a veteran in my field (shipping to be exact) some time back told me, when he was discussing my priorities. Boy the line u seem to show interest in needs a lot of 'street smartness'. It can get u so far but not too far. Didn't know what he meant at that time, now i do i mean atleast i think i understand his bent of mind to certain extent. He is a malllu by the way and i a telugu. Still he is my father's age i respected his advise and chose otherwise. Seems good till now don't know about the future.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Totally offtopic but my branch head a veteran in my field (shipping to be exact) some time back told me, when he was discussing my priorities. Boy the line u seem to show interest in needs a lot of 'street smartness'. It can get u so far but not too far. Didn't know what he meant at that time, now i do i mean atleast i think i understand his bent of mind to certain extent. He is a malllu by the way and i a telugu. Still he is my father's age i respected his advise and chose otherwise. Seems good till now don't know about the future.

You can trust a Mallu's insight. They are mostly right. It's their beastly cynicism that kills them; sometimes their excessive analysis. Use his insights and work your Golti backside off, and you will get to the top. Make a small contribution to PDF when you make your first crore.

 

[indushek]

100% Yes from me!!!

Rig Vedic and the rest:

We are not saying that we are a island unto ourselves. The Indus Valley ( Pakistan ) is also part of broader human drama played out over the 5,000 years of history. At the regional level and even beyond. All cultures are synthesis of various stands and there are bound be shared strands with your neigbhours.

As a examle take modern day Europe. Without doubt it shares a common culture, language similarities, with Greek or Latin used as root for many words, a common history, Christian tradition and even in appearance most Europeans are identical. As such Europe is a cultural, civilizational realm. All Europeans regard Greece as the birthplace of European civilization.

Today they are also being politically integrated in the form of European Community. Even the defence pact NATO on the whole is a Western/European grouping

Almost every European capital boasts buildings that ape ancient Greek cities like Athens. From Moscow to Dublin you have Roman-Greek influenced buildings, indeed the British even left some of these Greco-Roman influenced structures in South Asia. So without doubt Greek influence on European thought and culture is profound.

Even United States, Canada etc built by European settlers share this common civilizational root. Washington is littered with Greco-Roman structures. That is why this tradition is now called 'Western' because it has expanded far outside it's European homeland.

Yet, there are scores of countries in Europe, each one with it's own identity and is proud of it. Frankly I struggle to sometimes see the differance between the Irish ( who were until recently at war with the British ) the British, German, Dutch, Swedish. I see more differances in appearance and culture between a Pashtun, Punjabi, Bangali, Assamase etc.

Yet I don't I see any contradiction in the fiercely independant Irish, the proud British, the Germans ( despite the differances between them being bare shades )and the rest from being PROUD of their own history and culture and at the SAME time being aware that they are part of a larger European realm.

All European's accept that lot of their traditions have been informed by Greeks. They are also aware that their religion is from outside Europe and that it is from the Middle East. They know they have abandoned the old gods that their forefathers worshipped. Yet they don't have a problem with that.

They also know that each country has been subjected to invaders, rape, destruction. In the UK the bloodthirsty Vikings from Norway used to raid the English coast. They would rape, pillage and wreak havoc. The sight of their devil helmets would strike fear into the Angles and Celtic tribes in England. The Vikings were just blonde haired savages.

Yet today in York ( often subjected to brutal Viking onslaught ) there is a Jorvik Viking Centre. Which is dedicated to everything Viking. They celebrate their rapists and savages!!!

Jorvik Viking Centre | Home page


Now these Viking were crude, idol worshippers, who raped and did all the hideous things that Ghaznavi and rest of the invaders might have done. Today the UK openly has accepted the Viking strand in it's composition, heritage and history. I have come across English who are proud of having Viking blood in their veins. The reason is it is their history, the Vikings did play a role be it positive or negative. No point in denying it.

Now I went off to Europe to illustrate my argument. If each of those European countries, with some having less differances than pair of twins can jealosly uphold their own unique identity yet at the same time be part of a larger whole why can't you guy's accept Pakistan in the same way?

Instead you come here and make pathetic comments like 'how can you celebrate Ghaznavi and claim IVC at the same time'? Yes sir, we can and we are going to. I think I have given enough examples above to establish that. We can accept our IVC forefathers ( god knows what ethnic group they belonged to ) and at the same time take in all the rest in a amalgam. Each strain has contributed inn the making of the 'Indus man' which today is Pakistan.

So yes, I will say we in Pakistan are proud inheritors of all and everything that the Indus Valley has seen in the long march of history. Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa is ours. Ghaznavi is also part of us. Yes, we are Muslim today and proud of it. We are all these things. A 5,000 years COMPOSITE.

Just the like the Greeks can claim everything as their, yet at the same time rest of Europe shares its roots with them. The Ancient Greeks wwere not Christian. Yet today rest of Europe credits the Greeks and at the same time recognize that they are part of that broader realm that they all belong to.

NOW TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION MANY INDIAN'S KEEP BRING UP. YES, THE INDUS VALLEY/PAKISTAN IS UNIQUE BUT WE ACCEPT THAT WE ARE ALSO PART OF THE BROADER SOUTH ASIAN IDENTITY.

WE CAN CELEBRATE OUR UNIQUE IDENTITY WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE MAKING FOR 5,000 YEARS

AT THE SAME TIME, AT ANOTHER LEVEL BE PART OF SOUTH ASIA.

AND AT ANOTHER LEVEL BE PART OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD.

AND WE DO NOT WANT YOUR NAME INDIA.

The point of my thread was not to deny any of the above. The problem happens is if you say we belong to India, my blunt answer is no because today India refers to a political state that does not occupy the entire region. Are we prepared to stand next to the Sri Lankan, Nepali, Bangladeshi, Indian. If you label this composite 'Indian' NO SIR we won't agree with that, because is unfair to the rest. You call this shared culture South Asia , yes sir we will be proud to stand and be counted.

So essence the name today obfuscates this issue, because in the past it meant an entire region. Had our neigbour been called Bharat we could have lived with composte being called India. But because today that name only covers one state in the region we will refuse be part of a grouping called India. We are South Asian. We are not India. If we agree to the latter that is unfair to us and gives India a unfair advantage just because of a name.

Thats what I meant by nomenclature. Was IVC, is Pakistan part of a greater realm/cultural area? YES.

Is that India? NO. NO.

Is it part of SOUTH ASIA. Yes sir.

Again I will say NO we do not want the name India. Please read this carefully if you are going to reply.

If it is not to be labeled Indian what should it be u say 'south asian' hmmm... but u see most of them seem to point towards India or Bharat (yes the colloquial local term) where the culture came from wasn't it. There is a reason why this culture is attributed to us Indians (though a seperate political entity now but culturally encompassing u previously).

I said this to Developreo i will say this to u too, can u convince ur brethren in ur country with ur theory and i mean a majority group. If anything the reaction on this thread should be an indicator to u.

I find only one fault with ur analogy towards the west, they are all Christian here we are Hindu and Muslim. This religious division should present a different perspective shouldn't it??