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

[zip]

I thought it was jinna who first named the country" pakistan "
he had the option to name it as "india" but he didnt and nehru did ..so end of the argument ..

 

[Subramanian]

If Jinnah tried to name it India,the world would have laughed at him.

 

[Porus]

Dude I'm a little too old to start adopting a new name and identity. Really, India works just fine for us and we are happy with being called Indians. Unlike other nations which tend to nitpick on every tiny detail, we are comfortable with what and where we are and we don't need to start making radical changes now.

Something just came to my mind that I wanted to ask. I read somewhere that Pakistan stands for Punjab-Afghan-Kashmir-Sindh-Balochistan yes? If this name was coined in 1947, what about East Bengal? Why aren't the Bengalis represented in the name? Or were they not part of the original idea ?

The reason is quite simple Chaudhri Rehmat Ali coined the name Pakistan in 1933 and Bengal was not supposed to be the part of that Pakistan which HE had envisaged.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Hindustan:

As Porus has pointed out, it was Chaudhri Rehmat Ali who coined up the name Pakistan derived from Punjab Afghania-Kashmir-Balochistan as these were Muslim majority provinces. By Afghania he meant North West Frontier Province, now Khyber Paktunkva province and yes as Porus said he did not envisage Bengal as part of his Pakistan. Today's Pakistan almost resembles Ch.Rehmat Ali's Pakistan.

In addition it was Allama Iqbal who pushed the Muslim League to accept the idea of separate Muslim state in his speech at Allahbad in 1930.

"I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India.

Again there is no mention of Bengal.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Can people please note the following;

1. I am NOT saying that Pakistan should have got the name 'India'. That was a 5,000 years old brand and fact was Bharat was bigger then us so she obviously deserved to get the name, please refer back my point about some things CAN NOT be apportioned. I gave the example of horse, the UN seat. In the same way the brand 'India' could not be apportioned. Bharat had right to it, simply because it was bigger then Pakistan. So I am NOT fr*gg*n saying 73 years after the fact that we should have got the name. NO. Do I make myself clear? I am trying to remedy the distorted history that has been created by using the name India. END OFF.

2. Too many people seem to be missing the wood for the tree. If people bother to read my introduction to this thread and if they have the intellect and more importantly are prepared take their heads out the **** then you will see the where I am trying take this.

3. I knew I was going to have problem with this on both sides. On the Bharat side the Indian gov., has been busy trying to construct a national indentity under the brand 'India and I it has succeeded. At heart of this is a fairy tale of IVC, India and differant mumbo jumbo from various Hindu scriptures ( as if these are referance material ) but there is some problems. Like the fact that Indus and most of the IVC sites are in Pakistan. No problem, in almost what can be described as comical some jokers have come up with the mythical 'Saraswati' to justify the existance of IVC in Bharat.

4. This Saraswati appears to be comical attempt to say " Hey the fr*gg*m rivers have changed course so guess what? In the old days this Saraswati River flowed through Bharat into the Arabian Sea and no Indus never flowed through Pakistan. When I came across this mythical river first I laughed till I almost cracked my ribs. I expect any one of these days some dodgy archaeologist from some third rate Western University come to Bharat, do you dodgy research and claim that in the old days apparently the River Indus disgorged into Haryana east of Chandigarh and then rolled down south west towards Rajasthan desert and into Gujrat.

5. Then claim a titanic crack appeared in the Himalyas and Indus flowed west. All he has do then is find some voodoo referance in some voodoo scipture then do a few digs along the way and hey presto publish a book. Such a book would get a better reception in India then a bottle of hard cidar would to some alchoholic. The said archaelogist would make tidy sum out of such a book. Then you would have Wikipedia being jammed with all sort garbage.

So no, I was not surprised that my argument would get the Indian's red in the face because it would go against everything thats been pressure stuffed into their heads. Only a few with sufficient calibre of thought and reason might be able to look at my argument, untrammeled by previous conditioning.

It is absolutly pathetic how somebody from Cape Comorin or Shillong can crow on and get all bloated about IVC when they have nothing to crow about. Yet the Sindhi or the Punjabi farmer ploughing his field in Pakistan within sight of Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa watering their fields from the Indus River have no recognition. Yet they are the direct descendants, it was their forefathers that built those cities with bare hands of IVC. Let us not forget Mehr Garh in Balochistan.

Don't anybody here dare mention religion. There is such a thing as evolution, yes waves of conquerors have come and they have probably heavily influenced the genetic pool but that is history, continous change, evolution in play. The Ancient Egyptians were not Muslim, the ancient Greeks were not Christians yet nobody can say to them you 'can't' claim that legacy or that your not the direct inheritors of those civilizations.

Amongst the Pakistani's of course I also will have problems in particular the hirsute variety. They of course have had their brains mushed with 73 yeats with garbage about 'my forefathers were sat on the boat from Arabia next to Bin Qasim when he invaded Sindh'. According to this narrative 180 million Pakistani's dropped from the sky in 1947 on Pakistan or alternatively landed on the Sindh coast from Arabia in 9th century . So we are all Arabs. Great. Bravo. That fr*gg*n figuers.

That is also heap of shite, through and through.

That is why I know my argument would not resonate with many people on both sides of the border because it shakes their worldview. So in summary I am not saying to Bharat give us the brand name 'India'. NO. The thrust of my post is that we in Pakistan have the mighty majestic Indus, which is to Pakistan what Nile is to Egypt. Without this river there would be no Pakistan and we should be proud of the ancient civilzation it bore. It is our heritage. It was our forefather's who built IVC 5,000 years ago. Let us take it in our hands, lets us celebrate it, let us go out there and see the wonder that was Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa and Taxila. The Greek remains in the Taxila area just 30 miles east of Islamabad. That is us, that is our identity. Claim it.

I have gone there, I have seen Greek coins. You can almost feel the past come alive there. People you wil be proud. Yes, I know Panini sat there and did his work on the banks of Indus.

Yes, we are Muslims but let us not ignore our forefathers. That was the basic message of my post. Those who can contribute go ahead, if you can't toss off. I am not forcing you to read this.

 

[Jackdaws]

The official name of India is "The Republic of India" in English and "Bharat Ganrajya" in Hindi. Now, what constitutes the Republic of India today is a sizable chunk of British India - over 75% of India all through the past couple centuries.

While the formal name of USA is rather long - it is informally known as America - mostly because it has the largest landmass AND the largest number of people. It is not as if the Canadians and the Mexicans are up in arms saying it is a case of identity fraud.

Also, the rest of South Asian nations are more ethnically homogeneous - Bangladesh is predominantly Bengali, Pak is predominantly Punjabi, Lanka only has Sinhala and Tamil - so their nations are fine with ethno centric names. India is home to a multitude of ethnicities - if not India, what could we possibly call it in English?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

india was not a country till 47

Pakistan attained independence first, and it was from britisher-controlled (OCCUPIED) conglomeration of states, princely states and autonomous self-ruled areas

 

[Jackdaws]

Also, the point you are trying to make is that India as a nation is different from India as a civilization. That is a fair point as the larger Indic civilization would stretch from present-day Pakistan in the west to the Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Bali in the East. But is India stopping any of these nations from embracing their Indic heritage? Nope - the Indonesians call their national airline - Garuda - after the Vulture which is the Mount of Lord Vishnu; Ayutthaya in Thailand is named after Ayodhya in India; the temples of Indic temples of Angkor Wat grace the flag of Cambodia. So, no - India has not stopped any nation from embracing its Indic heritage. If countries face an identity crisis, it is usually of their own doing.

I mean Pakistan names its missiles after people who raped and pillaged present day Pakistan. If they wish to embrace the Stockholm Syndrome as their culture and history - what are we in India supposed to do?

india was not a country till 47

Pakistan attained independence first, and it was from britisher-controlled (OCCUPIED) conglomeration of states, princely states and autonomous self-ruled areas

Actually, that is a common mis-perception. The British Parliament enacted the Freedom of India bill, which gave independence to both - India and Pakistan on August 15, 1947. As Governor General Mountbatten could not be present at both places as the same time - merely the ceremony was conducted on August 14, 1947 in Pakistan - but formally the power transferred only on August 15. Am sorry to burst your bubble - but you guys have been celebrating your independence on the wrong day - in fact you actually end up celebrating the last day of your slavery.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Can people please note the following;

1. I am NOT saying that Pakistan should have got the name 'India'. That was a 5,000 years old brand and fact was Bharat was bigger then us so she obviously deserved to get the name, please refer back my point about some things CAN NOT be apportioned. I gave the example of horse, the UN seat. In the same way the brand 'India' could not be apportioned. Bharat had right to it, simply because it was bigger then Pakistan. So I am NOT fr*gg*n saying 73 years after the fact that we should have got the name. NO. Do I make myself clear? I am trying to remedy the distorted history that has been created by using the name India. END OFF.

2. Too many people seem to be missing the wood for the tree. If people bother to read my introduction to this thread and if they have the intellect and more importantly are prepared take their heads out the **** then you will see the where I am trying take this.

3. I knew I was going to have problem with this on both sides. On the Bharat side the Indian gov., has been busy trying to construct a national indentity under the brand 'India and I it has succeeded. At heart of this is a fairy tale of IVC, India and differant mumbo jumbo from various Hindu scriptures ( as if these are referance material ) but there is some problems. Like the fact that Indus and most of the IVC sites are in Pakistan. No problem, in almost what can be described as comical some jokers have come up with the mythical 'Saraswati' to justify the existance of IVC in Bharat.

4. This Saraswati appears to be comical attempt to say " Hey the fr*gg*m rivers have changed course so guess what? In the old days this Saraswati River flowed through Bharat into the Arabian Sea and no Indus never flowed through Pakistan. When I came across this mythical river first I laughed till I almost cracked my ribs. I expect any one of these days some dodgy archaeologist from some third rate Western University come to Bharat, do you dodgy research and claim that in the old days apparently the River Indus disgorged into Haryana east of Chandigarh and then rolled down south west towards Rajasthan desert and into Gujrat.

5. Then claim a titanic crack appeared in the Himalyas and Indus flowed west. All he has do then is find some voodoo referance in some voodoo scipture then do a few digs along the way and hey presto publish a book. Such a book would get a better reception in India then a bottle of hard cidar would to some alchoholic. The said archaelogist would make tidy sum out of such a book. Then you would have Wikipedia being jammed with all sort garbage.

So no, I was not surprised that my argument would get the Indian's red in the face because it would go against everything thats been pressure stuffed into their heads. Only a few with sufficient calibre of thought and reason might be able to look at my argument, untrammeled by previous conditioning.

It is absolutly pathetic how somebody from Cape Comorin or Shillong can crow on and get all bloated about IVC when they have nothing to crow about. Yet the Sindhi or the Punjabi farmer ploughing his field in Pakistan within sight of Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa watering their fields from the Indus River have no recognition. Yet they are the direct descendants, it was their forefathers that built those cities with bare hands of IVC. Let us not forget Mehr Garh in Balochistan.

Don't anybody here dare mention religion. There is such a thing as evolution, yes waves of conquerors have come and they have probably heavily influenced the genetic pool but that is history, continous change, evolution in play. The Ancient Egyptians were not Muslim, the ancient Greeks were not Christians yet nobody can say to them you 'can't' claim that legacy or that your not the direct inheritors of those civilizations.

Amongst the Pakistani's of course I also will have problems in particular the hirsute variety. They of course have had their brains mushed with 73 yeats with garbage about 'my forefathers were sat on the boat from Arabia next to Bin Qasim when he invaded Sindh'. According to this narrative 180 million Pakistani's dropped from the sky in 1947 on Pakistan or alternatively landed on the Sindh coast from Arabia in 9th century . So we are all Arabs. Great. Bravo. That fr*gg*n figuers.

That is also heap of shite, through and through.

That is why I know my argument would not resonate with many people on both sides of the border because it shakes their worldview. So in summary I am not saying to Bharat give us the brand name 'India'. NO. The thrust of my post is that we in Pakistan have the mighty majestic Indus, which is to Pakistan what Nile is to Egypt. Without this river there would be no Pakistan and we should be proud of the ancient civilzation it bore. It is our heritage. It was our forefather's who built IVC 5,000 years ago. Let us take it in our hands, lets us celebrate it, let us go out there and see the wonder that was Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa and Taxila. The Greek remains in the Taxila area just 30 miles east of Islamabad. That is us, that is our identity. Claim it.

I have gone there, I have seen Greek coins. You can almost feel the past come alive there. People you wil be proud. Yes, I know Panini sat there and did his work on the banks of Indus.

Yes, we are Muslims but let us not ignore our forefathers. That was the basic message of my post. Those who can contribute go ahead, if you can't toss off. I am not forcing you to read this.

Too angry, too soon, at too little ;-)

Let us return to your first post and start from there, although much has been said earlier, much, much earlier, and later as well.
Perhaps that will be better.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

well Pakistan's diversity is less defined now simply because most people understand or are fluent in Urdu and there is more nationhood now than before - as time has seen mixed marriages, rural to urban migration, etc. In fact, new slang languages are being created that mix languages like Pashto and Urdu or Baloch and Urdu/Punjabi, etc.

% doesnt matter because the point is, different ethnic groups and religious groups do exist in Pakistan....and we celebrate the diversity in our country

it's only hateful brainless drones who think otherwise --their numbers are negligible

 

[neutral_person]

Can people please note the following;

1. I am NOT saying that Pakistan should have got the name 'India'. That was a 5,000 years old brand and fact was Bharat was bigger then us so she obviously deserved to get the name, please refer back my point about some things CAN NOT be apportioned. I gave the example of horse, the UN seat. In the same way the brand 'India' could not be apportioned. Bharat had right to it, simply because it was bigger then Pakistan. So I am NOT fr*gg*n saying 73 years after the fact that we should have got the name. NO. Do I make myself clear? I am trying to remedy the distorted history that has been created by using the name India. END OFF.

2. Too many people seem to be missing the wood for the tree. If people bother to read my introduction to this thread and if they have the intellect and more importantly are prepared take their heads out the **** then you will see the where I am trying take this.

3. I knew I was going to have problem with this on both sides. On the Bharat side the Indian gov., has been busy trying to construct a national indentity under the brand 'India and I it has succeeded. At heart of this is a fairy tale of IVC, India and differant mumbo jumbo from various Hindu scriptures ( as if these are referance material ) but there is some problems. Like the fact that Indus and most of the IVC sites are in Pakistan. No problem, in almost what can be described as comical some jokers have come up with the mythical 'Saraswati' to justify the existance of IVC in Bharat.

4. This Saraswati appears to be comical attempt to say " Hey the fr*gg*m rivers have changed course so guess what? In the old days this Saraswati River flowed through Bharat into the Arabian Sea and no Indus never flowed through Pakistan. When I came across this mythical river first I laughed till I almost cracked my ribs. I expect any one of these days some dodgy archaeologist from some third rate Western University come to Bharat, do you dodgy research and claim that in the old days apparently the River Indus disgorged into Haryana east of Chandigarh and then rolled down south west towards Rajasthan desert and into Gujrat.

5. Then claim a titanic crack appeared in the Himalyas and Indus flowed west. All he has do then is find some voodoo referance in some voodoo scipture then do a few digs along the way and hey presto publish a book. Such a book would get a better reception in India then a bottle of hard cidar would to some alchoholic. The said archaelogist would make tidy sum out of such a book. Then you would have Wikipedia being jammed with all sort garbage.

So no, I was not surprised that my argument would get the Indian's red in the face because it would go against everything thats been pressure stuffed into their heads. Only a few with sufficient calibre of thought and reason might be able to look at my argument, untrammeled by previous conditioning.

It is absolutly pathetic how somebody from Cape Comorin or Shillong can crow on and get all bloated about IVC when they have nothing to crow about. Yet the Sindhi or the Punjabi farmer ploughing his field in Pakistan within sight of Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa watering their fields from the Indus River have no recognition. Yet they are the direct descendants, it was their forefathers that built those cities with bare hands of IVC. Let us not forget Mehr Garh in Balochistan.

Don't anybody here dare mention religion. There is such a thing as evolution, yes waves of conquerors have come and they have probably heavily influenced the genetic pool but that is history, continous change, evolution in play. The Ancient Egyptians were not Muslim, the ancient Greeks were not Christians yet nobody can say to them you 'can't' claim that legacy or that your not the direct inheritors of those civilizations.

Amongst the Pakistani's of course I also will have problems in particular the hirsute variety. They of course have had their brains mushed with 73 yeats with garbage about 'my forefathers were sat on the boat from Arabia next to Bin Qasim when he invaded Sindh'. According to this narrative 180 million Pakistani's dropped from the sky in 1947 on Pakistan or alternatively landed on the Sindh coast from Arabia in 9th century . So we are all Arabs. Great. Bravo. That fr*gg*n figuers.

That is also heap of shite, through and through.

That is why I know my argument would not resonate with many people on both sides of the border because it shakes their worldview. So in summary I am not saying to Bharat give us the brand name 'India'. NO. The thrust of my post is that we in Pakistan have the mighty majestic Indus, which is to Pakistan what Nile is to Egypt. Without this river there would be no Pakistan and we should be proud of the ancient civilzation it bore. It is our heritage. It was our forefather's who built IVC 5,000 years ago. Let us take it in our hands, lets us celebrate it, let us go out there and see the wonder that was Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa and Taxila. The Greek remains in the Taxila area just 30 miles east of Islamabad. That is us, that is our identity. Claim it.

I have gone there, I have seen Greek coins. You can almost feel the past come alive there. People you wil be proud. Yes, I know Panini sat there and did his work on the banks of Indus.

Yes, we are Muslims but let us not ignore our forefathers. That was the basic message of my post. Those who can contribute go ahead, if you can't toss off. I am not forcing you to read this.

Calm down bro, take a chill pill. For some reason you are pissed off at Indians, when you really should be pissed off at your fellow countrymen for not recognising their Hindu history.

File:CiviltàValleIndoMappa.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Firstly, IVC is a part of present day India as well. But Pakistan was the major player in IVC and should claim it as well. I think if Pakistanis claimed IVC, Harrappa, Mohejan Daro, then there would be no Pakistan, it would just have been another part of India.

Let me explain, the most basic part of Two Nation Theory:

The two-nation theory (Urdu: دو قومی نظریہ, Devanagari: दो क़ौमी नज़रिया, do qaumi nazariya) is the ideology that the primary identity of Muslims on the Indian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nationalities, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities.

You see, this is the foundation of Pakistan trying to forget Pre-Islamic history. The fact is, there was (and still is in many ways) a tremendous amount of similarity between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent in terms of language, culture, "Mehendi" in your Nikkahs, ethnicity, passion for similar films(Bollywood), passion for similar sports (Cricket), etc. Bottom-line is, for Two Nation Theory to be legitimate, you had to essentially make up your own history completely different from the so called Hindu history.

The result is in front of you to see. Most Pakistanis here in this forum claim to be descendants of Syeds from Arabia. They think that they were the Arabs/Turks that ruled North India and so on.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Ethnically, the Punjabis tower over all ethnicities in Pakistan. 44% is huge. This is what caused friction between the Bengalis and the Punjabis prior to 1971 as the Bengalis were once the largest ethnicity in Pakistan but felt discriminated against as the power resided with the predominantly Punjabi Army.

I'm a Pashtun, raised bred and groomed in my country Pakistan and i dont feel ''towered'' over by anyone.....i don't know who feeds you these fake impressions

71 war was not a war between ''Punjabis'' and Bangladesh......many of our war heros during that period were non-Punjabis.

never once in my life did i feel 'discriminated' against.


curiously - you do read on some Pashto forums (mostly consisting of Afghans living in western countries) about ''Punjabi domination'' but that has more so to do with historical perspective when the sikhs played their games in Pashtun dominated areas (and later suffered enormously for it)

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Exactly to validate the two nation theory pakistan .

''The two-nation theory (Urdu: دو قومی نظریہ, Devanagari: दो क़ौमी नज़रिया, do qaumi nazariya) is the ideology that the primary identity of Muslims on the Indian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nationalities, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities.

You see, this is the foundation of Pakistan trying to forget Pre-Islamic history.
Bottom-line is, for Two Nation Theory to be legitimate, you had to essentially make up your own history completely different from the so called Hindu history.
The result is in front of you to see. Most Pakistanis here in this forum claim to be descendants of Syeds from Arabia. They think that they were the Arabs/Turks that ruled North India and so on. '

The core issue as posted by neutralperson.

U can't be the descendants of mahenjo daro and at the same time that of the arabic and turkish invaders who came WAAY later.
You chose the latter.Thats why you name ur symbols of national pride ghaznavi,ghauri,abdali who destroyed and raped modern day pakistan most.By claiming their legacy as a proud thing u acknowledge that the ones that suffered at their hands the 'hindus' had nothing to do with you.You came with these people.Fine.
But then u can't come back and say hey we are the descendants of mahenjo daro.Be friggin proud of it.So where were u in the interim period?U were the people of mahenjo daro then vanished for 2000 years and suddenly reappeared with mohd bin qasim?

Btw there is no issue with pakistani ethnic diversity,its quite diverse it has nothing do to with the topic.

 

[MilSpec]

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.

False, Nehru and INC wanted unified India. Jinnah's 14 points were not feasible, and Nehru and INC declined to agree to those 14 points. After failure of cabinet mission, Jinnah declined to comeback for negotiations and wanted partition.


Jinnah's main demands which revolved around 1/3rd of reservation for Muslims in every electoral board whether state local or central bodies and ability of 1/4th of that 1/3rd reprenstation to overturn specific legislation were not feasible.

Without having the sufficient muslim population, the demand for 1/3rd representation in every province was ridiculous from get go, and was known to jinnah that wouldn't be accepted even by the most liberal leaders. Nehru and INC declined to this and gave the pretext to jinnah for demanding pakistan and inciting bloody riots throughout India (DAP)

Next was the Jinnah's Idea of strong autonomous provincial governments and weak central power. Nehru and INC had strong socialist inlinations and wanted a strong central power.
A couple of years after Jinnah's death even Pakistanis threw his idea of "strong federal states and weak center" in the trash can.

Although no one would acknowledge it, but Jinnah had strong affinity to gain the top post and he very well knew that would have never been possible with joint electorates, hence he vehemently pushed for separate electorates in the unified Indian union with his 14 points plan. When he realized that wasn't going to fly, he decided to make his own state because no one would have contested him for the post to begin with.

Reservations for Minorities were always there in the Plans of INC and Nehru, even the constitution was written by Ambedkar to provide protection to the minority.

In the end proper representation was given to every group, the talks broke down because of Jinnah's unreasonable demands.

 

[rubyjackass]

Can people please note the following;

1. I am NOT saying that Pakistan should have got the name 'India'. That was a 5,000 years old brand and fact was Bharat was bigger then us so she obviously deserved to get the name, please refer back my point about some things CAN NOT be apportioned. I gave the example of horse, the UN seat. In the same way the brand 'India' could not be apportioned. Bharat had right to it, simply because it was bigger then Pakistan. So I am NOT fr*gg*n saying 73 years after the fact that we should have got the name. NO. Do I make myself clear? I am trying to remedy the distorted history that has been created by using the name India. END OFF.

Great that we are on the same page here. It is a tragedy of history for Pakistan(at least for Pakistanis like you who care), that their own countrymen don't own their heritage. But that is not anyone's problem here. You have to convince everyone you talk to that indeed IVC flourished in present Pakistan. If they insist that these were parts of ancient India and they meant that India when they talk about IVC, then I guess the discussion ends there.

2. Too many people seem to be missing the wood for the tree. If people bother to read my introduction to this thread and if they have the intellect and more importantly are prepared take their heads out the **** then you will see the where I am trying take this.

Please don't swallow your own words. You were worried that Pakistan is not known for its rightful legacy. And you make it India's fault. Let there be no doubts about your stand. My point is simply: Not our problem.
"would be tantamount to intellectual fraud. That is exactly what Bharat has been doing since 1947. It is almost bordering on identity fraud."

3. I knew I was going to have problem with this on both sides. On the Bharat side the Indian gov., has been busy trying to construct a national indentity under the brand 'India and I it has succeeded. At heart of this is a fairy tale of IVC, India and differant mumbo jumbo from various Hindu scriptures ( as if these are referance material ) but there is some problems. Like the fact that Indus and most of the IVC sites are in Pakistan. No problem, in almost what can be described as comical some jokers have come up with the mythical 'Saraswati' to justify the existance of IVC in Bharat.

4. This Saraswati appears to be comical attempt to say " Hey the fr*gg*m rivers have changed course so guess what? In the old days this Saraswati River flowed through Bharat into the Arabian Sea and no Indus never flowed through Pakistan. When I came across this mythical river first I laughed till I almost cracked my ribs. I expect any one of these days some dodgy archaeologist from some third rate Western University come to Bharat, do you dodgy research and claim that in the old days apparently the River Indus disgorged into Haryana east of Chandigarh and then rolled down south west towards Rajasthan desert and into Gujrat.

5. Then claim a titanic crack appeared in the Himalyas and Indus flowed west. All he has do then is find some voodoo referance in some voodoo scipture then do a few digs along the way and hey presto publish a book. Such a book would get a better reception in India then a bottle of hard cidar would to some alchoholic. The said archaelogist would make tidy sum out of such a book. Then you would have Wikipedia being jammed with all sort garbage.


So no, I was not surprised that my argument would get the Indian's red in the face because it would go against everything thats been pressure stuffed into their heads. Only a few with sufficient calibre of thought and reason might be able to look at my argument, untrammeled by previous conditioning.

It is absolutly pathetic how somebody from Cape Comorin or Shillong can crow on and get all bloated about IVC when they have nothing to crow about. Yet the Sindhi or the Punjabi farmer ploughing his field in Pakistan within sight of Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa watering their fields from the Indus River have no recognition. Yet they are the direct descendants, it was their forefathers that built those cities with bare hands of IVC. Let us not forget Mehr Garh in Balochistan.

I sympathize with your view here not because it is true. Only because there is indeed a fringe political element of India which propogates the 'Saraswati' myth(and their attempts are, as you rightly said, comical even for Indians). But you make a huge mistake. Indian Government does not build any narrative based on the 'Saraswati'. Either you got your facts wrong or your prejudice is blinding you. In the former case, here is some perspective:
Let me peel the onion layer by layer.
a) India does claim the heritage of IVC and rightly so. Now we really don't know where all did the IVC people move and mix. From the language trail, assuming IVC was a Dravidian civilization, it would seem that, the Cape Comorin guy rightfully claims IVC(may be not so for the Manipuri, this is for a different discussion after these points)
b) Saraswati river indeed had references in the ancient Hindu texts. This is a fact. Now nobody knows for sure where it is now or whether it is for real.
c) There were studies conducted about the Saraswati river by some researchers, just like there are studies on the Tutankhamun tomb. They are, as usual, inconclusive. Those who believe the existence of the vedic river pin it with various rivers ranging from the Helmand river(!) in Afghanistan to rivulets of the Ganges(the story goes that Ganga, Jamuna and Saraswati meet in Allahabad, Saraswati being underground now) through the tributaries of Indus. But you make it sound like Indians wholesale believe in the junky narrative you presented.
d) The fact is that the BJP government(actually on the RSS elements of it) tried to build up the narrative of Sarasawati drying up and research was sponsored to find the river trail near Rajasthan. They ended up with squat from the hydrological data. Again, inspite of all this, the junky stories of Saraswati did not enter our mainstream textbooks, except in research books, for obvious reasons. There is too much academic research supporting different versions.
e) Yet you pick the worst of all fantasies and then claim them as sanctioned by the GoI. And here's the silver bullet: Even there are a good number of Indians who believe that Saraswati flows underground today or that it dried up in Rajasthan, then what is the point? There are not on TV everyday like Zaid Hamid describing it and other random things as the hallmarks of Indian identity and history.

With due respect, at the description of your forefathers building IVC with their bare hands. The truth is that it happened so long ago, that we don't know for sure if one guy is a descendant or not from IVC. Heritage in such cases only goes by acceptance. The sad story of the local farmers' relationship with Sindh/Punjab is an overstretch. You make it sound like yesterday all their fathers assembled and built the IVC. Should I explain more about the Shillong guy?

And you call us pressure stuffed?!! Well who is not? Why do you think children are forced to sing national anthem everyday at school?
For a common Indian, Saraswathi and IVC are not topics where a politician can make a populist statement like 'we are sons of Saraswati' and the crowd shouts 'yayyy!!'. Saraswati comes after Ganga and Jamuna even in the popular culture references.

Don't anybody here dare mention religion. There is such a thing as evolution, yes waves of conquerors have come and they have probably heavily influenced the genetic pool but that is history, continous change, evolution in play. The Ancient Egyptians were not Muslim, the ancient Greeks were not Christians yet nobody can say to them you 'can't' claim that legacy or that your not the direct inheritors of those civilizations.

Amongst the Pakistani's of course I also will have problems in particular the hirsute variety. They of course have had their brains mushed with 73 yeats with garbage about 'my forefathers were sat on the boat from Arabia next to Bin Qasim when he invaded Sindh'. According to this narrative 180 million Pakistani's dropped from the sky in 1947 on Pakistan or alternatively landed on the Sindh coast from Arabia in 9th century . So we are all Arabs. Great. Bravo. That fr*gg*n figuers.

That is also heap of shite, through and through.

That is why I know my argument would not resonate with many people on both sides of the border because it shakes their worldview. So in summary I am not saying to Bharat give us the brand name 'India'. NO. The thrust of my post is that we in Pakistan have the mighty majestic Indus, which is to Pakistan what Nile is to Egypt. Without this river there would be no Pakistan and we should be proud of the ancient civilzation it bore. It is our heritage. It was our forefather's who built IVC 5,000 years ago. Let us take it in our hands, lets us celebrate it, let us go out there and see the wonder that was Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa and Taxila. The Greek remains in the Taxila area just 30 miles east of Islamabad. That is us, that is our identity. Claim it.

I have gone there, I have seen Greek coins. You can almost feel the past come alive there. People you wil be proud. Yes, I know Panini sat there and did his work on the banks of Indus.

Yes, we are Muslims but let us not ignore our forefathers. That was the basic message of my post. Those who can contribute go ahead, if you can't toss off. I am not forcing you to read this.

I guess this part if for the sake of Pakistanis who forgot their heritage. So I have nothing to say.

However you, Sir, overrate IVC and Saraswati among what India considers as commonness. We have too much history to pick commonality from.