Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Some of us are of Arab descent, Turkish descent, Central Asian descent etc etc.
Large part of us are the descendents of the Indus Valley Civilization.
Because the current Indian Hindus did not have a identity since thousands of years. And because they occupied Delhi, which for some part of history was the center of Indian ruler, thought that they are by default the owners of whole of Muslim or British India. It was not true in 1947 when current state known as India was formulated and is not true even now.
We the people of Pakistan are the scions of and hold the cradle of Indus Valley Civilization and have done so since thousands of years. The current majority who hold the cradle of Indus Civilization are the true scions and nobody else.
The current Indians, because we ruled them as scions and holders for thousands of years were our subjects. How can now, the subjects seek to be the owners of what we held for thousands of years.
Ye log hamaray kammi kameen thay - ab kaisay sahab ban saktay hein. Na pehlay thaty na ab hein aur na hi kabhi hongay.
Pakistan is one of the strongest nations of not even South Asia but West Asia and Middle East as well. India ke identity-less and identity-seeking Hindu upstarts se hamein kisi kisim ki acknowledgment nahin chaihiye.
I am sorry, the rest of this post will not read well, so it is important that my comments should be understood as corrective in nature, not inimical.
You are not the scions of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The simple fact is that it left no legacy for anybody to be scion Over that legacy, it left no discernible body of people who consciously trace their descent from that culture. Speaking of descent when you never knew what the brick heaps stood for, and when it was a chance discovery by a small, dark, rice-eater that alerted you, 3,000 years after the IVC, that you might have had a possible stake in something possibly worthwhile, is quite meaningless.
Your second paragraph does not make much sense. Delhi was never central to Indian consciousness. Different parts had that distinction at different times, sometimes several coexistent locations enjoyed it together. The earliest urban concentration was Pataliputra in Magadha. If you look it up on Google Earth, you can work out for yourself that it is nearly 2,000 kms from Delhi. Paithan was next; come across it? Mathura was important, and it was a goal for many conquerors, from within and without India, especially at a time when large numbers of central Asian tribes washed over Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sind, and Malwa, Punjab and what is today Gujarat.
This is when most of the land belonging to the old, unknown, forgotten IVC was swamped by Scythians, Parthians and Tocharians. It is so difficult to link them with the IVC, yet we have to suffer repeated intonations of descent from the IVC people's by those who should know better.
Ujjain and Kanauj followed, when the next very large empire arose. Simultaneously, the south built its own centres. Golconda, Warangal and Vijayanagar were prominent in the south. Varanasi was always a factor; far from Delhi. Prayag was already a factor, far from Delhi.
Why should Delhi matter, except to those bereft of any other claim to dominion in India other than their illusory holding of Delhi?
Coming to having ruled current Indians as scions, how was that compatible with repeated stressing that the IVC had nothing to do with the rest of India? If it were so, how did that rule happen - over e-mail and telephone?
We are told that the residents of the IVC lands were rulers. Strange that they were conquered by Arab, then by Ghazni, then Ghori, then by the Turks in Delhi, then... But perhaps the story is that the Arabs, the Ghaznavid, the Ghurid, the Turk were moonlighting as IVC descendants, and doing their conquests by day?
Patriotic license has its limits. We are far over on the other side.