What's new

Pakistan 'in' South Asia

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
.
Amazingly Pakistanis are falling for the Indian deception to take pride in their pre-islamic pagan culture. And on top of that some are bashing arabs indiscriminately.:cheesy: What does it matter which ethnicity you belong to as long as you are a muslim. Why are people if they call themselves muslim even falling for such stupidity? What does your ancestors and their past has to do with your current status. Taking pride in nationalism, tribalism, ethnicity ect etc is Haram in Islam which is pretty clear in the Quran.For muslims cultrual aspects that goes against Islam should be discarded off and there is no sects and types in islam like sufi, suckular, moderate ect ect that Indians are spouting out here. Hope my PAK brothers get the point.


Arabs are probably the most despised and disliked ethnic group in the world.

Indonesians and South East Asians hate them for the way they treat their women in the Middle East.
Europeans hate them for all the crime, drugs, rapes they have brought with them when they illegally moved into European cities and turning them into Detroit.
South Asians don't like them for the sheer racism they experience in the Middle East.
Americans don't like them for the waves of terrorism that they have launched against them.
Australians hate them for the same reasons as Europeans do.
Blacks and Africans hate them for the racism they have towards them.
Turks, Persians and Israelis hate them as well.

I don't think there is any ethnic group in the world that gets along with Arabs.


Unbelievable. What kind of a retarded post is that and that too, not from a Indian but a Pakistani"muslim". I guess people like you like to call yourselves suckular and bash arabs like the musriks.And not surprisingly 7 indians thanked this post. Goes to show the illogical hatred these people have towards arabs.
 
.
Joe is a new convert.

Such is the power of the internet. :)

Welcome Joe. May the journey be worth its while.
 
.
actually the truth is pakistanis r mixed blood race
 
. .
This is a funny argument.

Because these people lived around 7000 BCE, we the current people who live on this land don't live like them. We don't have the kind the houses they used to live in, our culture should not have progressed to the current stature, our religious beliefs could not and should not have changed, instead of driving modern cars we should be using the bullock carts used by them, instead of having modern tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons we should be using the horse and chariots like our ancestors.

These guys were Hindus once - this is OK, these people were Buddhists once, this is permissible, but these people can't be Muslims.

The legacy and heritage is created and carried forward by the people of the land Sir, the rest changes over a period of time due to natural progression of civilizations.

We have not lost track of true heritage. We have progressed forward and no matter that you may not like it, we will remain the scions of and holders of the Indus Valley Civilization. Period.

First, if you claim a legacy, you should do some homework, and determine what it is that you are claiming.

Far from 7,000 years old, the IVC was between 5,500 years to 3,500 years old at the two ends.

Forget about today, until Mughal times, there was no important settlement in Sind. The most important settlement in the region of Harappa dates back to around the year 1000 AD. So there was not even a semblance of the kind of disciplined, structured city-building that the IVC produced. There were no architectural links, no progression from A to B, so what legacy are we talking about? What was the connection between the languages? What was the connection between religions? The IVC certainly wasn't Hindu; there is not the slightest concrete evidence in the archaeological finds that bears out a Hindu connection. It was dead and gone by 1300 BC, so where was the question of it being Buddhist, with the Buddha flourishing around 600 BC?

The people of the land that you mention didn't dream of the existence of these cities before they were discovered by a Bengali,and dug up by an Englishman, so how did the people of the land carry forward their legacy?
 
.
Brother you have many valid points in your post but let me tell you even majority syeds don't call themself arabs because they are mixed with locals from past 1000 years.

I think i forgot to introduce myself to you.

Don Jaguar : Syed Mohammad Jawad Abidi. :)

Well me neither.. You misunderstood the idea.
I am a syed ..and when I refer to my arab ancestry.. I do it in relation to the prophet and the responsibility it brings to being part of that family..
 
.
As genetic studies have shown Pakistanis are a mix of South Asians and "Eurasians" (Middle Eastern and Central Asians). As the study below shows all the major Pakistani ethnic groups are roughly half South Asian and half West Eurasian:

tileshop.fcgi


Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor
 
.
@Bamxa

I believe you can see for yourself the difference between the genetic composition of Sind, Multan and Punjab, versus the genetic composition of the frontier regions and the northern section of Baluchistan.
 
.
Pakistanis are not Arab.

Pakistanis have a wide variety of ethnic mix into their gene pool which includes Arabs, Persians, Hindus, Central Asians, etc.

We are better than Arabs.

No one is better and no one is worse. We are all human beings and we become better or worse than others by our deeds or misdeeds.

So based on ethnicity or language, this complex of superiority we get into is mental sickness and nothing else.

Muslims are muslims first. If we believe in this, it prevails on all ethnic, regional and linguisitc divides. This is the strength of islamic faith we have confused and lost it. Its because if this we have come identify each other as arab, asian, more arab, less arab etc. etc.

Our divisions are innumerable, if we come to think of it. First its different nationalities. Then within nationality, there are different languages and cultures, then there are different religions and in each religion, there are different sects. So those divisions will divide us further and wont take us anywhere. The idea of muslim identity is that all muslims are equal and same. This bridges all divisions. Its an idea that muslims as whole have lost it and like many aspects of our faith, the non-muslims make fun of all the baisc principles of religion because what they see in practice is at complete variance to what islam teaches.
 
.
Amazingly Pakistanis are falling for the Indian deception to take pride in their pre-islamic pagan culture. And on top of that some are bashing arabs indiscriminately.:cheesy: What does it matter which ethnicity you belong to as long as you are a muslim. Why are people if they call themselves muslim even falling for such stupidity? What does your ancestors and their past has to do with your current status. Taking pride in nationalism, tribalism, ethnicity ect etc is Haram in Islam which is pretty clear in the Quran.For muslims cultrual aspects that goes against Islam should be discarded off and there is no sects and types in islam like sufi, suckular, moderate ect ect that Indians are spouting out here. Hope my PAK brothers get the point.





Unbelievable. What kind of a retarded post is that and that too, not from a Indian but a Pakistani"muslim". I guess people like you like to call yourselves suckular and bash arabs like the musriks.And not surprisingly 7 indians thanked this post. Goes to show the illogical hatred these people have towards arabs.

Then the first thing one should do is disregard our Parents and anything worthwhile they might have achieved in life...after all..they are your ancestry and you should not take pride in them according to you.

Funny how you make such statements when the Prophet himself predicted the formation of multiple sect and fitnah's to effect Islam in these times. Nationalism, Tribalism are considered "secondary" in Islam and are never to be given preference over the cause of the Ummah(when lead under leadership worthy of it).. and not haram.
Please read up.. and no internet copy pasting .. go to the local library and refer to the excellent Islamic Scholars that the land of Bengal has produced and their views on these matters.


The actual identity was a religious one.. and then political..
When the first is in tatters with every other Taimur,Daud and Haroon issuing a fatwa like you just did..
then any Muslim Identity is going to be difficult to forge.
 
.
@Bamxa

I believe you can see for yourself the difference between the genetic composition of Sind, Multan and Punjab, versus the genetic composition of the frontier regions and the northern section of Baluchistan.

Im not sure I understand what you mean? Sindh is represented by the SI, and Multan and Punjab dont feature on the map. However Balochis (BA) and Pakhtuns (PT(the majority in the "frontier regions")) do feature and these three along with Punjabis make up the major ethnic groups of Pakistan.
Or are you referring to the Brahui (BR) and Gilgit Baltistani populations? In that case yes there is a noticeable difference, as they are majority West Eurasian.

_______________

Also i would just like to add that i know genetics discussion is considered a taboo here due to the presence of various types of "supremacists" ´. I would just like to point out i dont have any agenda here other than showing that Pakistanis as the frontier people in the Subcontinent were most influenced by outsiders and Pakistan in several ways overlaps with Central Asia, the Middle East. However I dont want anybody getting the wrong idea that i am trying to prove that Pakistanis are superior to Indians or Bangladeshis or goodness knows what else :P
 
.
@Joe Shearer

Sir,

This is such a fascinating subject that I have never minded anybody’s response or comments, least of all yours. This, irrespective of my equally assertive response on certain occasions.

I am sorry, there are many aspects that I have to disagree with you on. These are historical perspectives as laid out by many historians, although one may find different historical hues from differing historians.

To say that Harappan people just vanished out of thin air and no trace of them has been left is factually wrong. Their legacy also remains in many forms even to this day.

After 1900 BC there were no longer references to Meluhha in Mesopotamian writings, and no Indus seals are found in Mesopotamia after that date. Whatever the reasons of their diminishing trade – may it be changing course of river, drought, Aryan invasion, decease, earthquakes or whatever, the fact remains that their cities shrank in the second millennium BC, yes, but people still lived in places like Harappa long after that.

The continuing prosperity of the bigger cities, like Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, may have made them grow too large and unwieldy to administer, and so groups may have split off into smaller settlements. But those settlements were held together by their common culture. Perhaps the dispersal was a way of providing flexibility to deal with the reasons I explained above.

Some of the aspects that we can still trace their legacy to are the commerce routes they developed. Traders from the highlands of Pakistan’s Baluchistan and northern Afghanistan brought in copper, tin and lapis lazuli. The Makran and southern coasts of Pakistan provided decorative shells. Timber was floated down the rivers from the Himalayas and gold from southern Central Asia. Skilled Harappan artisans and specialized craftsmen turned such raw materials into useful and beautiful products for regional distribution and—as finds elsewhere have shown—for export by land and sea to Mesopotamia, Persia and Central Asia.

“The southern states controlled the sea trade, just as Karachi does today. Ships from Meluhha [the Mesopotamian name for the Harappan nation] regularly sailed from Lothal near modern-day Karachi, Pakistan for the ports of Babylon.” And they evidently made stops all along the way, as I mentioned earlier that Indus River seals have been found in Oman, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain as well.

The modern city of Peshawar lies on what is thought to have been one of the Harappans’ main overland trade routes. That route is now a major highway that constitutes the eastern approach to the Khyber Pass and links the northwestern Indus Plain to the highlands of Afghanistan and Central Asia. An old branch of the route runs from Peshawar south into rugged tribal territory, through the modern towns of Pakistan’s Kohat and Bannu and the foothills of the Pakistan’s Sulaiman Mountains, and on down across the Gomal Plain to the early Harappan site of Rehman Dheri, where an important excavation was conducted from 1976 to 1980.

I agree with you that Hindu Aryan culture was distinctly different than the culture of the Indus Valley Civilization, which was not Hindu and yes were not Muslim either.

The IVC was mostly restricted to the valley of the Indus—however at the tail end of the civilization some of it dispersed into areas beyond the IVC.

The 3 Major IVC cities are all located in Pakistan. One in Western Pakistan, one in South and the last one approx in central Pakistan.

Current day India didn’t exist during IVC, and their religion had nothing to do with IVC, and major IVC settlements are not even located in India. However, Indians still refer to India as the “Home of Indus Valley Civilization” which is indeed surprising.

Indus Valley Civilization’s legacy is linked to Pakistan and it cannot be denied, because various peoples after their decline ruled or invaded the area.

Therefore, we the people of Pakistan rightly claim ourselves to be the scions of and holders of Indus Valley Civilization.
 
.
@Joe Shearer
Current day India didn’t exist during IVC, and their religion had nothing to do with IVC, and major IVC settlements are not even located in India. However, Indians still refer to India as the “Home of Indus Valley Civilization” which is indeed surprising.

Yeah......India doesn't exist but somehow miraculously by some mysterious manner people appear in such overwhelming numbers as to numerically surpass an "earlier civilisation " without ever affecting that population. Truly a miracle that!
 
.
Unbelievable. What kind of a retarded post is that and that too, not from a Indian but a Pakistani"muslim". I guess people like you like to call yourselves suckular and bash arabs like the musriks.And not surprisingly 7 indians thanked this post. Goes to show the illogical hatred these people have towards arabs.

I am just pointing out the facts. Can you name me any ethnic group that gets along well with Arabs?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom