Pakistan is a distinct land, historically almost always seperate from India

[Scorpius]

Well after reading some of the threads here and stuff on other websites about Pakistan's history (well the land comprising Pakistan) I have come to the conclusion that Pakistan and the Indian punjab has almost always been separate from India politically and socially.

I shouldn't have had to read up on this as I have come across all sorts of Indians at university from Punjabis to southern indians. The Punjabis (mostly sikh) are more like Pakistani punjabis then any other indians. My sikh friend also reinforced this and told me that after the Punjab the rest of India is very different, he despises the Indian government and says there's alot of discrimination against sikhs by hindu extremists. In my circle of friend's I get on better with a Sikh Punjabi then a south Indian Muslim.

During 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

From:

History of Pakistan

I found alot of good stuff at this site. Even though I don't agree with everything he says in his articles, alot of the information is accurate.

 

[Flintlock]

The history of the subcontinent is deeply intertwined and consists of several layers of syncretism. Trying to tear this fabric apart is, imo, a fruitless endeavor.

 

[Awesome]

The history of the subcontinent is deeply intertwined and consists of several layers of syncretism. Trying to tear this fabric apart is, imo, a fruitless endeavor.

However different we may have been... We have never been as poles apart than we are today.

 

[Flintlock]

However different we may have been... We have never been as poles apart than we are today.

In terms of?
Culturally, India and Pakistan are more or less similar. We speak more or less the same language, have similar family values and traditions, similar attitudes.

The only differences between the nations are political.

 

[Awesome]

In terms of?
Culturally, India and Pakistan are more or less similar. We speak more or less the same language, have similar family values and traditions, similar attitudes.

The only differences between the nations are political.

Culturally one Indian is poles apart from the other Indian.

In terms of values, our relationships, our priorities, our mannerism its all very different.

We are just both brown skinned.

 

[Flintlock]

Culturally one Indian is poles apart from the other Indian.

In terms of values, our relationships, our priorities, our mannerism its all very different.

We are just both brown skinned.

Well, unity in diversity

And no, no Indian is "poles apart" from any other Indian culturally. Indians share a common cultural fabric that has been reinforced even more since Independence.

Basically, we are different, and yet so similar.

In less poetic words, we are similar in some ways and different in others, similarities far outweighing the differences.

 

[Bull]

My sikh friend also reinforced this and told me that after the Punjab the rest of India is very different, he despises the Indian government and says there's alot of discrimination against sikhs by hindu extremists.

What else do you expect from an extremist?

 

[Awesome]

Well, unity in diversity

And no, no Indian is "poles apart" from any other Indian culturally. Indians share a common cultural fabric that has been reinforced even more since Independence.

Basically, we are different, and yet so similar.

In less poetic words, we are similar in some ways and different in others, similarities far outweighing the differences.

Differences aren't always bad either.

 

[QADRI]

both cultures are different this is true...i think we should remember the two nation theory that works for the independence of the country. and this we should not deny.

 

[Scorpius]

What else do you expect from an extremist?

He's hardly an extremist, he doesn't want a separate homeland for Sikhs and believes that the current borders of India should remain as they are. He wouldn't mind at all if Kashmir was given to Pakistan (nor would many other indians I know). His main gripe is with the way Hindus classify sikhism as a branch of Hinduism and the activities of the extremists which are not clamped down hard enough.

 

[roadrunner]

However different we may have been... We have never been as poles apart than we are today.

Actually, throughtout history, the Indus Valley people have always been poles apart from the Gangetic people. Mahabhrata quotes prove this. Pakistan is the land where no Hindu should step in, if they do they must undergo a purification ritual before stepping back into Bharat.

 

[roadrunner]

In terms of?
Culturally, India and Pakistan are more or less similar. We speak more or less the same language, have similar family values and traditions, similar attitudes.

This is only recent history. The Persians were probably saying the same thing after Pakistan broke off from the Persian Empires, the Greeks after.

 

[Samudra]

If you take out the religion and post-independence political differences no Pakistani is different from an Indian.

However that is not to deny the diversity prevalent amongst Indians(and Pakistanis).

You could emphasize the differences between Indians and Pakistanis to rationalize the creation of a nation state called Pakistan. I could do the same thing for Tamils and call them an independent entity throughout their 2000 year old history.

At the end of the day it would only matter if Pakistan becomes a respected nation on the face of the earth, providing enough opportunities for its citizens to prosper.

The Tamils being a relatively independent entity(about as much as any other group in India) are prospering in India. Their 2500 year old history would amount to shyt if they're ruining whatever good they have by being a seperate independent political entity.

We must be worthy of our history - especially when we're giving it a lot of color by our attempts to rationalize what we now hold dear!

 

[roadrunner]

If you take out the religion and post-independence political differences no Pakistani is different from an Indian.

Well no..Historically (culture wise and in the rulership sense) and genetically, the Indus Valley has always been different to virtually all parts of India. The animosity that exists between the two countries religion-wise, always existed whatever the name given to the Indus Valley and to Bharat.

 

[Flintlock]

He's hardly an extremist, he doesn't want a separate homeland for Sikhs and believes that the current borders of India should remain as they are. He wouldn't mind at all if Kashmir was given to Pakistan (nor would many other indians I know). His main gripe is with the way Hindus classify sikhism as a branch of Hinduism and the activities of the extremists which are not clamped down hard enough.

Holy Moly, tell you friend here to chill out. Why is he so pissed that Sikhism is classified under Hinduism? Ask him to take a history lesson before griping about useless issues. Hinduism is used to classify all religions originating from the subcontinent in the broader sense. Even buddhism and jainism is classified under hinduism.