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

[Flintlock]

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

Isn't that what matters in the end? Recent history? Why would you separate culturally similar areas on the basis of ancient history?

Also, the word is Persian Empire and Greek Empire. India or Pakistan are not Empires, they are Dem.Reps. which guarantee equal representation to all regions. It is a union of states, each with their own unique history and culture, along with a common fabric that unites them.

Tamils, as Samudra said, have their history, Kerelites have theirs, and Marathis, Sikhs, Kashmiris all have unique civilization and history.
United to form India, these regions are not being culturally suppressed or diminished. Infact their culture is flourishing.

 

[Flintlock]

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.

Jeez, even Himachalis are genetically separate from Kerelites. I don't see them fighting each other.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

I could be wrong, but unless a religion itself claims to be descendant from others, and in a sense Islam does claim that - the "final version" of God's word after Judaism and Christianity were corrupted, you would be suggesting that the religion is not "original" and that implies that it could be false, because God would not need to "derive" a religion from others that existed.

Its interesting to look at similarities from an analytical and historical standpoint (and at that point the assumption should also be that all religions are "false"), but I can see how some people would be offended by claims that their belief was "not original" or "derived".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Jeez, even Himachalis are genetically separate from Kerelites. I don't see them fighting each other.

No ones talking about "fighting". But a point is being made that the people of the sub-continent are genetically and culturally different from each other, therefore the argument that "Pakistanis and Indians are one" is only as true as saying that "Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Uzbeks, Tajiks are one".

 

[UnitedPak]

Pakistan region has for most of its history been distinct from India. The same with the people. Yes, we have Punjab as a shared province, but note how I said Punjab and not India.

Pakistan has more people of all four major ethnicities than any neighbouring country. So I am still not clear on why India should be used as a reference for anything.

Indians and Pakistanis are by no means the same people. Thats absurd to even say that. Less differences exist between European peoples and they still hold their distinct identity, despite nearly all of Europe being part of the Roman empire, and a lot of modern European countries were once one country. like Spain and Portugal. Does this mean Portuguese are really Spanish?

Some Indians keep wanting to associate Pakistanis with modern Indian people. That just doesnt make sense. Nobody is denying that we are all South Asians, but we are not Indians.

Pakistani history is the history of the Indus Valley. And Pakistanis are the natives of the Indus Valley.
Indians dont come into the story at all, sorry. Better luck next time.

 

[Flintlock]

I could be wrong, but unless a religion itself claims to be descendant from others, and in a sense Islam does claim that - the "final version" of God's word after Judaism and Christianity were corrupted, you would be suggesting that the religion is not "original" and that implies that it could be false, because God would not need to "derive" a religion from others that existed.

From what I have understood about sikhism: (pardon me if i'm wrong)

Sikhism doesn't demand the kind of exclusive originality that christianity or islam does. It doesn't consider itself to be "revealed by god". It is a bottom-up approach, where its gurus observed the universe and established philosophies to codify their understand of the universe.
So in that sense, sikhism is not at odds with other religions within Hinduism since all of them apply the same approach of a "guru" or learned man propagating his understanding of the universe. This non-exclusivity is what prevents monotheist hindus from killing each polytheist hindus over differences.

Its interesting to look at similarities from an analytical and historical standpoint (and at that point the assumption should also be that all religions are "false"), but I can see how some people would be offended by claims that their belief was "not original" or "derived".

I guess the abrahmic religions are the ones who would be offended by a historical analysis of their religion the most, since they all have completely different versions of history and creation, and they all claim to be the exclusive truth.

However, different hindu religions don't have that problem. ISKCON devotees never fight with Vaishnavites even their version of events are complete opposites.

Also, Hindu religion is more based upon personal belief than anything else, so it doesn't matter what your neighbour believes or what the government believes. As long as you believe it, that is all that matters.

 

[Scorpius]

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.

Well it's not Hinduism is it, it's a seperate religion. This attitude where Hindu's claim everything as inspired by there religion or from it is messed up tbh.

He has gripes with extreme Hindus and injustice commited by them on religious minorities, he is not the only one who shares this view.

 

[Flintlock]

Well it's not Hinduism is it, it's a seperate religion. This attitude where Hindu's claim everything as inspired by there religion or from it is messed up tbh.

He has gripes with extreme Hindus and injustice commited by them on religious minorities, he is not the only one who shares this view.

And how exactly do yo decide what Hinduism is? Is it Vedism? Is it Vashnavism? Is it Shaivism? Is it ISKCON?
What about Buddhists? Shouldn't they be pissed as well? Shouldn't jains be angry that their religion is classified under hinduism?

There are certain core principles that almost all religions of the subcontinent share. This is why they are classified under the same name, i.e. hinduism.

Jeez, even I have gripes with "Xtreme" hindus. Who doesnt?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

From what I have understood about sikhism: (pardon me if i'm wrong)

Sikhism doesn't demand the kind of exclusive originality that christianity or islam does. It doesn't consider itself to be "revealed by god". It is a bottom-up approach, where its gurus observed the universe and established philosophies to codify their understand of the universe.
So in that sense, sikhism is not at odds with other religions within Hinduism since all of them apply the same approach of a "guru" or learned man propagating his understanding of the universe. This non-exclusivity is what prevents monotheist hindus from killing each polytheist hindus over differences.

This is from Wiki - but I doubt it would be incorrect on such a general subject.

In Sikhism, God—termed Vāhigurū—is formless, eternal, and unobserved: niraṅkār, akāl, and alakh. The beginning of the first composition of Sikh scripture is the figure "1"—signifying the universality of God. It states that God is omnipresent and infinite, and is signified by the term ēk ōaṅkār[5]. Sikhs believe that prior to creation, all that existed was God and his hukam (will or order).[6] When God willed, the entire cosmos was created. From these beginnings, God nurtured "enticement and attachment" to māyā, or the human perception of reality.[7]

While a full understanding of God is beyond human beings,[5] Nanak described God as not wholly unknowable. God is omnipresent (sarav viāpak) in all creation and visible everywhere to the spiritually awakened. Nanak stressed that God must be seen from "the inward eye", or the "heart", of a human being: devotees must meditate to progress towards enlightenment. Nanak emphasised the revelation through meditation, as its rigorous application permits the existence of communication between God and human beings.[5] God has no gender in Sikhism, though translations may incorrectly present a masculine God. In addition, Nanak wrote that there are many worlds on which God has created life.[8]

I guess the abrahmic religions are the ones who would be offended by a historical analysis of their religion the most, since they all have completely different versions of history and creation, and they all claim to be the exclusive truth.

I am not following you here. The Abrahamic religions seem to me to tell a very similar version of history, with each successive religion expanding as "God revealed more", so who are they getting offended by?

However, different hindu religions don't have that problem. ISKCON devotees never fight with Vaishnavites even their version of events are complete opposites.

Also, Hindu religion is more based upon personal belief than anything else, so it doesn't matter what your neighbour believes or what the government believes. As long as you believe it, that is all that matters.

I think almost all religions focus on ones "inner spiritual beliefs" above all else.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There are certain core principles that almost all religions of the subcontinent share. This is why they are classified under the same name, i.e. hinduism.

Well, again, while such similarities are interesting from a historical standpoint, they may be offensive to people who consider their beliefs to be the "exclusive truth". No one really follows a religion without believing it to be completely and exclusively true, to not do that means one really does not believe.

 

[Flintlock]

No ones talking about "fighting". But a point is being made that the people of the sub-continent are genetically and culturally different from each other, therefore the argument that "Pakistanis and Indians are one" is only as true as saying that "Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Uzbeks, Tajiks are one".

Well, lol, it depends on what your agenda is basically....

If you want to highlight the similarity between chinese and Indians, you can give a thousand reasons for that.

On the other hand, if you want to distinguish a Balochi from a Sindhi, I'm sure you will find a thousand points of difference.

But as I said earlier, I would rate similarity higher than difference.

 

[Flintlock]

This is from Wiki - but I doubt it would be incorrect on such a general subject.

Yes, as you can see from that paragraph, there is no divine revelation. The sikh gurus propagated their understanding of god. Those who agree with them are sikhs, thats all.
This principle is common to all subcontinental religions.

I am not following you here. The Abrahamic religions seem to me to tell a very similar version of history, with each successive religion expanding as "God revealed more", so who are they getting offended by?

Because Christians don't accept anything of what the muslims say and vice versa.

I think almost all religions focus on ones "inner spiritual beliefs" above all else.

Then how do you explain the animosity between Catholics and Protestants, Shiites and Sunnis?

 

[Awesome]

Well, lol, it depends on what your agenda is basically....

If you want to highlight the similarity between chinese and Indians, you can give a thousand reasons for that.

On the other hand, if you want to distinguish a Balochi from a Sindhi, I'm sure you will find a thousand points of difference.

But as I said earlier, I would rate similarity higher than difference.

Accepting diversity where it clearly is, is a lot more importance.

It is this very reason why we all live comfortably here in Dubai where you'll find nationalities from every region.

This is called the "City of Stark contrasts". Diversity is proudly accepted over here and even boasted.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, lol, it depends on what your agenda is basically....

If you want to highlight the similarity between chinese and Indians, you can give a thousand reasons for that.

On the other hand, if you want to distinguish a Balochi from a Sindhi, I'm sure you will find a thousand points of difference.

But as I said earlier, I would rate similarity higher than difference.

Well true. Can it be argued that we are not similar considering that we are the same species? What bigger similarity could you get!

The "agenda" part is interesting, and I think that even though most Indians deny it, there is a desire for recreating the original "British Colony" of India. Some are overt about it - on a lot of blogs I have come across statements about "artificial Pakistan", British scheme to "divide India" etc. Then you have the others who nostalgically talk about the "great cricket Team we would have if we were united" etc.

 

[Flintlock]

Well, again, while such similarities are interesting from a historical standpoint, they may be offensive to people who consider their beliefs to be the "exclusive truth". No one really follows a religion without believing it to be completely and exclusively true, to not do that means one really does not believe.

Yes, I agree, but then the facts point the other way.

Sikhs and Hindus never had religious wars. Jains and Buddhists never fought either. Don't you agree that there is something inherent in the thinking process that prevents violent disagreement?