Pakistani Identity's Claim On Indian Heritage

[Gautam]

There was no Indian nation pre-1947 either. Pakistan's history prior to the advent of Islam in the region is a huge part of its heritage as well.

it was called British India before 1947 and not British pakistan. i thought you know this.

 

[cake sahab]

Pakistan is claiming its ancient Indo-Aryan heritage, not the Indian one.

true....indians think we are claiming what physically existed in kerala or mumbai..

Pakistanis only claim what existed in their hometowns 5 years ago or 5 thousand years ago...and since everything famous was present in Pakistan....indians are jealous and in a mood to troll.

 

[IND151]

Pakistani identity’s claim on Indian heritage | Pak Tea House

December 14th, 2011

By Amaar Ahmad:

There is a vociferous debate surrounding Pakistan’s national identity. Let there be no doubt that there will not be a Pakistani today more patriotic than the founder of Pakistan – Muhammad Ali Jinnah. On the 11th August, 1947, Jinnah addressed the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as the man who had led and inspired the Pakistan Movement. In his historic address, he does not shy away from mentioning “India”, in relation to the “Pakistani Identity”. In fact, his entire speech hovers around the task of building the Pakistani Identity. In his speech, he mentions “India” at least 10 times, very deliberately, very positively and very unapologetically.

We need not try to be more loyal than the king. In view of this unchallenged status of Jinnah, it may be prudent to examine his understanding of the identity of the country he made.There is a feeling that people are looking to construct a new identity for Pakistan. Some may describe Pakistan simply as the Anti-India as if the reason for Pakistan’s existence today needs a hostile India. But Jinnah clearly had a different understanding.

Following are ten quotes from the speech of Jinnah:

1. “…the whole world is wondering at this unprecedented cyclonic revolution which has brought about the clan of creating and establishing two independent sovereign Dominions in this Sub-continent.

2. “This mighty Sub-continent with all kinds of inhabitants has been brought under a plan which is titanic, unknown, unparalleled.”

3. “One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering – I do not say that other countries are free from it, but, I think our condition is much worse – is bribery and corruption.”

4. “I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India…”

5. “…it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’sconstitutional problem.”

6. “Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.”

7. “We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish.”

8. “Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago.”

9. “No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this.”

10. “…history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today.”

Let these words guide the objective reader to reflect. If one thing is evident from these quotes from the famous 11th August 1947 speech, it is the fact that “India”, the word, the name, the region, the culture, the history and the nation, are all very much part of the “Pakistani Identity”. Regardless of what name we give it – British India, United India, Undivided India, Pre-Partition India or the Indian Subcontinent – the fact remains that Pakistan was born out of it, as was today’s Republic of India. It appears that Jinnah almost identifies Pakistan with India.

In the ninth quote above “No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this” Jinnah treats the Indian Subcontinent as one nation about to be politically partitioned into two states. He clearly speaks of “a nation”, defining it by its strength of 400 million – the population of the Subcontinent rather than that of the emerging Pakistani state alone.

We need not search for any new Pakistani identity as the job has clearly been done by the founder of Pakistan. Pakistan is simply a country comprising the Muslim-majority states of the Indian Subcontinent. Pakistan is as much heir to the thousands of years of history and culture of the Indian Subcontinent as our neighbor Republic of India itself. This recognition is perhaps necessary to defang the extremists in both sides of the border.

i agree 100%

one more excellent thread from you , sir

 

[53fd]

it was called British India before 1947 and not British pakistan. i thought you know this.

It was called the Indian subcontinent, which extended from present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, parts of Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar; not the same as India today. They have as much right to the ancient heritage of the Indian subcontinent as present day India has. Just because your 64 year old country adopted the name does not mean you can deprive the rights of other nations to claim the heritage as solely your own.

 

[Gautam]

true....indians think we are claiming what physically existed in kerala or mumbai..

Pakistanis only claim what existed in their hometowns 5 years ago or 5 thousand years ago...and since everything famous was present in Pakistan....indians are jealous and in a mood to troll.

as per your logic the Taj Mahal is made by Manmohan Singh because he is the PM of that land and that part is under his jurisdiction. now tell me - can he claim that just because Shah Jahan is not around?

similarly - how can you claim heritage of India just because that part is not under India in present day?

 

[cake sahab]

It was called the Indian subcontinent, which extended from present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, parts of Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar; not the same as India today. They have as much right to the ancient heritage of the Indian subcontinent as present day India has. Just because your 64 year old country adopted the name does not mean you can deprive the rights of other nations to claim the heritage as solely your own.

any one living in kerala should claim whats present in kerala...same goes for mumbai...

what existed in Pakistani Punjab...ofcourse Pakistani Punjabis will own it since they and their forefathers have been living on that land since centuries.....this is pure common sense and logic ...something bharatis lack

 

[Gautam]

It was called the Indian subcontinent, which extended from present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, parts of Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar; not the same as India today. They have as much right to the ancient heritage of the Indian subcontinent as present day India has. Just because your 64 year old country adopted the name does not mean you can deprive the rights of other nations to claim the heritage as solely your own.

we have the same name from thousands of years. we don't have to give a new name to it.

 

[cake sahab]

as per your logic the Taj Mahal is made by Manmohan Singh because he is the PM of that land and that part is under his jurisdiction. now tell me - can he claim that just because Shah Jahan is not around?

similarly - how can you claim heritage of India just because that part is not under India in present day?

listen son.......do u even have brain?dont u know what common sense is?

what existed in Pakistani Punjab 5000 years ago belongs to Pakistani Punjabis not people from kerala or mumbai......
Pakistani Punjab was a part of Macedonian empire...but macedonians cant claim what existed in Pakistani Punjab....only the locals of Pakistani Punjab will claim it who have been living on that piece of land since centuries.........
Rulers dont own history and heritage but the locals.

 

[DARKY]

before Pakistan there was British empire.....but the fact remains that Punjab,Sindh Baluchistan and Khyber province and Kashmir were still there and the local people have the claim on stuff that is found in their land...not some man from kerala sitting 3000 kilometers away.

a man from kerala should own what was physically present in kerala.....
similarly a man from Pakistani Punjab will own what physically existed in Pakistani Punjab and same goes for Baluchistan,Sindh and Kashmir and Khyber province.

dont waste your time trolling.

How can something belong to a person... who was not even present during that time line... can the Egyptian Mummies belong to the British since they found it and put it in their Museum of London.

 

[fd24]

This is mind boggling. Indians please calm down - nobody is stealing anything form anyone. The heritage lies with the land. We are mere guests on this planet - our heritage lives and dies in the land. It cant be claimed or stolen from anyone. India and Pakistan have great heritage and history - that will never change.

 

[Gautam]

listen son.......do u even have brain?dont u know what common sense is?

what existed in Pakistani Punjab 5000 years ago belongs to Pakistani Punjabis not people from kerala or mumbai......
Pakistani Punjab was a part of Macedonian empire...but macedonians cant claim what existed in Pakistani Punjab....only the locals of Pakistani Punjab will claim it who have been living on that piece of land since centuries.........
Rulers dont own history and heritage but the locals.

that's what I'm sayin. as per this logic - the Taj Mahal is not made by Shah Jahan but by some Amar from Agra - right?

 

[cake sahab]

How can something belong to a person... who was not even present during that time line... can the Egyptian Mummies belong to the British since they found it and put it in their Museum of London.

mr nonsense you are out of your mind......you dont want Pakistani Punjabis to claim what existed in Pakistan Punjab but you want tamils to claim what existed in Pakistani Punjab....you are nuts

 

[karan.1970]

Oh Yaar.. Mera ghar mere liye chod do, baaki sab le jao..

what the hell

 

[indushek]

Guys the topic is Identity crisis not AIML's decision pre partition or Mr. Jinnah's problems for choosing partition.

Mr. Amaar Ahmad makes the point that there is no need of new identity for Pakistan and it can claim the heritage of India. For this he takes the speech by Mr. Jinnah and points out ten points. So my take on this is:

If u concentrate on these points below highlighted, we can understand a bit of why partition was deemed necessary by the leaders of that time, Firstly these

4. “I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India…”

5. “…it will be proved by actual experience as we go on that was the only solution of India’sconstitutional problem.”

6. “Any idea of a united India could never have worked and in my judgement it would have led us to terrific disaster. Maybe that view is correct; maybe it is not; that remains to be seen.”

In these quotes he justifies the partition and says a unified India cannot exist, and the reasons he provides are the ethnic and religious differences this country has had. His contention is that this difference itself is the main hindrance for achievement of Independence. This point he asserts more assertively with another angle to Independence struggle below:

8. “Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago.”

9. “No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this.”

Then he talks about vanishing identities which personally i can't believe but as i am a common man with a normal intelligence i will not judge this statement of his.

7. “We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish.”

Mr. Amaar later makes two points which are

Since Mr. Jinnah talks of the whole sub continent and "almost" equates Pakistan with India, he says the identity of Pakistan has already been found by their founding father. This is like playing semantics (sorry to say), i mean how can Mr. Jinnah on such a historical occasion not speak of the whole from which their part came of.

Before people take me wrongly i have no secret hatred for Mr. Jinnah or any wild conspiracy theories about some imaginary nefarious designs etc are making rounds in my heads. All i want to say is that, the last thought on Mr. Jinnah's mind would be the historical identity crisis Pakistan would be likely facing after he was gone.

The reason he spoke of these points was that, without so many social divisions this country could not have been occupied for so long and we could have been one .He is 100% true there, i am sure many Indians (and Pakistanis or for that matter any person whose country has too many ethnic groups) would have thought if only we did not have so many castes or whatever social differences we could have been there here etc etc. I think this is what Mr. Jinnah was pointing to.

All i want to say is that based on his speech we cannot infer he wanted Pakistan to share the same identity.

Pakistan is as much heir to the thousands of years of history and culture of the Indian Subcontinent as our neighbor Republic of India itself. This recognition is perhaps necessary to defang the extremists in both sides of the border.

From here my views are not to incite trolling but to have a meaningful discussion.

Indeed they "can" share but what part of it?? Is it from the ancient times or the "1000 year rule" times?? which one?? You see the reason i ask this question is for fun or seriously lot of the members here say we ruled for 1000 or 800 or whatever years before the British came.

This immediately puts up two inferences, they are foreigners to India and they were not part of this ancient culture. Yes they can say we shared from then on Indian history but not the pre Vedic and later parts of it. You cannot say that certain Panini or some other historic person were from regions of Pakistan so they are Pakistanis. These guys are dead and long before the 1000 or 800 year rule so no he is not part of your history. The Mahajanapadas were gone and their heirs were defeated by you. After 1000 or 800 or whatever years time you cannot say that history of those defeated by you is also yours. I mean what the hell kind of logic is it?? Of course this is all based on the premise that Pakistanis don't have historically commonality with Indians. This is not a minority view people is it??

However let us say i am wrong and majority feel they share the same history of India and the main difference was religion (which is not imposed on them but they did convert willingly) then the million dollar question is what was the need to seperate ??

Those people searching for a alternative identity for Pakistan, perhaps need it to escape this dilemma may be??

 

[DARKY]

There was no Indian nation pre-1947 either. Pakistan's history prior to the advent of Islam in the region is a huge part of its heritage as well.

India was the name derived from the Name which Alexander gave to Bharat It was the name which came around the time when Nandas and Muryans ruled India... one can find the reference in the book written by the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Murya who was send by the commander of Alexanders troops in Afghanistan and Persia... after being beaten in the war with Chandragupta Murya... who captured Afghanistan beyond Herat from the Greeks... The Europeans continued to tarde and Interact with Indians with version of the same name in their respective languages.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------

Pakistan is claiming its ancient Indo-Aryan heritage, not the Indian one.

If its Indo... how can it Not be Indian ??
Do you apply such reasoning with Sino ??