Pakistani women gives a great reply to India and Pakistani media

[p(-)0ENiX]

The collapse of IVC is linked to many natural disasters. However the only theory that I have read about the collapse related to the existence of contemporary environment with regard to politico-religious reasons is in a paper published From Meluhha To Pakistan: The Embodiment Of A Civilization - OpEd Eurasia Review.

Robert Kaplan also says that the IVC politically remained united with India only during the times of Mauryan, Islamic and British rule of sub-continent and for the remaining thousands of years was a separate political entity. The genetic studies confirm this fact that the large majority of people of Pakistan are made up of different genetic formats compared to Indians. The linkages that we see these days with India emerged only during the recent times under Muslim and British rule and history corrected itself in 1947.

The IVC collapsed due to a variety of reasons, some of which relate to environmental changes. Of course political issues may have existed there as well. The fact remains that we are not entirely certain of what caused the IVC to collapse, we have some data, but a lot of research is still needed on the IVC. A hell lot of data we have regarding the IVC comes from the Aryans themselves. Once they developed a script for Sanskrit, they recorded the lifestyle of the people of the Indus & the Aryans were extremely different from the Harappans. Whatever remained of the Indus Valley Civilization was destroyed during & after the arrival of the Indo-Aryan people.

The IVC operated as a separate political entity from the rest of India, that is true. However, you must note that the rest of the Sub-Continent wasn't united at that time either besides during the short reign of Ashoka the Great, & perhaps some others. Yes, Pakistani ethnicities are distinct from Indian ethnicities. That should be obvious to everyone, India is geographically larger than Pakistan & is home to many different ethnicities some of which have nothing to do with each other racially as well.

The people who fought against the Greeks were the original people of this land and not Aryans. These people were monotheists before the emergence of Abrahamic religions. They wrote the Rig Veda and the fact that the earliest Vedic religious concept evolved around monotheism is a testament to this actuality. The earliest monotheistic format of Vedic religion was gradually diluted to polytheism and we see the subsequent emergence of current format of Hinduism as the teachings spread to Gangetic plains. However, there were many Hindus who even during the contemporary era professed monotheism like the Maharishi Dayananda and Sikhism also follow monotheistic format even now. These people followed Buddhism as well and later became Muslims, the religion which they follow now.

Wrong, the people who fought against the Greeks were the Aryans themselves. The Harappans were finished, from there on out when someone referred to the people of the Indus; they referred to Indo-Aryan tribes. Historical evidence backs this point, & even the Greeks were aware of it. As I stated earlier, Alexander the Great wanted the Greeks to mix up with the Indo-European tribes in Persia & the northern Sub-Continent. His plans however failed. The Median people in Iran referred to themselves as Aryans too, only the Greeks called them Medians. The Medians knew off Indo-Aryan tribes in the Indus region & used to proudly boast of their relation to them. King Cyrus the Great of Persia is another example, he wanted to unite the Indo-Iranian Aryans under his rule & thus he ended up conquering Balochistan & what is today known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. There are way too many proofs in existence to confirm the presence of Indo-Aryans in the Sub-Continent, & the history, cultures, & languages of our lands were shaped by them.

Some segments of the Vedic people were monotheists, but not all of them. As I said earlier, refer to the Aryan & Greek Pantheon & see the similarities with your own eyes. Those similarities existed long before Alexander's arrival & remind us of the link between Indo-European tribes that migrated from Andronovo. Buddhism was spread primarily during Asoka the Great's time, he turned his back on Vedism, & after the collapse of his empire, the Indo-Aryan people never recovered & the Sub-Continent slipped in to a short phase of its own dark ages. Your claim that the Indo-Aryans weren't a unique people even though their language, religion, genes, & culture prove otherwise is proof that you aren't aware of the history of your land. You may even want to read about ancient Persians & how similar they were to Indo-Aryans before they ended up getting influenced by Semitic civilizations & before the Indo-Aryans got influenced by the IVC.

 

[livingdead]

self-delete

 

[Nassr]

The Aryan invasion isn't defunct. It is true that later on through Aryan history the word Arya was used in the cultural sense similar to how the word Roman was used in the cultural sense in Europe. However, this does not imply that the Aryans weren't originally a race of people, because they most certainly were. They arrived in the Sub-Continent in phases from Andronovo. Genetic evidence even proves links between some eastern Europeans & those ethnicities historically linked to Aryans in the Sub-Continent. Apart from that, we have historic & linguistic evidence. Sanskrit is the sister language of Avestan & is distantly related to ancient Greek & Latin. Sister languages' original speakers always happen to be related people. The Sanskrit language was once known as the language of the Aryans, & is till today considered an Indo-European language descending from proto-Indo-European itself. The Vedic Aryans were a group of Indo-European tribes, just as how the Iranic Aryans including the Pasthuns & Balochis were also a group of Indo-European tribes that migrated from Andronovo. The Medians were aware of their connection to the Indo-Aryans of the Sub-Continent as well.

What I said was that Vedic Aryans were not a race as Rig Veda does not state this as a race or a tribe etc. There is no archeological find in Indus valley Civilization which could in any form qualify that there ever was an invasion of this part of the land. Harappa and Mohenjodaro are void of any war fighting material – zilch. There was no horse that was discovered and neither a chariot. Of-course there are many more details which can be cited to qualify the defunct nature of any Aryan Invasion theory in the area occupied by the Meluhhans – representing the present day land mass of Pakistan.

The Aryan presence in European continent is a different matter and not related to the sub-continental Aryan Invasion Theory. Also, a thing one may like to keep in mind and the linguists confirm this fact is that the languages do not necessarily travel and migrate with the people. The linkages of genetic admix which takes place over thousands of years of movement may not be related to an identifiable timeframe which the Aryan Invasion Theory propagates and has to be event related within a restrictive and identifiable timeframe. And within this restrictive timeframe no such invasion has been archeologically and historically identified and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[livingdead]

@runa moosani ... watching too much bollywood .. is bad for you..

I am sure you dont think amreekaans/europeans have sex on street.. do you?

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

What I said was that Vedic Aryans were not a race as Rig Veda does not state this as a race or a tribe etc. There is no archeological find in Indus valley Civilization which could in any form qualify that there ever was an invasion of this part of the land. Harappa and Mohenjodaro are void of any war fighting material – zilch. There was no horse that was discovered and neither a chariot. Of-course there are many more details which can be cited to qualify the defunct nature of any Aryan Invasion theory in the area occupied by the Meluhhans – representing the present day land mass of Pakistan.

The Aryan presence in European continent is a different matter and not related to the sub-continental Aryan Invasion Theory. Also, a thing one may like to keep in mind and the linguists confirm this fact is that the languages do not necessarily travel and migrate with the people. The linkages of genetic admix which takes place over thousands of years of movement may not be related to an identifiable timeframe which the Aryan Invasion Theory propagates and has to be event related within a restrictive and identifiable timeframe. And within this restrictive timeframe no such invasion has been archeologically and historically identified and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I will respond to this later. My post will be modified after I respond to it, because I am busy at the moment.

Edit

I have responded to this post here.

 

[INDIC]

There was no modern day India in the ancient times. It was a sub-continent consisting of many different countries. Even the Greeks called Indians, the people living in a geographical area east of river Indus. What buffer!

There was an Indian civilization with an Indian identity both in India and abroad, North-West was not distinct. Even the modern Punjabi and Sindhi languages are closely related to Hindi/Urdu.

 

[INDIC]

no matter what pakistanis say,to me majority of pakistani punjabis look just like any other andhraite(people of andhra pradesh).the only people who look diff are north easterners.i dont know how and when pakistani punjabis became separate race .
i will accept tht pashtuns are a diff race but pakistani punjabis are no diff from andhraites or UPite or bihari or rajastani

Punjabis, Sindhis, Muhajirs(North Indians) live in both sides of the border in India and Pakistan. Punjabi and Hindi sound almost identical originating from the Western Prakrit. I can't understand how Pakistani claim a distinct culture since ancient time.

 

[Nassr]

Undisputed that what is current day Pakistan and India consisted of many kingdoms ruled by various kings before the Mughal invasion commenced. My point was simply that geographically, the kingdoms which comprised what is modern day Pakistan seem to have been a buffer from invaders for the kingdoms which comprise what is modern day India. Geographically that would be a logical conclusion and historically this point is proven for example with Alexander's war on the kingdom of King Purshottum. History claims that the despite losing the battle, Porus gave the remaining states a chance to gather their forces into a huge army and this resulted in Alexander's army refusing to go into further battle

Well ...... it could be a front line state instead of a buffer - but that never is a case when independent countries fight a war with an invading enemy and never identify themselves as a buffer for another state which is more akin to becoming a cannon fodder for others. Creation of buffer states has been a rather recent phenomenon and was not prevalent at that time.

There was an Indian civilization with an Indian identity both in India and abroad, North-West was not distinct. Even the modern Punjabi and Sindhi languages are closely related to Hindi/Urdu.

Before the creation of Republic of India in 1947 it was British India. Before British India it was Muslim India. What was before that - no India.

 

[Ayush]

but we love our neighbors.

 

[INDIC]

fore the creation of Republic of India in 1947 it was British India. Before British India it was Muslim India. What was before that - no India.

Bharat is name used for cultural India since ancient time, deeply rooted in Indian culture. Muslims of middle East and Muslim Empires of India referred same landmass as Hind/Hindustan. How you claimed no identity existed since ancient time. Even Allama Iqbal has referred himself as an Indian in many of his poems.

 

[Nassr]

There was an Indian civilization with an Indian identity both in India and abroad, North-West was not distinct. Even the modern Punjabi and Sindhi languages are closely related to Hindi/Urdu.

If you are referring to IVC as Indian civilization - you are wrong. It was not an Indian civilization. The core of this civilization is in Pakistan and a part of this civilization is spread in Iran, Afghanistan and India. If there was another Indian civilization, apart from IVC, I have not read about this and I do not think any one else have heard about it as well. If you have any information about Indian civilization, please share it with us. Thanks.

 

[Nassr]

Punjabis, Sindhis, Muhajirs(North Indians) live in both sides of the border in India and Pakistan. Punjabi and Hindi sound almost identical originating from the Western Prakrit. I can't understand how Pakistani claim a distinct culture since ancient time.

Punjabis and Sindhis (Indians as well) belong to the IVC landmass. These people were and are different than the people who lived in Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains. And yes they have a distinct culture which is different from the one being followed in India's heartland.

 

[INDIC]

If you are referring to IVC as Indian civilization - you are wrong. It was not an Indian civilization. The core of this civilization is in Pakistan and a part of this civilization is spread in Iran, Afghanistan and India. If there was another Indian civilization, apart from IVC, I have not read about this and I do not think any one else have heard about it as well. If you have any information about Indian civilization, please share it with us. Thanks.

India have many important IVC settlements which were planned cities, I never heard of such key settlement or planned cities in Afghanistan, Iran. You can't question us from claiming the Indus valley civilization. The Mesopotamians traded with IVC from the modern Indian side of IVC.

Punjabis and Sindhis (Indians as well) belong to the IVC landmass. These people were and are different than the people who lived in Ganges Valley and its adjoining plains. And yes they have a distinct culture which is different from the one being followed in India's heartland.

Gangetic plain is continuous with Indus river plains without any barrier. Your claim sounds silly. Hindi/Urdu and Punjabi sounds identical, both were once a same language.

 

[Nassr]

Bharat is name used for cultural India since ancient time, deeply rooted in Indian culture. Muslims of middle East and Muslim Empires of India referred same landmass as Hind/Hindustan. How you claimed no identity existed since ancient time. Even Allama Iqbal has referred himself as an Indian in many of his poems.

The word Bharat was taken from Mahabharata and was the land occupied by a King Bharata and it was not the whole of India. And I am sure you would know that Mahabharata was an epic.

Allama Iqbal referred himself as an Indian because he used to live in British India at that time but he wanted Pakistan and we Pakistanis are here as a testament of his vision.

 

[Jackdaws]

Typical South Asian jingoism - you just need a few buzzwords and you anyone can have a speech - Kashmir, women, terrorism, rape, illegal occupation, back-stabbing, 1965, 1947, 1948, 1999, 1971, Bangladesh, East Pakistan, Bhutto, Mujib, Nehru, Shastri, UN. Yawn. Did I miss something?