Pakistan's Identity Crisis: Can it explain itself without India?

[GumNaam]

Thats great. Thank you. We Indians will happily take the sole credit of all such legacy then.

what legacy exactly is that? oh yeah, inventing zero and then getting conquered, got it!

 

[magra]

what legacy exactly is that? oh yeah, inventing zero and then getting conquered, got it!

Why should we tell you since you dont care anyways.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

As per Mahabharat, Jarasandh was an evil ruler. Anything to proof otherwise?


Why do you say so? 16K queens attributed to him were actually rescued women with nowhere to go, so they were just kept with Krishna.


By definition, for being Muslim you need to believe in Prophet Muhammad, but the Prophet did not appear until 7th century, so how can people prior to that period be Muslims?

Muslim is definition of belief in the unseen God. Islam means peaceful submission in faith to the unseen Creator of the universe, without any other partners. Theologically, this began with the first man on earth, Prophet Adam [as]. Historically speaking, the religion traces back to Prophet Ibrahim [as]. See Quran 22-78.

The Bihari/Vihari belief was strictly Monotheistic, no idol worship. Vihar were idol free structures where people prostrated to the unseen God. You probably know of this belief through the Brahman stream. They called it Sanathan Dharm. But it was modified to Pantheism associating the physical universe with God to produce pantheistic deities, which is the philosophical or theological foundation of Hinduism.

Why isn't Pandava evil? On the advice of Krishna, he sends people disguised as Brahman to Jarasandh with intent to kill him. That is evil. They also claim to have killed his relatives. Krishna comes off as a psychopathic killer. This is another of his murders. Wikipedia: "Kansa, the ruler of Mathura, acquired Jarasandha's attention. Impressed with his bravery, Jarasandha made Kansa his son-in-law by marrying off his two daughters (this makes Jarasandha a relative of Krishna). Krishna killed Kansa as announced by a divine prophecy. Jarasandha got infuriated as his daughters were widowed."

 

[magra]

Muslim is definition of belief in the unseen God. Islam means peaceful submission in faith to the unseen Creator of the universe, without any other partners. Theologically, this began with the first man on earth, Prophet Adam [as]. Historically speaking, the religion traces back to Prophet Ibrahim [as]. See Quran 22-78.

The Bihari/Vihari belief was strictly Monotheistic, no idol worship. Vihar were idol free structures where people prostrated to the unseen God. You probably know of this belief through the Brahman stream. They called it Sanathan Dharm. But it was modified to Pantheism associating the physical universe with God to produce pantheistic deities, which is the philosophical or theological foundation of Hinduism.

Why isn't Pandava evil? On the advice of Krishna, he sends people disguised as Brahman to Jarasandh with intent to kill him. That is evil. They also claim to have killed his relatives. Krishna comes off as a psychopathic killer. This is another of his murders. Wikipedia: "Kansa, the ruler of Mathura, acquired Jarasandha's attention. Impressed with his bravery, Jarasandha made Kansa his son-in-law by marrying off his two daughters (this makes Jarasandha a relative of Krishna). Krishna killed Kansa as announced by a divine prophecy. Jarasandha got infuriated as his daughters were widowed."

My last reply on this topic as we are derailing the OP. Please open a new thread on Indian mythology.

Hinduism is Sanatan Dharm - you know that right?

Jarasandh had a fair fight with Bheem - so what is your problem with that?
Krishna killed Kansa as previously Kansa had killed his 6 older siblings while he had kept Krishna's parents imprisoned.

 

[Pak Nationalist]

Wouldn’t it be fair to say Pakistan is a reconstituted successor state to the Mughals. The Mughals were conquered by the British and from the British Pakistan gained its independence, not the nation of India the British created. This is a fact, as our Independence Day is literally the day before India became an independent state.

While we (as a collective) are the descendants of all the peoples that have lived on the land, as a civilization the nation is a Muslim ruled cultural identity, that has always made room for its minorities. Our anthem is in Persian as was the language of the Mughal court.

Mughal developed a unique culture as seen by the national language, Urdu, from the local Hindi and the courtly Persian. Our links with Central Asia can best be seen from that angle. Aurangzeb himself even received an ambassador from the Russian Tsar, who lived in India for 3 years, after a hundred years of the Russians trying to send an ambassador.

Pakistan in Ayub Khan’s time showed promise, and was accorded a respectful reception by JFK and LBJ when Ayub Khan visited. We should be studying the national history from 1947-1965 to see where the identity was properly formed and where it fell short.

those that choose to stay in (or were unable to leave) India, were reassured they would be living in a overtly secular nation, which those that made Pakistan knew they didn’t want. Pakistan was the Re-expression of the Sufi Islamic culture of the late Mughal empire, with the influence of 150 years of British rule.

Mughals were Turkic, and we are not, barring some of our population (Chughtais, Parachas, etc.). I do not understand the hesitancy of embracing our pre-Islamic past with more zeal and zest. If we do that, we would own the achievements of our ancestors rather than others who came to our land as outsiders and, with time, subsumed (just like Anglo Saxons were in England). Of course, the Mughal era is an integral part of our history but seeing ourselves as a successor state of an empire reigned over much of the subcontinent is a far cry. The fact that few of our founding fathers composed the anthem in Persian (Quaid, I believe, had asked someone else, perhaps a Hindu, to write the anthem in Urdu) shows they too carried the same baggage. Why is Pakistan a successor state of the Mughal empire and not the Uzbeks? Similar questions have been raised concerning the Mongol empire, Mongolia, and China.

Here is that Urdu anthem we never had

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

My last reply on this topic as we are derailing the OP. Please open a new thread on Indian mythology.

Hinduism is Sanatan Dharm - you know that right?

Jarasandh had a fair fight with Bheem - so what is your problem with that?
Krishna killed Kansa as previously Kansa had killed his 6 older siblings while he had kept Krishna's parents imprisoned.

I already mentioned Sanathan Dharm as you understand it is theologically pantheism which is Hinduism.

It was a fair wrestling fight until Bhima hacked Jarasandh's body into two halves on the advice of Krishna. That is murder! I am not familiar with the stories of Krishna and Kansa. Why did Kansa kill 6 of his Krishna's siblings and had his parents imprisoned. It makes no sense. Frankly, I don't have a lot of trust in these stories.

 

[GumNaam]

Why should we tell you since you dont care anyways.

not like its a secret...

 

[Bawag]

India is the land Greeks named us after who got it from the Persians and India doesnt mean "Land of Indus" no such meaning exist. And officially its also called Bharat.

We dont have an identity issue, no Indian seems to be confused about their history. We are not the ones explaining countless times like you folks that you are not India. The thread itself is about your identity issue not ours.
As for river Indus, its a transboundary river originating in Tibet and flows through India to Pakistan.

Officially it is also called India; an identity given by the invaders to the people of a region:

• India/Indos: European Given/Imposed Identity
• Hindustan: Persian later Turkic Given/Imposed Identity
• AL-Hind/Hind: Arab Given/Imposed Identity
• Bharat: The Snatam-Dharam's Given Identity

Bharat is NOT equal to India. It is just a shameful acceptance of conquerors' given identity via constitutional amendment because White is Right and, for sure, nobody is going to call you by your ancestral identity.

Fun Fact: European gave identities to native people in different conquered regions (e.g., Americans, Australians). You guys were no exception

 

[Maula Jatt]

Wouldn’t it be fair to say Pakistan is a reconstituted successor state to the Mughals. The Mughals were conquered by the British and from the British Pakistan gained its independence, not the nation of India the British created. This is a fact, as our Independence Day is literally the day before India became an independent state.

While we (as a collective) are the descendants of all the peoples that have lived on the land, as a civilization the nation is a Muslim ruled cultural identity, that has always made room for its minorities. Our anthem is in Persian as was the language of the Mughal court.

Mughal developed a unique culture as seen by the national language, Urdu, from the local Hindi and the courtly Persian. Our links with Central Asia can best be seen from that angle. Aurangzeb himself even received an ambassador from the Russian Tsar, who lived in India for 3 years, after a hundred years of the Russians trying to send an ambassador.

Pakistan in Ayub Khan’s time showed promise, and was accorded a respectful reception by JFK and LBJ when Ayub Khan visited. We should be studying the national history from 1947-1965 to see where the identity was properly formed and where it fell short.

those that choose to stay in (or were unable to leave) India, were reassured they would be living in a overtly secular nation, which those that made Pakistan knew they didn’t want. Pakistan was the Re-expression of the Sufi Islamic culture of the late Mughal empire, with the influence of 150 years of British rule.

Mughals were a garbage civilization compared to the names he mentioned

One must stop sniffing the butt of these Turko-persian-hindustani empires for a while and look beyond to a wider world

There's a certain class difference here, if you read history it'll be blasphemy to compare the legacy of the two...

 

[SIPRA]

Ofcourse, as many Pakistanis, you try to justify Pakistan's creation by negating Indian ideology. That does not nullify its existence.

You are mistaken. I have not said that India has no ideological foundation. It has, and that is Hindu identity. Some reveal and proclaim it, like Mahasabha, RSS, BJP etc; while some like Congress conceal it, under a garb of secularism. Since, Muslims could not ascribe to that identity; so, they went for their own political path in the British India. Demography of British India allowed them to have their own Muslim-majority state, that is Pakistan.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

In other words you are ignorant.
The area of Maurya empire covered Pakistan as well.

Wikipedia: The State Emblem of India is the national emblem of India and is used by the union government, many state governments and government agencies. The emblem is an adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka, a statue from 280 BCE. The statue is a dimensional emblem showing four lions. It became the emblem of the Dominion of India in December 1947,[1] and later the emblem of the Republic of India.

Link?

 

[Chhatrapati]

Officially it is also called India;
Bharat is NOT equal to India.

You wish

Indian history skips a thousand year Muslim of Muslim rule. No confusion there so stop confusing yourselves.

Nobody skips any history. We are still taught in detail about history unlike you folks.

 

[Bawag]

You wish

Nobody skips any history. We are still taught in detail about history unlike you folks.

I know mate, I know

It's an unbeatable argument, I have tried on many of your countrymen. Never once failed to silent them

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

You are mistaken. I have not said that India has no ideological foundation. It has, and that is Hindu identity. Some reveal and proclaim it, like Mahasabha, RSS, BJP etc; while some like Congress conceal it, under a garb of secularism. Since, Muslims could not ascribe to that identity; so, they went for their own political path in the British India. Demography of British India allowed Muslims to have their own state, that is Pakistan.

Countries do not have ideological foundations. People do. States may have them. Officially, India is not Hindu Republic, and historically wasn't [Ashoka wasn't Hindu]. It's not a matter of simply declaring Hindu. To have Vedic rule, you need Kshatriya, Brahman, Vaishya, and Shudra in that order. To have Hindu rule, you need Brahman on the top. Do you think India can organise itself like that? There was even a war in the past between worshipers of Shiva and Vishnu. The rise of the Hinduism as we know started around 300 CE and according to Nehru the word Hindu first appeared in local wriiting only around 8th century.

Link?

I am on mobile. Cannot post links.

 

[Chhatrapati]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement? Whether 3-4% of the Indus flows through China and disputed territory is irrelevant

The irony of exclusivity you confer to Indus and with the same breath you claim the name India. Also disputes are only 70 years old.

I know mate, I know

It's an unbeatable argument, I have tried on many of your countrymen. Never once failed to silent them

I have explained the answers in detail and you simply repeated the same things adding words like imposed, invaders. It's not an argument simply conjecture showing the general lack of understanding among you and the extreme identity crisis as the op itself explains.