What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are a hack with no respect for India's history.

From Barhaspatya Samhita book of Rig Veda:

Himalyam Samarabhya
Yavadindusarovaram
Tam Deonirmitam Desham
Hindusthanam Prachakshate

Translation: 'the country which starts from Himalayas, the borders of which goes till the "Indian ocean" [Yavadindusarovaram] has been created by Devas [Deo-] and its name is Hindustan.'

*Note - The earliest elements of Sanskrit had no sound for H.

As the quote says, Hindustan was named by the Deva, the Kshatriya Sharif Ruling caste (who originated in Ur, Sumer). Hindustan means the land of the Indus or Sindhu river.

Aryans whose language was Sanskrit became the Brahman caste. They had called the land Aryavarta, but it was not a state. Hindustan is state based name and we carry the blood related Hindustani identity to this day. Aryans are the other (original) Hindustani. They do not call themselves Bharati.

Bharat is a Scythian clan based name which arrived in India (Hindustan) nearly a thousand years after establishment of ancient Hindustan. Bharati cousin tribes divided Hindustan [Mahabharat war] which lasts to this day, the war between Pakistan and Bharat.
You seriously thought you can fool me with Brihasmpitiya sutra "from Right Veda". For starters it is not "from" Rig Veda but a treaties on Rig Veda written around 1200AD.

*Note : Earliest elements of Sanskrit had 'H' as you have no clue what you're talking about I'd let it slide. Hint : Word "Hima" is sanskrit meaning snow found in Rig Veda.

Aryans are not Brahmins they're simply people who followed the vedic rituals, as long as they followed it they were Aryas.

Bharatas are a Rig vedic tribe🤦 they're not Scythians.

Next time read something from the internet instead of embarrassing yourself and your countrymen and don't quote me to explain your inadequacy like this.
 
.
The actual term is Christendom but I won't expect a lowlife pathar worshipper to make an argument with a shred of honesty.
it's not Christendom lol. that came after. I'm talking about the Greeco-Roman civilization that had distinctly pagan roots at their peak. they form the real basis for European civilization, and had tremendous influence on Catholic philosphy that only came later. pagan Greek and Roman writings also form the real and firm basis of European enlightenment, the source of much of the modern European intellectual heritage. Europe would have been one civilization with or without Christianity, or any other religion, even different religions.
 
Last edited:
.
You seriously thought you can fool me with Brihasmpitiya sutra "from Right Veda". For starters it is not "from" Rig Veda but a treaties on Rig Veda written around 1200AD.

*Note : Earliest elements of Sanskrit had 'H' as you have no clue what you're talking about I'd let it slide. Hint : Word "Hima" is sanskrit meaning snow found in Rig Veda.

Aryans are not Brahmins they're simply people who followed the vedic rituals, as long as they followed it they were Aryas.

Bharatas are a Rig vedic tribe🤦 they're not Scythians.

Next time read something from the internet instead of embarrassing yourself and your countrymen and don't quote me to explain your inadequacy like this.
He is an Indian
@Novus ordu seclorum can you put up a flag?
 
. . . .
Pakistani ancestors laid the foundation of indic/hindu civilization. We have to accept the fact that Pakistan and Indian history is interlinked. But not for the reasons hindutvas tells you. Hindu India identity crisis is on another level as they cannot accept the fact that their religion came with invaders.
 
. .
You seriously thought you can fool me with Brihasmpitiya sutra "from Right Veda". For starters it is not "from" Rig Veda but a treaties on Rig Veda written around 1200AD.

*Note : Earliest elements of Sanskrit had 'H' as you have no clue what you're talking about I'd let it slide. Hint : Word "Hima" is sanskrit meaning snow found in Rig Veda.

Aryans are not Brahmins they're simply people who followed the vedic rituals, as long as they followed it they were Aryas.

Bharatas are a Rig vedic tribe🤦 they're not Scythians.

Next time read something from the internet instead of embarrassing yourself and your countrymen and don't quote me to explain your inadequacy like this.
My ancestral background is Nalanda and Pataliputra [Maurya empire]. Yours?

Earliest elements of Sanskrit had no H sound. [Ref: India: A History, John Keay].

Rig Veda is not from 1200 CE. Wikipedia, Rig Veda:
" The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts.[62][63] The bulk of the Rigveda Samhita was composed in the northwestern region (Punjab) of the Indian subcontinent, most likely between c. 1500 and 1200 BC,[2][56][64] although a wider approximation of c. 1700–1100 BC has also been given.[65][66][note 1] The other three Samhitas are considered to date from the time of the Kuru Kingdom, approximately c. 1200–900 BCE.[1] The "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000–500 BCE, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age.[note 7] "

*From Hindu-blog: "Barhaspatya Samhita is a lost text composed by Sage Brihaspati who is an important Sage in the Rig Veda. The Barhaspatya Samhita manuscript has been lost to history or yet to be found but reference to the text is found in various other scriptures."

The text was lost which doesn't mean it was composed in 1200CE. It was orally transmitted from ancient time.

Contrast this. The following is from Vishnu Puranas; an obvious copy of the Rig Veda verse: "The country (varsam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata".

Vishnu Puranas relates to the time of Krishna in the Mahabharata era thought to be from 4th century BCE or later. Bharata was a Scythian king of Hastinapur and Krishna considered himself avatar of Vishnu (perhaps somebody hoisted Vishnu on him). He was an advisor to the Scythian Pandava clan.

Wikipedia states Indo-Scythians arrived beginning 2nd century BCE, though I think Scythian migration likely started two centuries earlier: "Indo-Scythians (also called Indo-Sakas) were a group of nomadic Iranian peoples of Saka and Scythian origin who migrated from Central Asia southward into northern and western regions of ancient India from the middle of the 2nd century BCE to the 4th century CE."
 
.
Foundations of Pakistan were laid when Muhammed bin Qasim stepped out the south asian subcontinent with an unseathed sword.

Explanation accomplished without even mentioning "india"! :enjoy:
 
.
Pakistan's ideology was defined clearly 1400+ years ago, and the identity is based on that ideology-the ideology which was basis of her freedom.
 
.
You are a hack with no respect for India's history.
you fought with @Chhatrapati over this but I don't get what the disagreement is? Hindustan, and other names like India, ultimately is used by Greeks, Persians, and according to you Indian sources also. so it's still clear it had little to with the Indus river and refers to the subcontinent as a whole since a long time. Bharat is also used in Vishnu Puran to refer to the subcontinent as a whole. who cares what tribes fought. modern day Pakistan has nothing to do with these tribes, as Jinnah said: it was a country for all Indian Muslims. I doubt they even knew anything about Vedic tribes. the very basic identity of Pakistan: a country for *Indian* Muslims, cannot be explained without reference to India and Muslims. all historical stuff before that is irrelevant.
 
.
all historical stuff before that is irrelevant.


On the contrary that is the history and heritage of this country and land

And I mean actual history, not the fantasy bullshit you guys come up with


It is incredible some Kala eastern gangadeshis are trying to claim or interject themselves into the history of Pak zameen
 
.
you fought with @Chhatrapati over this but I don't get what the disagreement is? Hindustan, and other names like India, ultimately is used by Greeks, Persians, and according to you Indian sources also. so it's still clear it had little to with the Indus river and refers to the subcontinent as a whole since a long time. Bharat is also used in Vishnu Puran to refer to the subcontinent as a whole. who cares what tribes fought. modern day Pakistan has nothing to do with these tribes, as Jinnah said: it was a country for all Indian Muslims. I doubt they even knew anything about Vedic tribes. the very basic identity of Pakistan: a country for *Indian* Muslims, cannot be explained without reference to India and Muslims. all historical stuff before that is irrelevant.
There is difference between history and hacking history for politics as is common here and in the subcontinent. People here hack religion as well for politics. The disagreement is over the truth. Bharat is not ancient Hindustan. Bharat was in Hindustan. Hindustani identity is ancient and there are people who carry the ancient Hindustani blood identity with them. I explained it.
Pakistan's ideology was defined clearly 1400+ years ago, and the identity is based on that ideology-the ideology which was basis of her freedom.
I dont see an ideology. 1400 years ago this was revealed.
Quran 49-13 O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know [identify] one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Aware.
 
.
Bharat is not ancient Hindustan. Bharat was in Hindustan. Hindustani identity is ancient and there are people who carry the ancient Hindustani blood identity with them. I explained it.
do you have scholarly sources for this, instead of just contextless verses? as far as I'm concerned, Bharat, India, Hindustan are the name for the same ancient entity. Indian identity is of the land of India, the subcontinent, not of migrating tribes. the name may very well be derived from some tribe, but that is not relevant. if the word refers to the same land, they're synonyms, even if the etymologies are different.
On the contrary that is the history and heritage of this country and land
sure, but they're not the identity. the country wasn't created on the basis of history or heritage. that wasn't why it exists. it was created, divided from the original land for *Indian* Muslims. and yes, that includes "kala gangus", who did migrate to Pakistan in large numbers. tell the "gangus" in Karachi about your views of them and their relationship to Pakistan. it's "Pakistan ka matalab kya, la ilaha illallah" not "Pakistan ka matalab kya, Indus valley and it's heritage unlike those dirty gangus". lol
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom