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

[magra]

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.

Ashoka is fact, Jarasandh is mythology. You cannot mix the two to weave a narrative.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Ashoka is fact, Jarasandh is mythology. You cannot mix the two to weave a narrative.

Mahabharat war is not a myth. Some details could be fabricated, exaggerated or erroneous which is expected with ancient events.

 

[magra]

Mahabharat war is not a myth. Some details could be fabricated, exaggerated or erroneous which is expected with ancient events.

The war itself may or may not be a myth. But since we cant say for sure when exactly those events happened and as you admit that the details are exaggerated, we cannot quote much from Mahabharat for historical references.
Eg. We do not know if Jarasandh was actually killed as mentioned in Mahabharat or he remained alive. How can you then claim that he remained alive?

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

The war itself may or may not be a myth. But since we cant say for sure when exactly those events happened and as you admit that the details are exaggerated, we cannot quote much from Mahabharat for historical references.
Eg. We do not know if Jarasandh was actually killed as mentioned in Mahabharat or he remained alive. How can you then claim that he remained alive?

The narrative sounds doubtful, but it shows hostility and jealousy toward Jarasandh. Questions like who wrestles for 21 days and why would Jarasandh need to wrestle? The Kshatriya Deva ruler of Magadh would have an army at his command or, at least, people ready to defend him. And why would Jarasandh's son meekly agree to be Pandava's vassal after seeing his father brutally murdered by them. We know Ashoka was the same clan as Jarasandh, possibly his direct descendant.

This is from Wikipedia:
As Jarasandha was a powerful warrior, it was necessary for the Pandavas to eliminate him. Krishna, Bhima and Arjuna disguised as brahmins traveled to Magadha and met Jarasandha. After a formal meeting, Jarasandha enquired about their intentions. Krishna, Bhima, and Arjuna revealed their actual identities. Krishna then challenged Jarasandha for a duel and gave him the freedom to choose any one belligerent. Jarasandha selected Bhima for a duel. Both Bhima and Jarasandha were accomplished wrestlers. The duel continued for several days and neither of them was willing to give up. Bhima overpowered Jarasandha after a long duel and almost took Jarasandha to death but Bhima was unable to kill Jarasandha. When Bhima looked at Krishna for guidance, Krishna picked a twig and dissected it into two halves, and threw the parts in opposite directions. Bhima complied with his instructions and dissected the body of Jarasandha. He threw the dissected parts in opposite directions. Jarasandha was killed as two halves of the body could not conjoin.[11] Jarasandha's son Sahadeva (not to be confused with the youngest Pandava) was placed on the throne of Magadha and he agreed to be a vassal to the Pandavas. He was killed in the Kurukshetra war by Shakuni along with his cousin, Jayadeva.

 

[magra]

The narrative sounds doubtful, but it shows hostility and jealousy toward Jarasandh. Questions like who wrestles for 21 days and why would Jarasandh need to wrestle? The Kshatriya Deva ruler of Magadh would have an army at his command or, at least, people ready to defend him. And why would Jarasandh's son meekly agree to be Pandava's vassal after seeing his father brutally murdered by them.

We do not know why Jarasandh accepted the 1:1 challenge to wrestle with Bhima, but it definitely could not have lasted for 21 days, so lets assume thats an exaggeration.
Since Jarasandh was a mighty ruler and got killed, it is not so difficult to imagine that his son would have feared for his life and hence agreed to become a vassal.

We know Ashoka was the same clan as Jarasandh, possibly his direct descendant.

The only thing we know is that Ashoka ruled Magadha. Rest is just speculation as Chandragupta's origin story is unclear.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

We do not know why Jarasandh accepted the 1:1 challenge to wrestle with Bhima, but it definitely could not have lasted for 21 days, so lets assume thats an exaggeration.
Since Jarasandh was a mighty ruler and got killed, it is not so difficult to imagine that his son would have feared for his life and hence agreed to become a vassal.


The only thing we know is that Ashoka ruled Magadha. Rest is just speculation as Chandragupta's origin story is unclear.

I don't think he was killed. Mahabharat never had any influence on us other than a dislike for Krishna. We have nothing against Bhima. He is like a stranger to us. Ashoka could not be anything other than Kshatriya Deva. Magadh/Bihar was established by this clan.

 

[magra]

I don't think he was killed.

Whats your basis for such a thought?

Mahabharat never had any influence on us other than a dislike for Krishna. We have nothing against Bhima. He is like a stranger to us. Ashoka could not be anything other than Kshatriya Deva. Magadh/Bihar was established by this clan.

Who are you? Pakistani, Indian Hindu, Indian Muslim?
If you are a Muslim, you have no reason to believe Krishna's existence. If you are a Hindu, may I know why do you dislike Krishna?

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Whats your basis for such a thought?


Who are you? Pakistani, Indian Hindu, Indian Muslim?
If you are a Muslim, you have no reason to believe Krishna's existence. If you are a Hindu, may I know why do you dislike Krishna?

My ancestry is Nalanda and Pataliputra [Maurya empire]. Of course I am Indian. My Indian and Bihari identity are blood related, not acquired.

 

[magra]

My ancestry is Nalanda and Pataliputra [Maurya empire]. Of course I am Indian. My Indian and Bihari identity are blood related, not acquired.

Why do you dislike Krishna?

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

If you are a Muslim, you have no reason to believe Krishna's existence. If you are a Hindu, may I know why do you dislike Krishna?

Krishna advising Pandava to kill Jarasandh for really no reason is enough reason to be hostile to him. Krishna was also reputed to be a playboy. Jarasandh was the same clan as Kshatriya Deva Ram which is my clan. Our belief in God is unchanged. They were Muslim by belief.

 

[Pak Nationalist]

A very important discussion. Until we do not base our identity on our land and its history (the history of our ancestors), we will remain astray. The day Pakistan begins seeing itself as a civilizational state like Persians, Chinese, Egyptians, etc., our rise would become a matter of time and a foregone conclusion. I have maintained at various fora that GOP's investment in the archeological department could be instrumental in constructing a national myth backed by evidence. As someone pointed out above, India cannot explain its origins without Pakistan. Today, the lands that we call Pakistan were the birthplace of the Vedic culture that was a synthesis of the migrating Central Asian Aryan and Indus inhabitants' belief systems. Vedas were compiled in our lands and from here moved Eastwards to the Gangetic plains. The first moves towards the subcontinent's cultural sophistication, in short, could be traced back to the lands of Indus. In antiquity, our land birthed the great Gandharan civilization.

So, Pakistan has to be begun to be perceived and marketed by fellow Pakistanis as the first successful nation-building project of Indus nations (all our major ethnicities) that has resulted in a super Indus state. A realization of the larger picture and a shared destiny would inculcate unity among our people and spark a drive to compete with the other world civilizations to rekindle the glory of ancient Indus and Gandhara.

 

[GumNaam]

My question was to @GumNaam since he believes Pakistan's history starts from Qasim's invasion.

to answer your question, Pakistanis in general disown and consider irrelevant their genetic linkages with their ancient indigenous ancestry while those same Pakistanis in general proudly own and identify with historic figures like Muhammed bin Qasim, Babur, Mehmood Ghaznavi and what you...and as we all know, it's what the masses "identify" with is what's considered as their "identify". pretty straight forward really, not rocket science...

Does this mean you forsake all legacy of your area prior to Qasim's arrival?
No complaints if we consider prior history as solely Indian history?

it is irrelevant to us and we don't consider it as even worthy of the word "legacy".

Does Islam teaches you to discriminate or ridicule based on skin color?

Islam doesn't while hinduism does. Islam makes any and all discrimination illegal and you know it. when you are a follower of a religion & culture that it riddled with systemic discrimination, I wouldn't ask such loaded questions if I was you.

 

[magra]

Krishna advising Pandava to kill Jarasandh for really no reason is enough reason to be hostile to him.

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

Krishna was also reputed to be a playboy.

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.

They were Muslim by belief.

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?

 

[FuturePAF]

A very important discussion. Until we do not base our identity on our land and its history (the history of our ancestors), we will remain astray. The day Pakistan begins seeing itself as a civilizational state like Persians, Chinese, Egyptians, etc., our rise would become a matter of time and a foregone conclusion. I have maintained at various fora that GOP's investment in the archeological department could be instrumental in constructing a national myth backed by evidence. As someone pointed out above, India cannot explain its origins without Pakistan. Today, the lands that we call Pakistan were the birthplace of the Vedic culture that was a synthesis of the migrating Central Asian Aryan and Indus inhabitants' belief systems. Vedas were compiled in our lands and from here moved Eastwards to the Gangetic plains. The first moves towards the subcontinent's cultural sophistication, in short, could be traced back to the lands of Indus. In antiquity, our land birthed the great Gandharan civilization.

So, Pakistan has to be begun to be perceived and marketed by fellow Pakistanis as the first successful nation-building project of Indus nations (all our major ethnicities) that has resulted in a super Indus state. A realization of the larger picture and a shared destiny would inculcate unity among our people and spark a drive to compete with the other world civilizations to rekindle the glory of ancient Indus and Gandhara.

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.

 

[magra]

to answer your question, Pakistanis in general disown and consider irrelevant their genetic linkages with their ancient indigenous ancestry while those same Pakistanis in general proudly own and identify with historic figures like Muhammed bin Qasim, Babur, Mehmood Ghaznavi and what you...and as we all know, it's what the masses "identify" with is what's considered as their "identify". pretty straight forward really, not rocket science...

it is irrelevant to us and we don't consider it as even worthy of the word "legacy".

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

Islam doesn't while hinduism does. Islam makes any and all discrimination illegal and you know it. when you are a follower of a religion & culture that it riddled with systemic discrimination, I wouldn't ask such loaded questions if I was you.

My question was to @hussain0216 who had made a skin color based remark.