So, do you agree that Indians and Pakistanis are the same?
I agree that all humans are the same. Are Indians, Pakistanis, Germans, Canadians etc human? If they are, then they must be the same.
Exactly. And Indians definitely didn't look at Muslim invaders "equally" when they were being conquered.
The peoples conquered by the Maurya or Prithvi Raj Chauhan may not have looked upon the invaders "equally" or with "kindness" either. Similarly, the various peoples conquered by the Muslims may not have looked upon them "equally" either.
Ok I think are getting confused here.
Tell me, when you look at a Chinese temple, a Greek temple and a Hindu temple, which three civilizations come to your mind?
I don't think "Indian Civilization" when I look at a Indus Valley ruin, or the Shalimar Gardens in Lahore (Mughal Era) or a Hindu temple. When I see a Hindu Temple, I see Hindu culture, just as I see Muslim culture in a mosque - not a civilization.
I think you are forcing the idea of a monolithic civilization on South Asia, when anyone can see that it has been home to multiple civilizations and cultures.
And what is the reason for this shared consciousness? Why should this consciousness exclude the people of India and Iraq?
Religion, similarities in culture, language, history etc.
Religion is not the overwhelming identifier (which explains why Iraq is not part of the equation), though some thinkers argue it is, and do advocate an "Ummah". Religion is an important part of the identity matrix however and that is why India is not part of that shared consciousness.
Wait, so Babur wasn't an invader?
He was the "natural" bringer of Islam to the lands of Pakistan, which is kinda strange because Islam was NOT foreign to Pakistan?
Did Hinduism (or Vedism or whatever) just spontaneously manifest itself in all of South Asia?
Even if it was completely indigenous, then the ideology was created in some place in South Asia, and it spread to the different peoples and nations of South Asia - so this ideology too was alien to very many people who did not create it and to whom it was brought - just as Islam was alien to the people it was initially brought to.
The problem I have with your argument is that you completely ignore the fact that "Hinduism/vedism" also had to be "spread" and accepted by people it was alien to in South Asia after it was created - it was just as foreign to them as Islam was.
And then you arbitrarily draw boundaries for this "Ancient India" to excuse this spread of "Alien/foreign Vedic ideology", and then denigrate another similar "alien ideology" as being "foreign", because it is outside your arbitrarily drawn borders.
The fact is that since it is not possible for "Vedism/Hindusim" to have simultaneously come into being all over South Asia, it was alien to people at one point in time and spread as a part of the "cultural social evolution" I mentioned - and a similar evolution occurred with the arrival of Islam. Hence my argument that either there is no foreign ideology, or they are all foreign - it just depends on how far back in history you go, and arbitrarily picking a time line to declare Islamic influences as "foreign" is disingenuous.
^^Do you realize how confused that sounds?
Dude, you are tying yourself up in knots.
Stealth - enough with the "confused" comments. Either explain why you disagree or don't say anything.