The India Pakistan geographical divide is at least 1600 years old

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

The OP is a HERO. Only if most Indians were accepting of reality, South Asia would be a MUCH BETTER and peaceful place to live. The difference between Pakistan and India is not like East/West Germany but more like England and Ireland. The sooner we accept this reality, the better.

Even more than the difference between Ireland and England. The English and Irish are the same race but different ethnicities. Pakistanis and indians are different ethnicities AND DIFFERENT RACES.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

I feel sorry for the Pakistani people who lived like Indians before 1947.

Majority of them did not even know what "Indian was" and those that did were introduced to the concept by foreign occupiers (The British ). They followed Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun, Kashmiri, etc... ways of living and culture, which stems back to thousands of years not this recently invented Indian concept.

even if Marathas were very successful I seriously doubt whether they would have been hold onto any territory west of modern Indian Punjab...of course biggest mistake of the Marathas was the failure to take Bengal inspite of 10 years of trying

Marathas lost over a 100,000 men trying to hold onto the Indus region, they were booted out within a year and were never able to recover from their losses.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

but more like England and Ireland.

Nope. The average phenotype mode of Irish and English is same -

• If you placed 10 random Irish and English together they are indistinguishable.
• Irish and English share same religion.
• 99% of Irish and English have English as mother tongue.
• The cuisine, culture of Irish and English again is indistinguishable. One side you have Irish stew, on the other English stew, Irish roast, English roast, Irish colour everything green, the English red.

I would place the differance between Lebanese and Italians, or differance between Armenians and Iranians or Italians and English as about the same as India and Pakistan.

Majority of them did not even know what "Indian was" and those that did were introduced to the concept by foreign occupiers (The British ). They followed Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun, Kashmiri, etc... ways of living and culture, which stems back to thousands of years not this recently invented Indian concept.

10/10. Brilliant summation.

 

[God Parshuram]

Majority of them did not even know what "Indian was" and those that did were introduced to the concept by foreign occupiers (The British ). They followed Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun, Kashmiri, etc... ways of living and culture, which stems back to thousands of years not this recently invented Indian concept.


Marathas lost over a 100,000 men trying to hold onto the Indus region, they were booted out within a year and were never able to recover from their losses.

You must be feeling proud of defeat of Marathas who came to save you guys from barbaric invaders.

And Maratha never recovered?


Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Even more than the difference between Ireland and England. The English and Irish are the same race but different ethnicities. Pakistanis and indians are different ethnicities AND DIFFERENT RACES.

The best analog for India and Pakistan is the difference between Northern Europe and Southern Europe which is essentially a racial and historical divide later legitimized through the religious divide between Protestantism and Catholicism..the darker Alpine races follow Catholicism while the substantially fairer Nordic races following Protestantism...of course, exceptions abound but the broad strokes cannot be denied...the darker Alpine races were directly under the Roman Empire, while the Nordic races were not

You must be feeling proud of defeat of Marathas who came to save you guys from barbaric invaders.

And Maratha never recovered?


Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

Victory at Panipat would have meant total destruction of the realms of Najibudullah and Shuja dullah in the early 1760s....may be even defeat of Nizam and Mysore during 1762 and 1763....finally culminating in the Battle of Buxar between Maratha and the British. may be The Marathas could have incorporated the Mysorean Rocket Corps before the Battle of Buxar...which most probably would have been a minor British tactical victory but strategic stalemate between Marathas and the British ...I would say...victory at Panipat would have meant that 2/3rds of India would have remained independent till the second World War...The Maratha part of India would have still come under the British and Allies, but only for a year or so like Iran....I have a complete alternate scenario of what if since 1761

Victory at Panipat would have also led complete cleansing of Muslims from co-terminous India and eventually Hindus from co-terminous Pakistan...1761 was a rude jolt that Hindus and Muslims cannot possibly live together.....only Muslims who have no Persian or Central Asian nobility in their blood could have been brought back to the fold of Hinduism at best

 

[Pakistani E]

The best analog for India and Pakistan is the difference between Northern Europe and Southern Europe which is essentially a racial and historical divide later legitimized through the religious divide between Protestantism and Catholicism..the darker Alpine races follow Catholicism while the substantially fairer Nordic races following Protestantism...of course, exceptions abound but the broad strokes cannot be denied...the darker Alpine races were directly under the Roman Empire, while the Nordic races were not




Victory at Panipat would have meant total destruction of the realms of Najibudullah and Shuja dullah in the early 1760s....may be even defeat of Nizam and Mysore during 1762 and 1763....finally culminating in the Battle of Buxar between Maratha and the British. may be The Marathas could have incorporated the Mysorean Rocket Corps before the Battle of Buxar...which most probably would have been a minor British tactical victory but strategic stalemate between Marathas and the British ...I would say...victory at Panipat would have meant that 2/3rds of India would have remained independent till the second World War...The Maratha part of India would have still come under the British and Allies, but only for a year or so like Iran....I have a complete alternate scenario of what if since 1761

Victory at Panipat would have also led complete cleansing of Muslims from co-terminous India and eventually Hindus from co-terminous Pakistan...1761 was a rude jolt that Hindus and Muslims cannot possibly live together.....only Muslims who have no Persian or Central Asian nobility in their blood could have been brought back to the fold of Hinduism at best

Hello brother. Welcome back, good to see you here again. You, amongst others, are the types of posters we desperately need on PDF these days.

 

[W.11]

The following passage from Hou Hanshu which is a chinese historical text refutes the notion that india was a single large kingdom but reiterates that it is made up of numerous kingdoms, even though these kingdoms were free, they all still called themselves Juandu/ India

Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
starting with Persians,
continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....

The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.

------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---

1)Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that
time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.

The argument that since the NW India had to suffer multiple pulse of invasions i-e huns, kushans etc makes them separate is clearly elaborated in the text which states that the NW India was subjected to Kushan rule but was still part of Juandu/India and had not converted into Kushans themselves. NW India was still distinct from the Kushan territories despite being ruled by the kushans.

regards