The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with
@Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years.
That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru)
This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam
The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
I) Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
II)Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
III)Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-arrived Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
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.
Answer:Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
NorthWest..
These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones
Gupta Empire---------All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.
Harsha's empire------Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan
Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)-----------All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan
Pala Empire-
---------Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily
Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area.
One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.
2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit.
Answer:I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century.
Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity.
3) The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.
Answer:This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples.
One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism. Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel.
Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence.
One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only.
This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:
Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion.
Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
"
14) If a man wishes that a son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
15) If a man wishes that a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
16) If a man wishes that a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:
Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri.
The point is phenotype matters people! This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Closing Thoughts:
Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
India------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
Pakistan---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
Bangladesh-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
Nepal------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
Afghanistan-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
At the moment they are
India
Pakistan
Nepal
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
Maldives
If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
--------------------------------------That's All Folks----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------The End------------------------------------------------
PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked
