The India Pakistan geographical divide is at least 1600 years old

[Joe Shearer]

Spread of Buddhism across the world was fully credited to Emperor Ashoka. It spread neither before or after him. In fact the 300 years gap between when Buddha lived and Buddism as religion was propagated has similarities how declining Roman emperors who started the spreading Christianity 300 years after the Jesus. The Kushan empire (30-300 CE) that followed Ashoka/Mauryan empire (350-100 BCE) and the Gupta Empire (300-600 CE) that followed Kushan empire followed a mix of Vedic religions, Buddhism and Jainism. Note that Ellora temples have Shiva, Buddha and Mahavira temples all next to each other in a single compound as people never felt any major differences between them. Also, Vedic religions were never meant to be propagated and were primarily supported in the sub continent (Note vedas were not supposed to written and were passed generation to generation vocally) while Buddhism was simplified form where one did not have understand Vedas, perform any rituals or worry about varna in far away foreign lands. Hence it was used as a vehicle for propagation of thoughts due to its simplicity.



There is no proof for this statement. All we know is Hinduism was followed by the kingdoms of west Asia, Arab lands, Slavic countries and Steppes of Central Asia. Genetic scientists and Historians are still debating and everyone has their own theory.







Firstly Rig Veda was not composed in 1700 BCE. Vedas predate Ramayana (around 10000 BCE) and Mahabharata (8000 BCE). The last ice age was 12000 BCE. The melting waters first widened the palk strait after Ramarana and later submerged the city of Dwaraka after Mahabharata. The idols and references to Vedic gods in Russia & West Asia are all between 4000 - 2000 BCE. So Vedic religions may have expanded and then contracted like they did in South East Asia. The spilt between Avestan/Asuras and Sanskrit/Vedic/Suras has happened prior to 10000 BCE.

@SarthakGanguly

Were you kidding? You liked this?

 

[niaz]

In addition to the Himalayas in the north and sea to the south; during the 5000 year history of the subcontinent, numerous independent kingdoms have come up and disappeared where a large river and or a desert formed the natural boundary. A few regions, namely Baluchistan, Assam & Chittagong Hill tracts; though currently part of the subcontinent countries; have not historically been part of the region called India. For example:

Baluchistan has traditionally been part of Iranian / Afghan empires and was never mentioned in any old text as being part of any kingdom originating East of the Suleiman mountain range.

Even though Khyber Pass is the historical gateway to India, Herodotus considers India as east of river Indus. IMO this so because Greek information was taken from the Persian texts where limits of the old Persian Empire was the Indus valley and land east of the Persian empire was India.

River Indus was often taken as north-western boundary of India, even river Sutlej has been sometimes considered as beginning of India. For example, the name Sirhind literally means Head (top part) of India in Persian. Sirhand is about 45 Km West of Chandigarh.

Assam was also a totally independent country ruled by what Hindu historians call Mlecccha dynasty until it was annexed by Barahmapala, Pala king of Bengal around 900 AD. Korpos Mohol (Chittagong Hill tracts) was part of Burma and only annexed by the British in1860.

Conversely there were long periods of history when KPK, Punjab & Sind were part of the Indian empires.

Vindhyachal mountain range virtually divides India in two parts. Southern part known by the northerners simply as ‘Deccan’ or South. Except for brief periods, the Southern regions have been independent of the north Indian Kingdoms. Therefore South Indians have a rich culture, history and language quite different from their northern compatriots. Many a South Indians I came across in the UAE did not understand Urdu/Hindi forcing me to communicate in English, whereas majority of north Indians & Pakistanis can converse with each other without a problem.

The point I am trying to make is that the subcontinent is a vast, linguistically and culturally diverse region where empires and their boundaries regularly change. India of today, despite it is much truncated form, could easily break into 3 or 4 powerful countries (say) 100 years from now. Simultaneously the possibility of Pakistan, India & Bangla Desh re-joining to create a Confederation of South East states cannot be completely ruled out either.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

In addition to the Himalayas in the north and sea to the south; during the 5000 year history of the subcontinent, numerous independent kingdoms have come up and disappeared where a large river and or a desert formed the natural boundary. A few regions, namely Baluchistan, Assam & Chittagong Hill tracts; though currently part of the subcontinent countries; have not historically been part of the region called India. For example:

Baluchistan has traditionally been part of Iranian / Afghan empires and was never mentioned in any old text as being part of any kingdom originating East of the Suleiman mountain range.

Even though Khyber Pass is the historical gateway to India, Herodotus considers India as east of river Indus. IMO this so because Greek information was taken from the Persian texts where limits of the old Persian Empire was the Indus valley and land east of the Persian empire was India.

River Indus was often taken as north-western boundary of India, even river Sutlej has been sometimes considered as beginning of India. For example, the name Sirhind literally means Head (top part) of India in Persian. Sirhand is about 45 Km West of Chandigarh.

Assam was also a totally independent country ruled by what Hindu historians call Mlecccha dynasty until it was annexed by Barahmapala, Pala king of Bengal around 900 AD. Korpos Mohol (Chittagong Hill tracts) was part of Burma and only annexed by the British in1860.

Conversely there were long periods of history when KPK, Punjab & Sind were part of the Indian empires.

Vindhyachal mountain range virtually divides India in two parts. Southern part known by the northerners simply as ‘Deccan’ or South. Except for brief periods, the Southern regions have been independent of the north Indian Kingdoms. Therefore South Indians have a rich culture, history and language quite different from their northern compatriots. Many a South Indians I came across in the UAE did not understand Urdu/Hindi forcing me to communicate in English, whereas majority of north Indians & Pakistanis can converse with each other without a problem.

The point I am trying to make is that the subcontinent is a vast, linguistically and culturally diverse region where empires and their boundaries regularly change. India of today, despite it is much truncated form, could easily break into 3 or 4 powerful countries (say) 100 years from now. Simultaneously the possibility of Pakistan, India & Bangla Desh re-joining to create a Confederation of South East states cannot be completely ruled out either.

The South was on a trajectory to form multiple independent ethno-kingdoms, proto-Nation states until the campaigns of Malik Kafur/Khilji dynasty wrecked that evolution in early 14th century. After that time, the polities of the Deccan were compelled to embrace a much more "Hindu"/religious identity in order to organise their states , rather than ethno-regional identities. This eventually led to the rise of the Vijaynagara Empire...It is the South's experience with Vijaynagara Empire in the past that led to its easy assimilation into the Indian Union in 1947. If the expeditions of the Delhi Sultanates had not happened, Southern states would have remained defiantly independent and distinct polities even post 1947, as they would have shared little of the Northern tussle between Nomadic and Indo-Aryan empires

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Baluchistan has traditionally been part of Iranian

The Balochistan highlands that drain into Indus basin have been integral to Indus region from very early history. For example Mehr garh [even Mundigak in Afgh] and other proto-IVC sites have direct linkage with Indus. And your assertion about Balochistan/Iran is true but that is also applicable to the Indus River [western bank] as having been part of the Iran based empires.

Afghan empires

Afghan empire is of very recent vintage and it extended to present day Pakistan.

What is so exciting about looking at dawn of history is how the region that is coterminous to Pakistan is fulcrum of tectonic events in history. Indus really does stand out as the cradle of civilization. Furthermore there is direct connection between Indus and the regions to west of us as is obvious in the map below.

And this map below really does bring home how coterminous Pakistan is the cradle of the ancient world. Anything and everything has a axis in coterminous Pakistan. Ganga is not even in the "picture".

If I had a choice all this would be compulsory education in Pakistan. In 20 years our young would be walking with such swagger they would make Iranians or Egyptians look like feeble identity afflicted people. Our young would be confident and proud of their ancestry and not suffering from issue of self worth and craving for other peoples causes. I can't think of any other land with such rich history as ours and yet we suffer from confidence and identity issues. It's tragic.

 

[Post Colonnial]

Always interesting to see somebody (@Juggernaut_is_here) take pains to provide a decent rationale for conclusions, which is mostly absent in defence.pk otherwise.

Question though is, why the assumption that Indians want a merger with Pakistan? For the Hindu majority wouldn't it be a relief that a large proportion of muslims are thus pushed off their country? I have seen a number of references to ancestors of Pakistanis were all Hindus, converted at the point of a bloody inavding sword - this I think Indians say it to get under the Pakistani's skin, more than anything else. Actually your geo-political view over time will add weight to that argument - that the areas where the invading sword was strongest became most concentrated with muslims (ofcourse this does not explain all of it).

Geographic relief drives everything. There was a reason civilizations formed around river banks

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Here is a map from a study which concludes that Harappa/Indus was a continuum of the Mesopotamian civilizations. Modern Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan were linked with Pakistan in the past.

Notice how the above map fits in with the one below.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095714

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Always interesting to see somebody (@Juggernaut_is_here) take pains to provide a decent rationale for conclusions, which is mostly absent in defence.pk otherwise.

Question though is, why the assumption that Indians want a merger with Pakistan? For the Hindu majority wouldn't it be a relief that a large proportion of muslims are thus pushed off their country? I have seen a number of references to ancestors of Pakistanis were all Hindus, converted at the point of a bloody inavding sword - this I think Indians say it to get under the Pakistani's skin, more than anything else. Actually your geo-political view over time will add weight to that argument - that the areas where the invading sword was strongest became most concentrated with muslims (ofcourse this does not explain all of it).

Geographic relief drives everything. There was a reason civilizations formed around river banks

Pakistan was more under the influence of nomadic Buddhist Kingdoms than Hindu Kingdoms..Even when they were under nomadic Kingdoms which were Hindu (conversion by rulers from Central Asian Iranic/Shamanic rites,in order to gain Legitimacy), the hand of religion was not heavy upon them

The Mahabharata specifically mentions (written between 400 BCE and 400 AD), that the lands of the Indus became unfit for Vedic sacrifice after intrusion of more and more fierce Mlecchas from the North-West



Okay I am going to be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR among everybody here, but I will give you the reason why Indians want merger with Pakistan. After having interacted with Indians from a variety of regions, mindsets, piety level, religiosity level, socio-economic status , here is my conclusion....I am here implying Hindu Indians, as it is very very offensive to pose the question of merger to Muslim Indians:

Indians from certain regions want merger with Pakistan. They would be ones from Jammu and Kashmir,Punjab,Himachal,Uttarkhand,Haryana,Western UP,Delhi,Western MP,Gujarat,Rajasthan.

But not ALL Indians from those regions want merger..Brahmins from those regions will shake in disbelief at the prospect of merger.

It is the Higher caste Kshatriyas from those regions that want merger, and that too those who donot tend be very religious.

Why?

Simple Reason: Loss of Looks. They feel Partition left India with a severe loss in good looking people. Good looking as per their consensus being relatively Fairer skin and Sharper Facial Features.....

Indians from other parts donot share this opinion, such as me being Bengali


You asked for it..Now don't flame me

 

[Imad.Khan]

All nations share similarities with their neigbouring countries. Pakistan and India have been separate countries for over 70 years now. So not sure what this discussion will achieve.

 

[Kabira]

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.

Any link? Would like to read more on it. Huns were turkic like and quite possibly looked part mongloid?

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Barbaric invaders looted our lands but they cannot claim to own our rich culture and legacy.

Can you please give me evidence that we were barbaric invaders that looted your lands and that the IVC belongs to your heritage?

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Any link? Would like to read more on it. Huns were turkic like and quite possibly looked part mongloid?

Study this plate..replace the dots with symbols and take out the spaces. The Kushan Shah (also known as Indo-Sassanids) and Gupta alliance defeated the Sassanids and the Hunas in 368 AD and 370 AD respectively.

dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=062



If you want to study more on the Huns and pre-Islamic Turks that invaded the subcontinent,the Hindu Turki Shahis,The Brahmana/Brahmin Hindu Shahis as well as the Arab conquest of Afghanistan, go through the extensive resources of the University of Vienna.

pro dot geo dot univie dot ac dot at/projects/khm/showcases?language=en




Huns that invaded India were more caucasoid and white skin, rather than Mongoloid ...But I suspect that their soldiers were drawn from both nomadic Caucasoid races and nomadic Mongoloid races, with some being mixed of the two..I suspect they spoke proto-Turkic, inspite of being fair complexioned Caucasoids..They practiced Skull Deformation though

 

[livingdead]

Its a good read, thanks for the post @Juggernaut_is_here ... especially for keeping the tone more or less neutral

 

[bananarepublic]

Study this plate..replace the dots with symbols and take out the spaces. The Kushan Shah (also known as Indo-Sassanids) and Gupta alliance defeated the Sassanids and the Hunas in 368 AD and 370 AD respectively.

dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=062



If you want to study more on the Huns and pre-Islamic Turks that invaded the subcontinent,the Hindu Turki Shahis,The Brahmana/Brahmin Hindu Shahis as well as the Arab conquest of Afghanistan, go through the extensive resources of the University of Vienna.

pro dot geo dot univie dot ac dot at/projects/khm/showcases?language=en




Huns that invaded India were more caucasoid and white skin, rather than Mongoloid ...But I suspect that their soldiers were drawn from both nomadic Caucasoid races and nomadic Mongoloid races, with some being mixed of the two..I suspect they spoke proto-Turkic, inspite of being fair complexioned Caucasoids..They practiced Skull Deformation though

there is a race of people here called the hunzakutz which some historian say are decedents of the huns also their language is unique and very scarce and the only similar language found has been in the salvic region. historians also say that the huns crossed the karakuram mountain to reach the IVC and other parts of india. but some people also say that hunzakutz are also descendant of Alexander army when they crossed this region

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

there is a race of people here called the hunzakutz which some historian say are decedents of the huns also their language is unique and very scarce and the only similar language found has been in the salvic region. historians also say that the huns crossed the karakuram mountain to reach the IVC and other parts of india. but some people also say that hunzakutz are also descendant of Alexander army when they crossed this region

You mean Indus Valley rather than Indus Valley Civilization right? I doubt the Historians were suggesting that Huns were present in pre-2000 BC

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Pakistan was more under the influence of nomadic Buddhist Kingdoms than Hindu Kingdoms..Even when they were under nomadic Kingdoms which were Hindu (conversion by rulers from Central Asian Iranic/Shamanic rites,in order to gain Legitimacy), the hand of religion was not heavy upon them

The Mahabharata specifically mentions (written between 400 BCE and 400 AD), that the lands of the Indus became unfit for Vedic sacrifice after intrusion of more and more fierce Mlecchas from the North-West



Okay I am going to be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR among everybody here, but I will give you the reason why Indians want merger with Pakistan. After having interacted with Indians from a variety of regions, mindsets, piety level, religiosity level, socio-economic status , here is my conclusion....I am here implying Hindu Indians, as it is very very offensive to pose the question of merger to Muslim Indians:

Indians from certain regions want merger with Pakistan. They would be ones from Jammu and Kashmir,Punjab,Himachal,Uttarkhand,Haryana,Western UP,Delhi,Western MP,Gujarat,Rajasthan.

But not ALL Indians from those regions want merger..Brahmins from those regions will shake in disbelief at the prospect of merger.

It is the Higher caste Kshatriyas from those regions that want merger, and that too those who donot tend be very religious.

Why?

Simple Reason: Loss of Looks. They feel Partition left India with a severe loss in good looking people. Good looking as per their consensus being relatively Fairer skin and Sharper Facial Features.....

Indians from other parts donot share this opinion, such as me being Bengali


You asked for it..Now don't flame me

ROFL...