The number zero was invented in Ancient Pakistan

[RVS_108]

The pakistanis claims tht the todays pakistanis are the descendants of Ancient Indians of pakistani region. anyways,we cud have accepted tht Pakistanis are descendants of Ancient Indian just like how we Indians are ,but the problem is Historicaly speaking the pakistanis region are mostly attacked/effected and invaded by foreigners but if it was purely political then also we cud hav accepted the pakistani claims but again there is a problem coz It was not just a Islamic invasion of Sindh,multan,Kandahar,etc but there was also something called Islamic Genocide of Indians "Hindu/buddhists/Jains " in Sindh,multan,kandahar,hinduKush,Lahore,kashmir etc

proof: search "persecution of hindus" in wikipedia
search hinduholocaust in google

Hence,descendents of Ancient Indians of Islamic Pakistan literally mostly are either dead or some of them migrated to regions of other Indian kingdoms or todays pakistani hindus (whose ancestors wer so rich tht they cud hav paid huge taxes to remain alive as hindu) or low caste pakistani moslem who has sanskritized names/surnames .
well still Ancient Pakistani is purely a myth.

 

[LaBong]

I have said this a million times before. There is no evidence of a mass migration from the Indus Valley to North India. This is purely an Indian belief. Who were the original north Indians if this mass migration took place?

Silly argument. There's no prove of today's Pakistani populace being the successor of IVC as well. The only proof is that of linguistic/cultural/religious heritage, and North India certainly fits the bill.

Why do you think there's no original north Indians? Just because there's no discontinuation of civilization like that of IVC?

Why derail an argument? We are talking about the Indus region and the fact that Pakistanis are native to this region. Bengalis are another matter.

It's not derailment. The only reason of claiming them ancient Pakistani or whatever, is to detach them from India. Once again the bogey of India is in effect here. There's a heaven and hell difference between ancient Pakistani and ancient Gujratis/Punjabis/Sindhish.

Pakistan was an idea which tried to unite Punjabis to Pashtuns to Bangladeshis/East Pakistanis, by narrowing down the definition, you're only invalidating the very idea which gave you a separate nation.

 

[Developereo]

It is true that the correct name for India is Bharat. But it should be noted that when the ancient Greeks used the word India, they meant the entire Indian subcontinent, with capital at Patna.

Precisely!
And the practice continues to this day where the adjective 'Indian' is used to describe everything south Asian, from Pakistan to Bangladesh, and Nepal to Sri Lanka.

It doesn't make the adjective true or appropriate; all it does is show the ignorance or laziness of the user. To many outsiders, its easy to lump everything together as 'Indian'.

This is why the Indians' use of foreign sources, ancient or modern, to prove their claim is flawed. The Westerners don't bother distinguishing between the different regions of south Asia, even ignoring modern political reality.

my only question is why is nonmuslim population around 5 % and why is hindu population around 1.5 %...when after partition it was around 20%...... ?????

This has been answered over and over. The vast majority of Pakistani Hindus were in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) where they still form a big chunk of the population.

West Pakistan had a population of 31 million at partition. Partition migration is estimated at 6 million Muslms to Pakistan so, assuming that half of them, i.e. 3 million, came to West Pakistan as opposed to East Pakistan, we can say that about 90% of current Pakistanis have native ancestral lineage.

The only reason of claiming them ancient Pakistani or whatever, is to detach them from India. Once again the bogey of India is in effect here. There's a heaven and hell difference between ancient Pakistani and ancient Gujratis/Punjabis/Sindhish.

Irrelevant.

As has been said, there is a world of difference between modern Greeks and ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians and ancient Egypt. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with geographical heritage. You guys are hung up on the word ancient 'Pakistani'. As others have pointed out, pick another word, call them ancient IVC or whatever, to soothe the knee-jerk aversion to the word 'Pakistani'.

And, like I said, people of Gujarat also have right to that heritage.

 

[Jade]

Precisely!

As has been said, there is a world of difference between modern Greeks and ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians and ancient Egypt. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with geographical heritage. You guys are hung up on the word ancient 'Pakistani'. As others have pointed out, pick another word, call them ancient IVC or whatever, to soothe the knee-jerk aversion to the word 'Pakistani'.

And, like I said, people of Gujarat also have right to that heritage.

I think no amount of evidence would do... Please refer to the posts #384, #387, #388.

So either Pakistanis are Dravidian or they have no claim to IVC

 

[Developereo]

I think no amount of evidence would do... Please refer to the posts #384, #387, #388.

So either Pakistanis are Dravidian or they have no claim to IVC

The only way IVC and Gandhara can be divorced from modern-day Pakistan is if there was a massive right-shift of populations. The people of these civilizations all moved to India, and were completely replaced by migration from the west.

Does anybody seriously believe that?

The only other alternative is that the descendents of those civilizations continue to live in the same geographical locations, i.e. modern-day Pakistan.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Precisely!
And the practice continues to this day where the adjective 'Indian' is used to describe everything south Asian, from Pakistan to Bangladesh, and Nepal to Sri Lanka.

It doesn't make the adjective true or appropriate; all it does is show the ignorance or laziness of the user. To many outsiders, its easy to lump everything together as 'Indian'.

This is why the Indians' use of foreign sources, ancient or modern, to prove their claim is flawed. The Westerners don't bother distinguishing between the different regions of south Asia, even ignoring modern political reality.

What has 'modern political reality' got to do with identity of man/community/culture/region etc. that is more than a couple of thousand years old. Isn't it what we are arguing for (and you are arguing against) - that past can't be identified in terms of modern political identity.

At a more micro level the Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Nepalis or Sri Lankans are more similar than they are different. We all come from a common stock. Which means, when ancient foreign travelers arrived in this region, more than 2000 years ago, the _current_ diversity didn't exist and was relatively virgin. That is not to say that the population was not diverse, but that diversity was much less in degree and extent and was of the hue that was appropriate and relevant for that time. Using today's diversity as a basis to identify an ancient culture, community or even a region is a ridiculous proposition.

The Westerners, i.e western historians, do bother and to go to great lengths to make the distinction of the current regions so that it is easier for lazy readers such as you and me to get an idea of the region they are talking about. But whenever they have to refer to the ancient region that is currently occupied by Pakistan, they invariably use the term 'ancient India which is currently Pakistan', or words to that effect, and not 'ancient Pakistan'. That term is bad history.

 

[Jade]

The only way IVC and Gandhara can be divorced from modern-day Pakistan is if there was a massive right-shift of populations. The people of these civilizations all moved to India, and were completely replaced by migration from the west.

Does anybody seriously believe that?

The only other alternative is that the descendents of those civilizations continue to live in the same geographical locations, i.e. modern-day Pakistan.

Sadly logic won’t work in History…evidence do. The seals discovered during the excavations, statuary and pottery, ruins of numerous Indus Valley cities, clearly points towards Aryan invasion theory. This has lead the indigenous IVC people to migrate south.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

I think no amount of evidence would do... Please refer to the posts #384, #387, #388.

So either Pakistanis are Dravidian or they have no claim to IVC

IVC is a shared history of South Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans all have claims to it. No body has exclusive claim to IVC.

 

[Jade]

IVC is a shared history of South Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans all have claims to it. No body has exclusive claim to IVC.

As far as the evidence goes, shared history yes but shared inheritances no. IVC inhabitants are certainly not Aryans, and there is enough evidence to prove the Aryan invasion theory. The evidence points towards two possibilities, either IVC inhabitants are extinct or they moved down south...why do you think the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered down to the present day is because there is a lack of continuity from IVC inhabitants to present day

 

[Pagla Dashu]

As far as the evidence goes, IVC is not the shared history of South Asia. IVC inhabitants are certainly not Aryans, and there is enough evidence to prove the Aryan invasion theory. The evidence points towards two possibilities, either IVC inhabitants are extinct or they moved down south...why do you think the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered down to the present day is because there is a lack of continuity from IVC inhabitants to present day

If we do consider that IVC residents were direct ancestors of the Dravidians, then where does it leave all other Indians, forget Pakistanis.

Perhaps history is not that linear.

 

[Developereo]

What has 'modern political reality' got to do with identity of man/community/culture/region etc. that is more than a couple of thousand years old. Isn't it what we are arguing for (and you are arguing against) - that past can't be identified in terms of modern political identity.

By modern political reality, I meant that foreigners generally talk of Indian food or music or dress, even though the actual item may come from Pakistan or Bangladesh, etc. Most foreigners lump south Asian culture into one bucket, generically referred to as 'Indian'.

Using today's diversity as a basis to identify an ancient culture, community or even a region is a ridiculous proposition.

The claim is based on geography and historical artifacts. Genetics is only used to refute claims of mass population shifts.

The Westerners, i.e western historians, do bother and to go to great lengths to make the distinction of the current regions so that it is easier for lazy readers such as you and me to get an idea of the region they are talking about. But whenever they have to refer to the ancient region that is currently occupied by Pakistan, they invariably use the term 'ancient India which is currently Pakistan', or words to that effect, and not 'ancient Pakistan'. That term is bad history.

Foreign scholars use the phrase 'ancient India' in deference to its use in historical texts which, as I have indicated, was sloppy wording by people throughout the ages. Certainly there were brief periods when these lands were united under common rule, but they were exactly that -- brief periods. For most of its history, the lands comprising modern Pakistan were not ruled by Gangetic rulers.

Sadly logic won’t work in History…evidence do. The seals discovered during the excavations, statuary and pottery, ruins of numerous Indus Valley cities, clearly points towards Aryan invasion theory. This has lead the indigenous IVC people to migrate south.

Certainly there were waves of migration/invasion from the north and the west, but the invasions did not completely replace the populations. They merely blended in and interbred. Some IVC Dravidians surely fled to the east and south as refugees, but it is illogical to suggest that they all fled, leaving the ruins to the invading Aryans. As others, including Indians, have pointed out, North Indians and Pakistanis are essentially very similar genetically. If there was such a dramatic population replacement, Pakistanis would be very different from most Indians.

IVC is a shared history of South Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans all have claims to it. No body has exclusive claim to IVC.

It's a matter of degree. The further away you go from the core cities of Harappa, Taxila and Mohenjo-daro, the less relevance IVC has to these cultures. Taking your own argument in reverse, the Dravidian refugees from Aryan invasions would form a miniscule percentage of the already established, indigenous population. Modern day Tamil Nadu laying claikm to IVC would be like USA laying claim to ancient Greek heritage because of a few thousand Greek-American migrants.

 

[Jade]

If we do consider that IVC residents were direct ancestors of the Dravidians, then where does it leave all other Indians, forget Pakistanis.

Perhaps history is not that linear.

70% of Indian are of Indo Aryan ethnicity.

Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
South Asian ethnic groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jade]

Certainly there were waves of migration/invasion from the north and the west, but the invasions did not completely replace the populations. They merely blended in and interbred. Some IVC Dravidians surely fled to the east and south as refugees, but it is illogical to suggest that they all fled, leaving the ruins to the invading Aryans. As others, including Indians, have pointed out, North Indians and Pakistanis are essentially very similar genetically. If there was such a dramatic population replacement, Pakistanis would be very different from most Indians.

It is like saying every one is African, after all genetic code of all inhabitants of this world can be traced to Africa

 

[Developereo]

It is like saying every one is African, after all genetic code of all inhabitants of this world can be traced to Africa

Not really. Take two groups:

Group A: An African, a European, a Chinese, an Indian, a Latino, an Eskimo, and a Pacific Islander.

Group B: Five Pakistanis and five North Indians.

Most people would be able to correctly classify the people in group A, but would have a hard time telling people apart in group B.

 

[Jade]

Not really. Take two groups:

Group A: An African, a European, a Chinese, an Indian, a Latino, an Eskimo, and a Pacific Islander.

Group B: Five Pakistanis and five North Indians.

Most people would be able to correctly classify the people in group A, but would have a hard time telling people apart in group B.

The first is a result of 100's of years of segregation and geography. The second is not the same...wait for another 200 years you can easily identify a Pakistani from an Indian