The only South Asians to defeat the Greeks-Mauryas

[Multani]

dont say all. lot of people in rural areas who are illiterate have misconception that he was muslim or that he was zul qarnain. if they find out this is false, and that he was pagan, respect will vanish. otherwise, what is difference between hulaku khan and sikandar? both were great conquerors, mass murderers and polytheists. thats why i say the most important single issue of Pakistan is education, esp. of the rural masses (majority), as lot of stupid ideas and being misled by bhangi fake pirs is cause of this.

And Sikandar e Azam is loved in all urban areas of Pakistan too not just the rural areas.

He is loved everywhere. Only in Iran there seems to be some antagonism. But even among the Turks there [ who are the majority in Iran racially ], his name is one of the most common names

 

[NKVD]

Read yourself

The Rig Veda mentions a Vedic tribe called Puru. So, there is a possibility of King Porus to be a descendent of the Puru tribe.[citation needed] Battle of the Ten Kings (dāśarājñá) is a battle alluded to in Mandala 7 of the Rig Veda (hymns 18, 33 and 83.4-8), the ancient Indian sacred collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns. It is a battle between Aryans (Vedic Indians) (an "internecine war", as the 1911 Britannica puts it, as opposed to the more frequent accounts of Aryans fighting Dasyus). It took place as Puru tribes, allied with other tribes of Punjab and guided by the royal sage Vishvamitra, oppose the Trtsu (Bharata) king Sudas in battle, but are defeated as was celebrated in a provocative hymn of Sudas' poet and priest Vasistha (RV 7.18).

One scholar, Buddha Prakash, Professor of History and of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Director of the Institute of Indic Studies (1964); in his book Political and Social Movement in Ancient Punjab, states:

The Purus settled between the Asikni and the Parusni, whence they launched their onslaught on the Bharatas, and after the initial rebuff in the Dasarajna War, soon regrouped and resumed their march on the Yamuna and the Sarasvati and subsequently merged with the Bharatas, Some of their off-shoots lingered on in the Punjab and one of their scions played a notable part in the events of the time at Alexander's invitation. They probably survived in the Punjab under the name of Puri, which is a sub-caste of the Kshatriyas.[6]

Another scholar, Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi (1966) also seems to agree with this view[1] This view has other supporters in Hermann Kulke[2] and Naval Viyogi.[7]

 

[LURKER]

Lol, again Chanakaya was a teacher at Taxila, doesn't mean he is a native. Every ancient source including the Greeks have Chandragupta as Eastern Indian in origin. If he was Punjabi then why was his capital in Bihar? No one in the world has ever claimed as Punjabi, have some shame.

Its his inferiority complex that does not allow him to accept the fact that the present day Pakistan was ruled by a Bihari, Chandragupt Maurya.

 

[terro]

So all the ancient sources on the origins of Chandragupta Maurya can go for a toss because you believe so that he was a Punjabi Have some shame Shan

BTW Maurya was not just a name it's a Kshatriya caste .

It's also a Peacock taming caste, however all members of the caste are based in Eastern India. So he is definitely of UP/Bihar origin.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Most people in rural areas believe Sikander Azam was muslim.

Because they confuse persian sikandar , who is known as cyrus the great, with macedonian alexandar.
E.g you must have heard the story of sikandar (zolqarnain) meeting hazrat khizar (who had drink aab-e-hayat)

 

[Multani]

Biharis are actually one of the smartest races of people in India...Its their lack of education that has set them backwards...

if they were the smartest, then how are they backward in education?

you contradicted yourself

@save_ghenda

 

[Kabira]

Its his inferiority complex that does not allow him to accept the fact that the present day Pakistan was ruled by a Bihari, Chandragupt Maurya.

If you guys can give logical explanation why Maurya was not punjabi then i would agree.

 

[Multani]

Because they confuse persian sikandar , who is known as cyrus the great, with macedonian alexandar.
E.g you must have heard the story of sikandar (zolqarnain) meeting hazrat khizar (who had drink aab-e-hayat)

this cyrus theory is only of iran

not even afghans believe in it

 

[ShahidT]

Khatris? Khyber, sulieman mountains etc were inhabited by pashtuns or proto-pashtuns. Afridi tribe is mentioned by greek historians.
According to alberuni, many afghans/pashtuns were hindus and fought on behalf of jaipal against ghaznavi. It is clear that not all pashtuns have single origin. A portion of them were hindus of dardic origin.
Hindkowans came to peshawer during ranjeet singh times from punjab. Those in hazara, also came from punjab during mughal times. It was policy of mughals to not allow pashtun settlements on east of river indus, hindko districts of hazara lie east of indus.

i've read about the theory that pakhta of rigveda and apridai of heredotus' accounts referred to pakhtuns and afridis respectively, but there is still healthy debate about it. nothing is established, since as you said there are so many different origins of tribes from turkic, part mongol, iranic, etc. first time i'm reading dardic, except for some nuristanis who were assimilated into pashtuns. anyway dardics like kashmiris and hunza are very closely related to the original vedic peoples who wrote the scriptures, and most scholars consider formation of a distinct pashtun ethnic identity as happening at time of hepthalites expansion under white hun confederation -5th to 6th centuries A.D. but thanks for info i'll look more into this.

 

[terro]

Its his inferiority complex that does not allow him to accept the fact that the present day Pakistan was ruled by a Bihari, Chandragupt Maurya.

Lol. Every single reputed historian in South Asian studies say UP/Bihar as a definite location of birth and then some guy on the internet claims him as Punjabi

 

[Foot12]

Its his inferiority complex tht does not allow him to accept the fact that the present day Pakistan was ruled by a Bihari Chandragupt Maurya

Apparently the Gupta Empire of Bihar, the Pratihara Dynasty of Rajasthan and the Maratha Empire of Maharashtra also ruled parts of Pakistan.

 

[LURKER]

If you guys can give logical explanation why Maurya was not punjabi then i would agree.

Just pick up any ancient text Buddhist, Jain or any other all agree on his origins.

Even today Mauryas are found in Eastern India not Punjab

 

[terro]

If you guys can give logical explanation why Maurya was not punjabi then i would agree.

He was born in Pataliputra in modern day Bihar. There's a logical explanation.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Iskander is not mentioned in Qur'an Kareem.

People in Pakistan love Sikandar e Azam, and name their children after him. Because they love him, they give tashbih to him by saying he "could be" the just king mentioned in the Qur'an Kareem, Hazrat Dhul Qarnayn. And Islamic scholars do the same.

Oh bhai cyrus the great is known by many names, and had many titles, sikandar was one of them. Some how the people have confused the kafir invader with just and honourable king like cyrus the great (the true sikandar e azam)

 

[LURKER]

Apparently the Gupta Empire of Bihar, the Pratihara Dynasty of Rajasthan and the Maratha Empire of Maharashtra also ruled parts of Pakistan.

Thats too much butthurt for the day leave the poor guy alone, you dont wanna make him cry