What's new

The Unexpected Origins Of The Name Pakistan

I will give you a detailed response later but sorry "Muslims dominant 100 years ago" is rather simplistic grab of reality and I have no idea what is informing it. Century before 1930s would take you to a independent Sindh under the Talpurs but all of Punjab and what is now K-Pk were under the crushing Sikh rule. Balochistan was fractured under khanates. But more then 70% of what is now Pakistan was under Sikh rule who rode over their Muslim subjects. So exactly how being under the boot of Sikhs translates to "dominant" is beyond me.


I was replying to your objection that the Two Nation Theory was a mere political slogan without any real substance. The address was delivered in 1930 and about 100 years was only meant to be an approximate timeline. If you like to be exact, I can help you.

Sikhs captured Lahore in 1799, Multan in 1818 & Peshawar in 1834.

Kashmir was under the Afghans until 1819

Sindh was occupied by the British in 1843.

States of Awadh & Rohilkhand existed until 1856. Delhi had a Mughal king until 1857.

Nawabs of Murshidabad succeeded Nawabs of Bengal after that title was abolished in 1880. They may not have had the military muscle like the Mughal King but they were still Nawabs.

Bhopal, a Pashtun state in Central India with an area of 17,000 sq Km remained an independent Muslim state despite being surrounded by the Maratha empire until 1949.
 
Last edited:
.
The origin of the word Hindustan or Hind or India is from a river in Pakistan. The Dutch called a bunch of islands in south East Asia as Indonesia meaning Indian islands...this does not mean that Indonesia can start claiming the indus river and the associated civilizations because the Dutch called them Indonesia. Similarly if the Mughals took a name which original referred to the Indus and then applied it to wherever they expanded their empire does not mean that Bharat is the heart land of Hind. Same for the British calling their empire British India.

The fact remains that the origin of Hind/ India is in Pakistan and not in Bharat. Of course there has been cross cultural exchange taking place due to the proximity as is the case with nearly all civilizations.

You're talking as if Sindhu is an exclusive Pakistani river which starts at Islamabad and ends at Karachi. But that's not the case really.

Sindhu is a Sanskrit word, it's mentioned in Rigveda - an ancient Indian text - 176 times!

Sindhu starts at Kailash Mansarovar, (which is a place of pilgrimage for all the Hindus around the world) it then enters in Ladakh region, passes through Jammu and Kashmir, and then finally enters in present day Pakistan (which itself was called Hindustan anyway because of the same river).

So no, Sindhu isn't an exclusive Pakistani river that you're trying to imply.

Unfortunately, your entire argument was based on poor knowledge of geography (I'm not even talking about history here). I expect you to know the geography before we even start talking about history.

But I appreciate your reply as it was calm and without any abuse. Cheers :)

If you consider a region of 1.8 billion people, hundreds of languages, ethnicities and several language families as "local" to yourself, then that's most certainly your own problem. There is no rational basis for this. Pakistanis certainly do not need to play along with your fantasies.

No problem, let's agree to disagree then. I'm basing my argument on the fact that this region was always known as Hind-Hindustan, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta, India or many names of India and India alone. Nobody linked it with China, Antarctica, Persia or Arabia or something remotely called Pakistan. You're free to believe otherwise.

Completely missing the point like usual. The name is an actual misnomer so making claims based on a known misnomer is plain idiotic. If you want to be consistent, then please include south east Asia, Philippines, parts of China too. All those regions were at one point or another known as India too. There are actual maps to prove this.
Is modern India the successor of every region that has been known as "India"?

Seems you're confused between India and Greater India.

India - or Indian subcontinent - is the historical and geographic extent of all political entities. Greater India on the other hand are the regions which are culturally linked to India or Indian subcontinent.

Hope that helps. Good day.

Because Pakistan is a nation made for Muslims, and Muhammad Bin Qasim was the first Muslim ruler to set foot in modern day Pakistan. What part of that is difficult for you idiots to comprehend?

Because Bin Qasim was NOT a Pakistani as there was no Pakistan then. You're free to call Adam and Eve as Pakistanis - that's your right - but that doesn't make it a historical fact.

And why are you getting angry suddenly. We were having a calm discussion just a few posts ago? We don't have to agree with each other but at least let's not abuse and respect each other's views, yes?

No, you guys seem to think you are from the Indus, so much so that you named your country after it. It's laughable, most of you are not from the Indus

What's wrong with naming ourselves after a river which flows in India before it even enters present day Pakistan ?

We don't considers ourselves to be Arab, you guys keep spouting this crap just because we follow Islam. Your backwards ideals make it impossible for you to accept someone could follow an ideology from someone outside of South Asia.

You might find this helpful (not to mention a bit entertaining too!)

Every single Muslim in the subcontinent believes s/he is of Arab descent. If not direct Arab descent, then the illustrious ancestor had come from either Iran or Bukhara.

Arab origin is the favourite fiction of all subcontinental Muslims. Most claim their ancestor arrived in Sindh with the army under Mohammad bin Qasim (MbQ). But, I have heard of lineages reaching back to Old Testament prophets as well.


https://tribune.com.pk/story/317619/arab-origins/

Lahore was also the capital of the Mughal Empire at one point, and Lahore has more Mughal monuments than any city in Hindustan. The Mughals were also (mostly) pretty staunch Muslims, spoke Urdu, their cuisine (Mughlai cuisine) included beef, they had significant amounts of Eurasian DNA, and most of the Mughal emperors came from the Indus (e.g Akbar, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb). A lot of them also despised Hindus, so no clue as to why you would like them.
Lahore was part of Hindustan. That's what Mughal called this region. Apart from that, Mughal India had its capital in and around Delhi and Agra. Majority (if not all) Mughal Emperors were born in the region they called (and known as) Hindustan. So I'll just leave it there.

P.s. BTW, aurungzeb was born in Gujarat.

Pakistan is the successor to the Mughal Empire. We are Muslim, we speak Urdu, we eat Mughlai cuisine (including the parts that contain beef), we have significant amounts of Eurasian DNA, Lahore is part of our country, most of the Indus is part of our country, and most Pakistanis have ancestors that fought in the military or worked in the administration of the Mughal Empire.

Pakistan can't be succesor of the Mughal India because Pakistan didn't exist then. The Mughals themselves called this region Hindustan which is just another name of India. You're free to disagree though.

Just saying, I expect some decency of a debate when you reply the next time. Good day.
 
.
Therefore in 1947 when Bangla was included it was not consistent with the original blueprint. But history has funny of correcting aberrations. In 1971 Pakistan reverted to it's orginal blueprint as espoused by Sir Allama Iqbal in 1930 and Rehmat Ali in 1933.
That's why you should celebrate 16th December as your Independence day instead of 14th August.16th December, 1971 was the date when current,original Pakistan was borned. This is your real independence day.
 
Last edited:
.
Seems you're confused between India and Greater India.

India - or Indian subcontinent - is the historical and geographic extent of all political entities. Greater India on the other hand are the regions which are culturally linked to India or Indian subcontinent.

I am certainly not confused Kuru. Maybe you should study old European maps to get an idea of how many regions were named "India". Hint. A lot.

But now you are switching the definition to mean "the subcontinent" because its easier to define, which you want to be the basis of your Indian identity. This too is flawed because there is nothing inherently unique about the subcontinent, besides regions in South India. Everything else overlaps with surrounding regions. For example, the Indus region of Pakistan has more shared history, culture and language with Central Asia and Persia than South India.
The point is that the subcontinent can easily be split into three very different historical regions, the Indus region being one of them. Modern India and Indians have no basis for claiming all three. Its only by using a misnomer like "India" that you think its logical.
 
.
You're talking as if Sindhu is an exclusive Pakistani river which starts at Islamabad and ends at Karachi. But that's not the case really.

Sindhu is a Sanskrit word, it's mentioned in Rigveda - an ancient Indian text - 176 times!

Sindhu starts at Kailash Mansarovar, (which is a place of pilgrimage for all the Hindus around the world) it then enters in Ladakh region, passes through Jammu and Kashmir, and then finally enters in present day Pakistan (which itself was called Hindustan anyway because of the same river).

So no, Sindhu isn't an exclusive Pakistani river that you're trying to imply.

Unfortunately, your entire argument was based on poor knowledge of geography (I'm not even talking about history here). I expect you to know the geography before we even start talking about history.

But I appreciate your reply as it was calm and without any abuse. Cheers :)



No problem, let's agree to disagree then. I'm basing my argument on the fact that this region was always known as Hind-Hindustan, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta, India or many names of India and India alone. Nobody linked it with China, Antarctica, Persia or Arabia or something remotely called Pakistan. You're free to believe otherwise.



Seems you're confused between India and Greater India.

India - or Indian subcontinent - is the historical and geographic extent of all political entities. Greater India on the other hand are the regions which are culturally linked to India or Indian subcontinent.

Hope that helps. Good day.



Because Bin Qasim was NOT a Pakistani as there was no Pakistan then. You're free to call Adam and Eve as Pakistanis - that's your right - but that doesn't make it a historical fact.

And why are you getting angry suddenly. We were having a calm discussion just a few posts ago? We don't have to agree with each other but at least let's not abuse and respect each other's views, yes?



What's wrong with naming ourselves after a river which flows in India before it even enters present day Pakistan ?



You might find this helpful (not to mention a bit entertaining too!)

Every single Muslim in the subcontinent believes s/he is of Arab descent. If not direct Arab descent, then the illustrious ancestor had come from either Iran or Bukhara.

Arab origin is the favourite fiction of all subcontinental Muslims. Most claim their ancestor arrived in Sindh with the army under Mohammad bin Qasim (MbQ). But, I have heard of lineages reaching back to Old Testament prophets as well.


https://tribune.com.pk/story/317619/arab-origins/


Lahore was part of Hindustan. That's what Mughal called this region. Apart from that, Mughal India had its capital in and around Delhi and Agra. Majority (if not all) Mughal Emperors were born in the region they called (and known as) Hindustan. So I'll just leave it there.

P.s. BTW, aurungzeb was born in Gujarat.



Pakistan can't be succesor of the Mughal India because Pakistan didn't exist then. The Mughals themselves called this region Hindustan which is just another name of India. You're free to disagree though.

Just saying, I expect some decency of a debate when you reply the next time. Good day.

Pakistan has always been around, just because the name changed doesn't mean our history starts in 1947.

I'm sorry, but these objections raised are quite silly. They've been refuted a billion times before, but because you guys don't listen you keep regurgitating them. How can you expect me to not call you guys idiots when you act like brick walls?

Because over 90% of the river flows in Pakistan. Also, the source of the river is in Tibet, not Hindustan.

Read that article before and dozens like it. Yes, many Muslims in the sub-continent claim ancestry from the Islamic conquerors, and it's true:

screenshot_2018-04-11-15-35-59-1-png.469512


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3163234

"The study showed that the Muslim Gujjars differ significantly from their counterpart, the Hindu Gujjars"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20067368

"we observed a certain degree of genetic contribution from Iran to both Muslim populations"

What very few people do, however, is label that ancestry as being from a certain ethnic group, e.g Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc.

Again, these semantics about names mean nothing. By your logic, Alexander the Great belongs to FYROM and not Greece. Lahore is still in Pakistan.

Many of them were still born in the Indus Valley (AKA Pakistan + north-west Hindustan + eastern Afghanistan).

If you want to limit to those from Pakistan, then we still get Akbar (born in Sindh) and Shah Jahan (born in Lahore).
 
.
That's why you should celebrate 16th December as your Independence day instead of 14th August.16th December, 1971 was the date when current,original Pakistan was borned. This is your real independence day.


Let us get this thing clear once and for all in the light of recorded history. What was the original blueprint for Pakistan?

Was there any blueprint other than what Allama Iqbal in his Presidential address at the Allahabad session presented as the ‘TWO Nation Theory’? I have not come across any. This is what he said.

"Personally, I would go farther than the demands embodied in it. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India."

There is no doubt that initial proposal of a semi-independent Muslim State did not include East Pakistan.

We should also not forget that what we call Pakistan resolution of 1940, did not mention the name “Pakistan”.

The Resolution

On March 23, A.K. Fazul Haq, the Chief Minister of Bengal, moved the historical Lahore Resolution. The Resolution consisted of five paragraphs and each paragraph was only one sentence long. Although clumsily worded, it delivered a clear message. The resolution declared:

“While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League, as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd of February 1940, on the constitutional issue, this session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of Federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935 is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.

It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939, made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935 is based will be reconsidered in consultation with the various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to the Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.

Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguard shall be specially provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.

This session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters as may be necessary”.

Besides many others, the Resolution was seconded by Chaudhary Khaliquzzam from UP, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan from Punjab, Sardar Aurangzeb from the N. W. F. P, Sir Abdullah Haroon from Sindh, and Qazi Muhammad Esa from Baluchistan. Those who seconded the resolution, in their speeches declared the occasion as a historic one. The Resolution was eventually passed on the last day of the moot, i.e. March 24.

https://historypak.com/lahore-resolution-1940/


The resolution established the basis for a separate homeland for the Muslims of British India. The passing of the resolution also transformed the Muslim minority in British India into a nation with its cultural and political and religious features distinct from rest of the Indian communities.

Clearly, the Lahore Resolution did not use the name “Pakistan” in the text and it did not link up the demand with Islam, but it included both the Eastern & the Western Muslims.

When I took the Matric Exam in 1956, it was still called “Qarardade- Lahore” or Lahore Resolution in the textbooks. However since this resolution set the basis of an independent homeland for Muslims, its popular name became Pakistan Resolution.

Therefore even though the proposal as presented by Allama Iqbal did not include East Pakistan; there is little doubt that without the support of Bengali Muslims partition of British India would not have been possible. The true date of creation of present Pakistan, as well as Bangla Desh, is 14th August 1947, however, if Bangla Deshis select another date, it is their privilege.

For the record, while Choudhry Rahmat Ali was a leading figure for the name of Pakistan, he had lived most of his adult life in the UK and had taken no part in the independence movement.

He had been voicing his dissatisfaction with the creation of Pakistan ever since his arrival on April 6, 1948. Mainly because he was unhappy over a lesser Pakistan than the one he had conceived in his 1933 pamphlet.

Understand that after he used abusive language against the Quaid; Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan ordered him to leave the country. He moved back to the UK where he died in February in Feb 1951.
 
Last edited:
.
@Kuru

Indus starts in Chinese Tibet enters Bharat Occupied Kashmir (from our POV) and then into Pakistan proper. It basically is 90% in Pakistan, 5% Bharat Occupied Kashmir and 5 % China, and if Kashmir was part of Pakistan (like the Kashmiris would prefer), it would 95% in Pakistan and 0% in Bharat.

And Pakistan is the heart of Hindustan! But Pakistan is NOT the Heart of Bharat!
Oh the first grammarian of the ancient Sanskrit language was a coterminous Pakistani! And the etymology of the word India is from Hind/Sindh, there is no link to word Bharat. So yes you are right, Sanskrit is an ancient Indian (read Pakistani) language.
 
.
I am certainly not confused Kuru. Maybe you should study old European maps to get an idea of how many regions were named "India". Hint. A lot.
Again you're confused with the region we are talking about. We are talking about this region (and not Europe or East Asia), read my post again:

The region was always known as Hind-Hindustan, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta, India or many names of India and India alone. Nobody linked it with China, Antarctica, Persia or Arabia or something remotely called Pakistan.

But now you are switching the definition to mean "the subcontinent" because its easier to define, which you want to be the basis of your Indian identity. This too is flawed because there is nothing inherently unique about the subcontinent, besides regions in South India. Everything else overlaps with surrounding regions. For example, the Indus region of Pakistan has more shared history, culture and language with Central Asia and Persia than South India.
The point is that the subcontinent can easily be split into three very different historical regions, the Indus region being one of them. Modern India and Indians have no basis for claiming all three. Its only by using a misnomer like "India" that you think its logical.
The Indian subcontinent has many different cultures and languages. Punjabi is different than Sindhi, this doesn't mean that they are different people or should form two different countries.

Anyway, I'm talking about Ancient India, If you think that there was no such thing in history then you have the entire world to convince. All the best with that. And I already said we can disagree while respecting each other's views no matter what is right.

Pakistan has always been around, just because the name changed doesn't mean our history starts in 1947.
Pakistan was never around. The term Pakistan was coined in 1930s as shown in the OP video. The present day Pakistan was part of Ancient India, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta or Hind-Hindustan. That's why Bin Qasim can never - NEVER - be called a first Pakistani.

I'm sorry, but these objections raised are quite silly. They've been refuted a billion times before, but because you guys don't listen you keep regurgitating them. How can you expect me to not call you guys idiots when you act like brick walls?
Yes these discussions has happened a billion times and will happen billion times more as long as there is a confusing history on your part. But let's keep the discussion civil, that's all I ask. And thank you for honouring my request :-)

Because over 90% of the river flows in Pakistan. Also, the source of the river is in Tibet, not Hindustan.

The present day Pakistan was historically part of ancient India or Hindustan so it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the Hindus have always regarded Sindhu as a holy river. many religious text of Hinduism mention this very river. Kailash Mansarovar - where Sindhu originates - has been a place of pilgrimage to all the Hindus around the world. This is the holy river we get our name from and we are extremely proud of it.

Read that article before and dozens like it. Yes, many Muslims in the sub-continent claim ancestry from the Islamic conquerors, and it's true:

screenshot_2018-04-11-15-35-59-1-png.469512


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3163234

"The study showed that the Muslim Gujjars differ significantly from their counterpart, the Hindu Gujjars"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20067368

"we observed a certain degree of genetic contribution from Iran to both Muslim populations"

What very few people do, however, is label that ancestry as being from a certain ethnic group, e.g Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc.
Here is a paper from 2018 with 30+ authors from different countries, that concludes this:

• The primary population of the BMAC was largely derived from preceding local Chalcolithic peoples and had
little if any Steppe pastoralist ancestry of the type that is ubiquitous in South Asia today. Instead of being a source for South Asia, the BMAC received admixture from South Asia.

• By 1500 BCE, there were numerous individuals in the Kazakh Steppe with East Asian-related admixture, the
same type of ancestry that was widespread by the Scythian period (34). This ancestry is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia—ANI and ASI—suggesting that Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from earlier southward movements.

1. After exploring a wide range of models of present-day and ancient South Asia, we identify a unique class of models that fits geographically and temporally South Asians: a mixture of AASI, Indus_Periphery, and Steppe_MLBA. We reject BMAC as a primary source of ancestry in South Asians.

2. A population of which the Indus_Periphery samples were a part played a pivotal role in the formation of the two proximal sources of ancestry in South Asia, the ANI and ASI. Both ends of the Indian Cline had major components of Indus_Periphery admixture: ~39% for the ASI and ~72% for the ANI. Today there are groups in South Asia with very similar ancestry to the ASI and ANI.

You can find the report here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/03/31/292581.full.pdf

Again, these semantics about names mean nothing. By your logic, Alexander the Great belongs to FYROM and not Greece. Lahore is still in Pakistan.

Lahore is in present day Pakistan , and this present day Pakistan was not there before 1947. This however doesn't mean that the history starts at 1947. This just means that before 1947, this region had different name(s). Hindustan, Bharatvarsh or Aryavarta or India is one of these.

Many of them were still born in the Indus Valley (AKA Pakistan + north-west Hindustan + eastern Afghanistan).

If you want to limit to those from Pakistan, then we still get Akbar (born in Sindh) and Shah Jahan (born in Lahore).

What is this "Indus Valley" you are referring to exactly? Are you referring to the IVC? The IVC has appx. 1000 sites. India has 616 sites while Pakistan has 406 sites. The biggest site of the IVC till date is Rakhigarhi which is in India.

And no, I don't want to limit it to present day Pakistan, I wanna stick to my original stand that this region was Hindustan. The Mughals you are talking about themselves called this region as Hindustan which is just another name of India.

Indus starts in Chinese Tibet enters Bharat Occupied Kashmir (from our POV) and then into Pakistan proper. It basically is 90% in Pakistan, 5% Bharat Occupied Kashmir and 5 % China, and if Kashmir was part of Pakistan (like the Kashmiris would prefer), it would 95% in Pakistan and 0% in Bharat.
That's your view , and I respect that. But this doesn't change anything. The Sindhu from where India gets its name predates the existence of Pakistan. Pakistan is a part of ancient India anyway. So we are back to square 1. India gets its name from a river which has always been considered holy by the Ancient Indians. Many Hindu religious texts mention this river. The place where Sindhu originates (Kailash Mansarovar) is believed to be Lord Shiva's abode by the Hindus.

And Pakistan is the heart of Hindustan! But Pakistan is NOT the Heart of Bharat!
Oh the first grammarian of the ancient Sanskrit language was a coterminous Pakistani! And the etymology of the word India is from Hind/Sindh, there is no link to word Bharat. So yes you are right, Sanskrit is an ancient Indian (read Pakistani) language.
India has many names. You will find this helpful:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India

And I'm glad that we are finally on the same page that Pakistan is Hindustan (whether it's a heart of Hindustan is a matter of perception)

And since the regions which form the present day Pakistan was a part of ancient India (which you agree), so you too can claim Sanskrit. I never said that Pakistan has no claim for ancient India , no one can take that away from you sir.
 
.
Hon Kuru,

There is no denying the fact the lands East of Indus, that is all the region after crossing the Attock Bridge including Kashmir has been part of the ancient Hindustan/ Aryavarta or whatever. The oldest history of Indian kings “Rajatrangini” which I have in English translation testifies to this.

However the lands West & North of the Indus River, the area which we call KPK & Baluchistan was not a part of traditional India.

Old Indian texts mention “Gandhara” but that is because the Kushans; a tribe of Central Asian origin ( known as Yuezhi in Chinese) took over the Indo Greek kingdoms of Bactria, Sogdiana & Gandhara. Their most famous king Kanishka ruled over an area stretching from Eastern China/Kyrgyzstan down to most of present-day Northern India as far East as Patna.

Page 65 of the history of Jaipur states that Raja Bhagwan Das was reluctant to cross the Attock because it was the boundary of the land of Aryavarta

https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=8125003339
 
.
Again you're confused with the region we are talking about. We are talking about this region (and not Europe or East Asia), read my post again:

The region was always known as Hind-Hindustan, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta, India or many names of India and India alone. Nobody linked it with China, Antarctica, Persia or Arabia or something remotely called Pakistan.


The Indian subcontinent has many different cultures and languages. Punjabi is different than Sindhi, this doesn't mean that they are different people or should form two different countries.

Anyway, I'm talking about Ancient India, If you think that there was no such thing in history then you have the entire world to convince. All the best with that. And I already said we can disagree while respecting each other's views no matter what is right.


Pakistan was never around. The term Pakistan was coined in 1930s as shown in the OP video. The present day Pakistan was part of Ancient India, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta or Hind-Hindustan. That's why Bin Qasim can never - NEVER - be called a first Pakistani.


Yes these discussions has happened a billion times and will happen billion times more as long as there is a confusing history on your part. But let's keep the discussion civil, that's all I ask. And thank you for honouring my request :-)



The present day Pakistan was historically part of ancient India or Hindustan so it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the Hindus have always regarded Sindhu as a holy river. many religious text of Hinduism mention this very river. Kailash Mansarovar - where Sindhu originates - has been a place of pilgrimage to all the Hindus around the world. This is the holy river we get our name from and we are extremely proud of it.


Here is a paper from 2018 with 30+ authors from different countries, that concludes this:

• The primary population of the BMAC was largely derived from preceding local Chalcolithic peoples and had
little if any Steppe pastoralist ancestry of the type that is ubiquitous in South Asia today. Instead of being a source for South Asia, the BMAC received admixture from South Asia.

• By 1500 BCE, there were numerous individuals in the Kazakh Steppe with East Asian-related admixture, the
same type of ancestry that was widespread by the Scythian period (34). This ancestry is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia—ANI and ASI—suggesting that Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from earlier southward movements.

1. After exploring a wide range of models of present-day and ancient South Asia, we identify a unique class of models that fits geographically and temporally South Asians: a mixture of AASI, Indus_Periphery, and Steppe_MLBA. We reject BMAC as a primary source of ancestry in South Asians.

2. A population of which the Indus_Periphery samples were a part played a pivotal role in the formation of the two proximal sources of ancestry in South Asia, the ANI and ASI. Both ends of the Indian Cline had major components of Indus_Periphery admixture: ~39% for the ASI and ~72% for the ANI. Today there are groups in South Asia with very similar ancestry to the ASI and ANI.

You can find the report here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/03/31/292581.full.pdf



Lahore is in present day Pakistan , and this present day Pakistan was not there before 1947. This however doesn't mean that the history starts at 1947. This just means that before 1947, this region had different name(s). Hindustan, Bharatvarsh or Aryavarta or India is one of these.



What is this "Indus Valley" you are referring to exactly? Are you referring to the IVC? The IVC has appx. 1000 sites. India has 616 sites while Pakistan has 406 sites. The biggest site of the IVC till date is Rakhigarhi which is in India.

And no, I don't want to limit it to present day Pakistan, I wanna stick to my original stand that this region was Hindustan. The Mughals you are talking about themselves called this region as Hindustan which is just another name of India.


That's your view , and I respect that. But this doesn't change anything. The Sindhu from where India gets its name predates the existence of Pakistan. Pakistan is a part of ancient India anyway. So we are back to square 1. India gets its name from a river which has always been considered holy by the Ancient Indians. Many Hindu religious texts mention this river. The place where Sindhu originates (Kailash Mansarovar) is believed to be Lord Shiva's abode by the Hindus.


India has many names. You will find this helpful:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India

And I'm glad that we are finally on the same page that Pakistan is Hindustan (whether it's a heart of Hindustan is a matter of perception)

And since the regions which form the present day Pakistan was a part of ancient India (which you agree), so you too can claim Sanskrit. I never said that Pakistan has no claim for ancient India , no one can take that away from you sir.

By Ancient India we mean a geographic region like Ancient Europe, not in the sense of the nation state of India(Bharat) or Pakistan or Nepal or Bhutan or Bangladesh etc etc. Both Bharat and Pakistan(heart of India), came into existence in August 1947.
The Sindhu also predates the existence of Bharat (not talking about the word but the State). Present day Bharat was a part of Ancient India just like many modern countries.

Just imagine if Pakistan decided to call herself India or Hindustan (not Bharat as she does not have that links for this)? Pakistan has equal if not MORE right to call herself India or Hindustan than Bharat does! As the Indus/Sindhu river is no longer in Bharat (for 95% of its course).

What I am trying to say, is that this notion of “India remains, but Pakistan broke away” or India is an ancient country but Pakistan is a new one (again not the names but the people and land) is a false one. Utterly false. For the most part there has never been a unitary state in the Subcontinent of India save for a few periods where the British, Mughals and few other empires of Old ruled and even then it was not the complete subcontinent.

Those ancient Indian religious text belonged to Ancient Pakistanis as well as Ancient Bharatis. Do not forget this. All that has happened is that most of the people of Ancient Pakistan became Muslims over the preceding centuries, this does not mean we lose our heritage. Does a Russian or a Malaysian or a Nigerian lose their heritage when they accepted Islam?

Do Indonesians have the appropriate claim to the Sindhu river and associated civilisations because an empire called them “Indian Islands”?
 
.
Pakistan has always been around, just because the name changed doesn't mean our history starts in 1947.

I'm sorry, but these objections raised are quite silly. They've been refuted a billion times before, but because you guys don't listen you keep regurgitating them. How can you expect me to not call you guys idiots when you act like brick walls?

Because over 90% of the river flows in Pakistan. Also, the source of the river is in Tibet, not Hindustan.

Read that article before and dozens like it. Yes, many Muslims in the sub-continent claim ancestry from the Islamic conquerors, and it's true:

screenshot_2018-04-11-15-35-59-1-png.469512


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3163234

"The study showed that the Muslim Gujjars differ significantly from their counterpart, the Hindu Gujjars"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20067368

"we observed a certain degree of genetic contribution from Iran to both Muslim populations"

What very few people do, however, is label that ancestry as being from a certain ethnic group, e.g Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc.

Again, these semantics about names mean nothing. By your logic, Alexander the Great belongs to FYROM and not Greece. Lahore is still in Pakistan.

Many of them were still born in the Indus Valley (AKA Pakistan + north-west Hindustan + eastern Afghanistan).

If you want to limit to those from Pakistan, then we still get Akbar (born in Sindh) and Shah Jahan (born in Lahore).

akbar, shah jahan etc proudly called themselves Timurids and saw natives as inferior to them until death of last Mughal King. just because they were born in South Asia they can not claim to be Natives(they never did) to this Region. Race =/= Religion =/= Geography.

World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png



Y DNA of our Nations are different, your is predominantly L while ours is R1a,H,t,R2a,C5 and what not. personally heil from an Tribal Confederacy that have R1a-z93 Bloodline with 75%+ Majority in North, so we are further Apart and different from all kind of Asians.
 
.
By Ancient India we mean a geographic region like Ancient Europe, not in the sense of the nation state of India(Bharat) or Pakistan or Nepal or Bhutan or Bangladesh etc etc. Both Bharat and Pakistan(heart of India), came into existence in August 1947

By Ancient India , I also mean the geographical location and not in the sense of modern nation state. The concept of sovereign states is a recent phenomena. For example, the modern Egypt was declared a Republic in 1953, it doesn't mean there was no Egypt before 1953.

The Sindhu also predates the existence of Bharat (not talking about the word but the State)

The word Sindhu predates the modern Republic of India. I never said it wasn't a case. But the river itself was named so by the people who resided in the same region now known as Indian Subcontinent.

Bharat is a term used in Hindu religious texts including the Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas to refer to the Indian Subcontinent. It's a documented historical reference to this land. Why else do you think we call it Bharat anyway?

India on the other hand is a term derived from the Indus, which was derived from the Sanskrit word Sindhu. The people who used to reside in the present day Indian Subcontinent gave that name to this river which was considered holy by those very people.

For Hindustan, again it is based on the word Hindu, which in return is based on Sindhu. There are other names too, I already provided a link for it in my previous post.

So obviously this region has to be called India, Bharat or Hindustan etc.

Present day Bharat was a part of Ancient India just like many modern countries
And that's why I say that we all - the people of this region - are the successors of Ancient India. We both are on the same page here.

Just imagine if Pakistan decided to call herself India or Hindustan (not Bharat as she does not have that links for this)? Pakistan has equal if not MORE right to call herself India or Hindustan than Bharat does!

Pakistan as a matter of fact should've called itself West India (like East Germany - west Germany or two Korea's out there). This would've helped to avoid confusion and identify crisis really. Pakistanis would've known who they really are rather than claiming that they have nothing to do with Ancient India (you can see that in this very thread) which isn't a case, and I'm glad that we agree on this.

the Indus/Sindhu river is no longer in Bharat (for 95% of its course).

Again , the name Sindhu was given to it by the people of Ancient India. We the successor of that India (you too are the successor of that India but you don't wanna claim that, may be for political reasons?).

What I am trying to say, is that this notion of “India remains, but Pakistan broke away” or India is an ancient country but Pakistan is a new one (again not the names but the people and land) is a false one. Utterly false. For the most part there has never been a unitary state in the Subcontinent of India save for a few periods where the British, Mughals and few other empires of Old ruled and even then it was not the complete subcontinent.

Absolutely correct, present day Pakistan was part of ancient India, it was always there. I never said otherwise (I'm sorry if any of my post implied that). I only said that the term Pakistan wasn't there which is a fact.

Those ancient Indian religious text belonged to Ancient Pakistanis as well as Ancient Bharatis. Do not forget this.
Again correct, except that you should call them Ancient Indians.

All that has happened is that most of the people of Ancient Pakistan became Muslims over the preceding centuries, this does not mean we lose our heritage.
No you don't, Ancient Indians don't lose their heritage just because they converted to a different religion. They will remain what they were i.e. Ancient Indians.

Thumbs Up :-)

Do Indonesians have the appropriate claim to the Sindhu river and associated civilisations because an empire called them “Indian Islands”?

I already provided a link for different names of India. It also has the sub-links for the historical documents (Hindu Religious texts) which refer to this land. And none of those documents refer to the present day Indonesia.

The Indonesians can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that this region was named after a river flowing in this region.

Also, for Indonesia, you'll find this helpful:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_India

So in conclusion, as you can see , we agree on most part, are on the same page and are saying the same thing. Thank you very much , I appreciate it :-)
 
.
akbar, shah jahan etc proudly called themselves Timurids and saw natives as inferior to them until death of last Mughal King.

Incorrect, from Akbar onward they started considering themselves indigenous.
 
.
Again correct, except that you should call them Ancient Indians.
The region was always known as Hind-Hindustan, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta, India or many names of India and India alone. Nobody linked it with China, Antarctica, Persia or Arabia or something remotely called Pakistan.

That's where you are clearly wrong. The region has always been split into many smaller states and kingdoms each with their own names. Indian subcontinent cannot be compared to Persia or Arabia in the sense that its populated by diverse people, not related to each other in the same way as Arabs or Persians. If anything, Sindhis are the "original" Indians and the term was misapplied to everyone else since then.
Pre colonial use of India is just an expression that was used for different regions at different points in history where different groups of people had their own definitions, and these varied wildly, even in terms of pronunciation, Greek Ἰνδοί, Sindh, Hind etc.
So only Sindh is the original name that we should be using.

But let's be clear on one thing. This is all semantics and open for discussion, I am sure. The point being that Pakistan is the successor of the geographic region called Indus Valley. Anything suggesting that modern India is a successor of this region, is grossly inaccurate, something it seems you are happy to assume because it benefits your modern nation.

If you have such a big issue with the name of Pakistan, then read it out like an acronym of the ancient names that it represents. Same difference as far as I am concerned.
 
Last edited:
.
Incorrect, from Akbar onward they started considering themselves indigenous.

You are bang on.

Mother of Prince Salim (Jahangir) known as Mariam Zamani Begum was Jodhabai, a full-blooded Rajput princess.

Mother of Prince Khurram (Shahjahan) was another full-blooded Rajput; daughter of Raja Udai Singh of Jodhpur named Jagat Gosaine.

Hence Shahjahan was in fact only one-quarter Timurid. Even the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was the son of Akbar Shah II from his Hindu wife Lal Bai.

Fact is that by the time of later Mughal Emperors; Mughal blood had been diluted to such an extent that they were 'Timurid’ only because they were direct male descendants. Otherwise, they were completely devoid of the ferocious nature and bravery of the great Tamerlane.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom