What If Attlee Hadn’t Partitioned India?

[bronxbull]

We don't have a time machine to go back n check.so give it a rest and move forward with where we are today.

 

[bronxbull]

TTP are trying to conquer Pakistan to use our ideology for their gains.

None of the stans have a concrete ideology like Pakistan does, that is why they will always look to us before they do anything else.

Little do they know the tide will go westwards and we will unite them under true spiritual awareness and kill their destructive war mongering mindset.

History is always in a state of flux, Eurasia is a funny place.

Pakistan is formed on the Indus Valley, we have nothing to do with South India. Through historically we have always had close links to central Asian and Middle eastern countries because we are the bridge between east and west.

If you can't see past this then this exactly the reason why 70 million Muslims rejected Indian hegemony in 1947.

Pakistan as a landmass is a completely different civilization.

Do you think through history when they spoke of Al-Sind, or Hind, do you think they were referring to jungle dwelling South Indians?

No, they were referring to people of the Indus, since Mesopotamia Pakistanis has been known in the world. India or Indians never existed, you were just segregated jungle people that had nothing of value to say to the world.

Yes it is you are different but history is not yours how much ever you try hard as people kept moving and your current polity is the anti thesis of the history.you can't do Kabza of history. And there was no Pakistan before 1947,so just give up.

 

[bronxbull]

LOL muslim elite boot lickers of british and your lack of your history.

No muslim leader was jailed or received pain from british, it was congress.



This is not 7th century nor this is not the period of Babur or Ghaznavi.

Each one will have a period in history where they will excel, those central asian peoples chances are over, now is the time for India. Pakistanis are not central asians.

Nor any Islamic states want Pakistan to lead them, it is always a wet dream for you people and some jingoism involved here.

Let them believe whatever they want.

 

[Armstrong]

Then why you are associating yourself with Ahamad shah abdali, the founder of modern state of Afghanistan? why you are saying that, why you are mentioning afghans as your nation ? have you forgotten on this occasion of 14th august that you are just a Pakistani?

Well to be fair there wasn't a Modern State of Afghanistan till Dost Muhammad Khan & his wasn't the Durrani Dynasty but the Barakzai Dynasty !

Ahmed Shah Abdali was, for all intents & purposes, a great Pashtun King & historically an Afghan (Pashtun) ! He has got very little to do with the Modern State of Afghanistan which has more Tajiks, Uzbeks & Hazaras combined than all the Pashtuns in Afghanistan !

Abdali was a celebrated Muslim & Pashtun General & King - We've got more than twice the Pashtuns in all of Afghansitan which means Ahmed Shah Abdali belongs to Pakistan more than Afghanistan !

Kiyun sahiii kahaa @ghilzai @Hyperion ?

P.S By one source Abdali was born in Herat while others say that he was born in Multan - If its the latter....it only strengthens our claim further !

 

[ghilzai]

Yes it is you are different but history is not yours how much ever you try hard as people kept moving and your current polity is the anti thesis of the history.you can't do Kabza of history. And there was no Pakistan before 1947,so just give up.

There was no India (name given to you by the British) before 1947, it was British India, dont forget the word british before India, and before that you were colony of mughals and before that the lodhis and before that the ghurids and so on and before thet you were many small kingdoms.

 

[ghilzai]

LOL muslim elite boot lickers of british and your lack of your history.

No muslim leader was jailed or received pain from british, it was congress.



This is not 7th century nor this is not the period of Babur or Ghaznavi.

Each one will have a period in history where they will excel, those central asian peoples chances are over, now is the time for India. Pakistanis are not central asians.

Nor any Islamic states want Pakistan to lead them, it is always a wet dream for you people and some jingoism involved here.

Not all Pakistani are central Asian but then again Indians are not one people or one nation, even north indians have central Asian ancestry as the Huns and kushans made sure of that.

 

[ghilzai]

Well to be fair there wasn't a Modern State of Afghanistan till Dost Muhammad Khan & his wasn't the Durrani Dynasty but the Barakzai Dynasty !

Ahmed Shah Abdali was, for all intents & purposes, a great Pashtun King & historically an Afghan (Pashtun) ! He has got very little to do with the Modern State of Afghanistan which has more Tajiks, Uzbeks & Hazaras combined than all the Pashtuns in Afghanistan !

Abdali was a celebrated Muslim & Pashtun General & King - We've got more than twice the Pashtuns in all of Afghansitan which means Ahmed Shah Abdali belongs to Pakistan more than Afghanistan !

Kiyun sahiii kahaa @ghilzai @Hyperion ?

P.S By one source Abdali was born in Herat while others say that he was born in Multan - If its the latter....it only strengthens our claim further !

Him being born in Multan is questionable, i have a lot of respect for him but you have to understand that pushtoons are not one race, he belonged to the ebodals who were nomadic Iranic people called the white huns.

Ghilzais are pushtoons of turkic origin and well didn't always see eye to eye with the ebodals or if you wanna call them abdals (The name abdal was used over ebodal as it sounded like ebodal but was Islamic).

 

[LURKER]

There was no India (name given to you by the British) before 1947, it was British India, dont forget the word british before India, and before that you were colony of mughals and before that the lodhis and before that the ghurids and so on and before thet you were many small kingdoms.

The name India was not given by the British my less than intelligent friend. It was the Greeks who first used the word India in the 5th century B.C.

 

[ghilzai]

why India was called Bharat. First, it
came from an epic written by Kalidas.
Bharat was a character in the epic
Abhigyan Shakuntlam. He was a
monarch and son of Shakuntla and
Dushyanta. Bharat was a mighty leader
and warrior who ruled India which was
called the Land of Bharat in the epic.
Since Bharat is very powerful, the
kingdom that he ruled were named after
him.
Another meaning of Bharat came from
the word Bhaarati who is the Goddess of
Learning and Knowledge. The name
Bharat was actually coined by the Hindu
long time again. India is n English name
and Bharat as the Sanskrit name.
Bharat was derived from Indian texts of
PUranas. There, the term Bharat was
written as Bharata varsam which means
Indian subcontinent. Varsas means
continent and Bharate” means the
Earth. Since in the epic, Bharat had been
very great and prevailing, he was
thought to have ruled the whole earth.
Bharata was known to be the first
emperor of Greater India.
There were evidences that India is
named as Bhararata or any derivations.
In Sanskrit texts, India was named
Bharatavashna after the rule Bharata
Chakravarti. In the text, it was
mentioned that the country India is
known as Bharatavashna when the
father entrusted the land to his son
Bharata. The father then went to the
forest to live there and to do his
abstinence.
There were further explanations in the
Sanskrit literature. It was also
mentioned that the country lies in the
northern part of the ocean. In the
southern part is the snowy mountains
called Bharata where the descendants of
Bharata lived.
There is another interesting explanation
why India was called Bharat. When the
Malays were trading with India, the
Malay referred to the country as Baratâ
€ which means the West” in the
Malay language. Since India is located at
the Western part of Malaysia, the traders
used this term to refer to India.

 

[ghilzai]

The name India was not given by the British my less than intelligent friend. It was the Greeks who first used the word India in the 5th century B.C.

The term "Indian" was used by the
British to refer to "wogs", "black fellas"
or "natives". That's all it meant to
them. They used it all over the world
throughout their colonies.
To say that the British used the term
"Indian" due to their being awestruck by
the great remains of the Indus Valley
civilisation (which was a largely illiterate
civilisation anyway, not like the Vedic
civilisation which was something
completely different) is really to show
that one is wearing rose-coloured
glasses.
The diary of Captain Cook (who worked
for the British East India Company and
who in official history was supposedly
the "discoverer" of Australia) refers to
the Australian native on his approach to
Australia as "Indians".
In his logbook he wrote:
=================================
==
Wednesday, August 22nd, 1770
Remarks, &c.
Mod. and clear wea'r; saw a number of
smoaks along shore. At 1 lay too for the
yawl; pinnace and longboat sounding.
½-p't 2, made sail and steer'd for a
passage between some islands and the
main. At 3 fired a gun, and made the
signell for the boats to sound the next
passage to the no'ward of the
abovemention'd. ¾-p't 3, was in the
passage; dist'ce from the east shore, ¾
of a mile; saw several Indians, who
follow'd us shouting.

 

[ghilzai]

The Indies or East Indies (or East India) is a
term often used to refer to the Malay
Archipelago- intiated by British prior to arrival
of
Indies is also used to describe lands of South
and Southeast Asia, occupying all of the
former British India, the present Indian Union,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka,
the Maldives, and also Thailand, Malaysia
and Indonesia, which was last called the
Dutch East Indies before independence.
The East Indies may also include Indochina,
the Philippine Islands, Brunei, Singapore and
East Timor. It does not, however, include
western New Guinea (West Papua), which is
part of Melanesia.
The extensive East Indies are subdivided into
two sections (from a European perspective),
archaically called Hither India and Further
India. The first is the former British India, the
second is modern Southeast Asia or the
ASEAN Bloc.
Often, the East Indies are named after their
colonizer, hence, British East Indies is India
and Malaysia, the Dutch East Indies is
Indonesia, and Spanish East Indies is the
Philippines.
so it was because of British rule Bharat was
renamed as India.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

What if such crappy threads never existed?

 

[bronxbull]

There was no India (name given to you by the British) before 1947, it was British India, dont forget the word british before India, and before that you were colony of mughals and before that the lodhis and before that the ghurids and so on and before thet you were many small kingdoms.

There was always a connect between all the kingdoms of India.

Religiously we are the same,Hinduism and all other dharmic religions have philosophical integrity and your british historians wont tell you this because they dont have brains to read this.

Th Muslim Sultanate+Mughals ended with Aurangazeb in 1707.

Tipu Sultan had a 30 year blitz and some others had their time under the sun too.

But as Hindu people we were always united and thats why our country thrives today without a large scale civil war as many of the British predicted and even tried to achieve.

I request you to perceptive reality of your own instead of quoting Historians here.

why India was called Bharat. First, it
came from an epic written by Kalidas.
Bharat was a character in the epic
Abhigyan Shakuntlam. He was a
monarch and son of Shakuntla and
Dushyanta. Bharat was a mighty leader
and warrior who ruled India which was
called the Land of Bharat in the epic.
Since Bharat is very powerful, the
kingdom that he ruled were named after
him.
Another meaning of Bharat came from
the word Bhaarati who is the Goddess of
Learning and Knowledge. The name
Bharat was actually coined by the Hindu
long time again. India is n English name
and Bharat as the Sanskrit name.
Bharat was derived from Indian texts of
PUranas. There, the term Bharat was
written as Bharata varsam which means
Indian subcontinent. Varsas means
continent and Bharate” means the
Earth. Since in the epic, Bharat had been
very great and prevailing, he was
thought to have ruled the whole earth.
Bharata was known to be the first
emperor of Greater India.
There were evidences that India is
named as Bhararata or any derivations.
In Sanskrit texts, India was named
Bharatavashna after the rule Bharata
Chakravarti. In the text, it was
mentioned that the country India is
known as Bharatavashna when the
father entrusted the land to his son
Bharata. The father then went to the
forest to live there and to do his
abstinence.
There were further explanations in the
Sanskrit literature. It was also
mentioned that the country lies in the
northern part of the ocean. In the
southern part is the snowy mountains
called Bharata where the descendants of
Bharata lived.
There is another interesting explanation
why India was called Bharat. When the
Malays were trading with India, the
Malay referred to the country as Baratâ
€ which means the West” in the
Malay language. Since India is located at
the Western part of Malaysia, the traders
used this term to refer to India.

Bharat is the name of Lord Ram's brother,who choose to honor the tradition over his father's word to his mom about being made King.

It is the truth and this is because of his sacrifice to keep the tradition,than to get greedy like smaller men would do.

Rest is all random hogwash.

 

[bronxbull]

The term "Indian" was used by the
British to refer to "wogs", "black fellas"
or "natives". That's all it meant to
them. They used it all over the world
throughout their colonies.
To say that the British used the term
"Indian" due to their being awestruck by
the great remains of the Indus Valley
civilisation (which was a largely illiterate
civilisation anyway, not like the Vedic
civilisation which was something
completely different) is really to show
that one is wearing rose-coloured
glasses.
The diary of Captain Cook (who worked
for the British East India Company and
who in official history was supposedly
the "discoverer" of Australia) refers to
the Australian native on his approach to
Australia as "Indians".
In his logbook he wrote:
=================================
==
Wednesday, August 22nd, 1770
Remarks, &c.
Mod. and clear wea'r; saw a number of
smoaks along shore. At 1 lay too for the
yawl; pinnace and longboat sounding.
½-p't 2, made sail and steer'd for a
passage between some islands and the
main. At 3 fired a gun, and made the
signell for the boats to sound the next
passage to the no'ward of the
abovemention'd. ¾-p't 3, was in the
passage; dist'ce from the east shore, ¾
of a mile; saw several Indians, who
follow'd us shouting.

it doesn't matter what they called it,what they looted.

We ll have our sweet revenge over all of them.

 

[INDIC]

The Indies or East Indies (or East India) is a
term often used to refer to the Malay
Archipelago- intiated by British prior to arrival
of
Indies is also used to describe lands of South
and Southeast Asia, occupying all of the
former British India, the present Indian Union,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka,
the Maldives, and also Thailand, Malaysia
and Indonesia, which was last called the
Dutch East Indies before independence.
The East Indies may also include Indochina,
the Philippine Islands, Brunei, Singapore and
East Timor. It does not, however, include
western New Guinea (West Papua), which is
part of Melanesia.
The extensive East Indies are subdivided into
two sections (from a European perspective),
archaically called Hither India and Further
India. The first is the former British India, the
second is modern Southeast Asia or the
ASEAN Bloc.
Often, the East Indies are named after their
colonizer, hence, British East Indies is India
and Malaysia, the Dutch East Indies is
Indonesia, and Spanish East Indies is the
Philippines.
so it was because of British rule Bharat was
renamed as India.

India was named by Greeks, Herodutus gave the earliest reference of India in 4th Century BC.