Why do most people on Pakistani news channels call India as "Hindustan"?

[Joe Shearer]

Sanskrit descended languages were called Prakrit, you can scream out your lungs but academic world accepts this fact. And 'Gangu' Muhajirs in Karachi write Urdu as in Nastaliq and we write in it in Devanagari, but they remain the same language. Again, you can scream your lungs out but linguists accept the fact.

Nothing contradictory in that.

How can someone who plays exclusionary identity politics can be called a Patriot, can't your logic be extended to RSS?

That's odd.

I thought he was playing the inclusivity card. That all who lived within a couple of days' journey from the Indus were common citizens of the land washed by the Indus. Yes, in the sense that this excludes those further away, it is exclusivist. But the context is the pulling together of Pakistan, not as an Islamist stronghold, not as an attic stuffed with quaint ethnicities from Central Asia, but as a country that lives because its citizens believe in the country.

Please remind me and I'll explain the difference between what he is doing and what the RSS wants to do tomorrow. I'm kind of conked out now.

I know this much Professor but they descended from the same stock - I stress only on this part.

Sure. Did anyone say no?

 

[El Sidd]

I am not surprised. Stan is perfect, Desh is perfect too.

So go about making Biharistan and Malayalamdesh.

You cannot stop this. This is inevitable in Asia where ancestor and land worship is cultural.

 

[Naofumi]

That's odd.

I thought he was playing the inclusivity card. That all who lived within a couple of days' journey from the Indus were common citizens of the land washed by the Indus. Yes, in the sense that this excludes those further away, it is exclusivist. But the context is the pulling together of Pakistan, not as an Islamist stronghold, not as an attic stuffed with quaint ethnicities from Central Asia, but as a country that lives because its citizens believe in the country.

Please remind me and I'll explain the difference between what he is doing and what the RSS wants to do tomorrow. I'm kind of conked out now.

His narrative excludes Muhajirs explicitly - they're the turd of the Ganga according to him. Also, I don't see how Pashtun and Baloch can be integrated in his Indus valley nationalism.

Sure. Did anyone say no?

He didn't said yes too.

So go about making Biharistan and Malayalamdesh.

You cannot stop this. This is inevitable in Asia where ancestor and land worship is cultural.

They are already but under an union.

 

[Cliftonite]

LOL.

He does that for effect. Trust me on that.

Nope. You're watching from the outside, his kind of rhetoric is exactly what instigated deep ethnic divides in our country. He's quoting verbatim the rhetoric politicians have used to marginalize Muhajir and other minority communities and there's a deep hate behind it.

 

[halupridol]

@halupridol

Please read #147 and #149. His argument is more complex than you suspect, but at heart, devastatingly simple. It's worth the effort.

Well it's not whether the argument is simple or complex.
It's about narrative,, n i think kapitan is aware of that.
But i just think that his narrative will be just plain unacceptable to the masses.
How n why wud a common Pakistani agree to a narrative which implies they r lesser sons of greater sires. (From indus valley to current Pakistan)
I mean jahillya Pakistanis created the best of civilization and after Islam they became this??
Well,,,It's bound to fail.
You can see he has been demoted, banned and called racist plenty of times. For what?? Coz he says it on thr faces.
I think many Indians think I'm also racist,,, coz I show North Indians the mirror.(I have been called names in real life when I told ppl who brand others anti national,,, to question the loyalty of the fathers n mothers who were gladly voting for Congress for 60 yrs. Why r thr maa baap not anti national? They just get triggered.)
But thn it's the truth,, served cold n hard.
Its like African negroes feeling offended when someone else points out tht they r simply an inferior race,n whites r superior,,inspite of factual evidence supporting it. Saying this is politically incorrect n the person will be called racist.
Basically u r a bigot if u believe u r superior based on race but it's perfectly ok to believe u r superior n others r inferior based on religion
Thank the PC culture nowadays.
So it's better if he tones down this so called indus nationalism n incorporate more of religion into the mix,,, it might work.
@Indus Pakistan

 

[Cliftonite]

His narrative excludes Muhajirs explicitly - they're the turd of the Ganga according to him. Also, I don't see how Pashtun and Baloch can be integrated in his Indus valley nationalism.

He didn't said yes too.

They are already but under an union.

They will find ways to accomodate Pashtuns and Balochs as those 2 are 'martial races' and more Aryan. But they will never concede administrative power to them because they see them as tribals who should stick to fighting and martial shit (read:they don't want to concede real power)

 

[El Sidd]

They are already but under an union.

What union? Desh union? Stan union? Varsh union? IndoPacific union.

We won't give you your war lest you unite.

Pakistanis are free to chase their Pashtoonistans, Sindhodeshs, Punjabistan, Baloch has a stan already.

They cannot break the La Ilaha Illallah code.

Else we kill them and every country can vouch for our efficiency with that.

 

[letsrock]

Nope, they all descended from Vedic Sanskrit. Vernacular differentiates it from Sanskrit which survived as a Liturgical language only.

sanskrit is a made up constructed language. Not a real one spoken by people to communicate.

 

[Naofumi]

Basically u r a bigot if u believe u r superior based on race but it's perfectly ok to believe u r superior n others r inferior based on religion

Both are wrong dumbo.

sanskrit is a made up constructed language. Not a real one spoken by people to communicate.

LOL.
So, Who wrote the Vedas? Listen, Sanskrit is as much as constructed as Hebrew - no one spoke it until recently but it survived as a liturgical language because of the texts written by ancients who spoke it.

What union? Desh union? Stan union? Varsh union? IndoPacific union.

We won't give you your war lest you unite.

Pakistanis are free to chase their Pashtoonistans, Sindhodeshs, Punjabistan, Baloch has a stan already.

They cannot break the La Ilaha Illallah code.

Else we kill them and every country can vouch for our efficiency with that.

It's a union, whatever you call it, we don't bother.

 

[halupridol]

Both are wrong dumbo.


LOL.
So, Who wrote the Vedas? Listen, Sanskrit is as much as constructed as Hebrew - no one spoke it until recently but it survived as a liturgical language because of the texts written by ancients who spoke it.

Lol,,, r u sure?
It's mainstream thought of most religious people.
U can deny it but that won't change the truth

 

[Naofumi]

Lol,,, r u sure?
It's mainstream thought of most religious people.
U can deny it but that won't change the truth

Ethnic superiority is mainstream too, what's your point?

 

[letsrock]

LOL.
So, Who wrote the Vedas? Listen, Sanskrit is as much as constructed as Hebrew - no one spoke it until recently but it survived as a liturgical language because of the texts written by ancients who spoke it.

Understand what I said first - i did not say it is not a language except it was constructed and and made up in a theoretical fashion to peddle brahmin myths and bigotry and not a language used by people to communicate.

Nobody knows how ancient they are - there are no concrete evidences in terms of stone or metal inscriptions. A lot of so called sanskrit literature was actually written by european colonists and many of them kept adding made up words in to sanskrit to inflate its vocabulary. It was peak time of racist philosophies such as aryan etc eventually leading to hitler etc. So instead of basing ones opinion on such contrived knowledge use common sense.

Who speaks sanskrit? none.

 

[Cliftonite]

Understand what I said first - i did not say it is not a language except it was constructed and and made up in a theoretical fashion to peddle brahmin myths and bigotry and not a language used by people to communicate.

Nobody knows how ancient they are - there are no concrete evidences in terms of stone or metal inscriptions. A lot of so called sanskrit literature was actually written by european colonists and many of them kept adding made up words in to sanskrit to inflate its vocabulary. It was peak of racist philosophies such as aryan etc eventually leading to hitler etc. So instead of basing ones opinion on such contrived knowledge use common sense.

Who speaks sanskrit? none.

No. Sanskrit is a liturgical language. It was spoken during the time Vedas was written just like Avestan was spoken when Parsis were the majority in Iran. Draw a parallel to Ancient Egyptian.

 

[halupridol]

Ethnic superiority is mainstream too, what's your point?

Point is simple.
Which is acceptable?(n actually accepted everywhere,,, as norm)
Ethnic/racial superiority = racism/bigotry
But
Religious superiority = it's ok(oh,,it's just harmless belief)

 

[Naofumi]

Understand what I said first - i did not say it is not a language except it was constructed and and made up in a theoretical fashion to peddle brahmin myths and bigotry and not a language used by people to communicate.

Nobody knows how ancient they are - there are no concrete evidences in terms of stone or metal inscriptions. A lot of so called sanskrit literature was actually written by european colonists and many of them kept adding made up words in to sanskrit to inflate its vocabulary. It was peak of racist philosophies such as aryan etc eventually leading to hitler etc. So instead of basing ones opinion on such contrived knowledge use common sense.

Who speaks sanskrit? none.

Sanskrit was the language of the masses when Rigveda was written - we call that Vedic Sanskrit much like Quranic Arabic - no one speaks it exactly too. Sanskrit literature was written by Europeans? A big LOL. @Joe Shearer

Point is simple.
Which is socially acceptable?
Ethnic/racial superiority = racism/bigotry
But
Religious superiority = it's ok(it's just harmless belief)

Don't know where you're getting your facts. As much as I have heard both are wrong and opposed fiercely when any of the beliefs starts impacting legislation.