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

[MM_Haider]

For your information, I have read Aitzaz Ahsan thoroughly, and have deeply appreciated the brilliant adaptation for the common man in the street that @Indus Pakistan has done. I do not agree with it, but I believe that it is a vital link for Pakistan as a country and as a community. It is not something new to me. My knowledge about the subject goes slightly beyond this.

ok so what? do you something to add other than useless rants?

 

[Naofumi]

So when he wishes to exclude, he is actually excluding the exclusionaries.

Let me explain.

There are those who explain the raison d'etre of Pakistan through religion. That is how the Muhajir, according to him, claim a proprietary right to Pakistan; that is why Urdu was imposed on the new state, rather than Persian (remember that their national anthem is in Persian). So he is particular about excluding Muhajir, unless they accept that they are an additional element in the Indus-centric Pakistan.

There are those who explain the raison d'etre of Pakistan by denying their entire pre-Islamic history. That is how the racists, who claim to be exclusively Turanian/Turkish, Iranian or Arab, claim a proprietary right to Pakistan; that is why to this school of thought there is an automatic rejection of everything before bin Qasim. So he is particular about excluding these supposed blue-blooded descendants of the steppe (or the desert).

The whole exercise is an attempt to promote the organic unity of the people of the Indus.

This is quite different from the exclusivity of the RSS. They want to exclude a section of the population because that section has a different religion, and because the RSS has determined and satisfied itself that there is scientific reason to exclude those following a different religious authority.

You're claiming Muhajirs are some kind Islamists who are leading the state of Pakistan into religious hellhole?
You can't be more wrong than this, Muhajirs are the most secular and liberal group of Pakistan whatever their history may have been - they are the most vocal proponent of secularism. So, the assumption is itself misplaced. How can the lynching of Mashal Khan be blamed on Muhajirs?

Every little thing about indian religion other than popular myths or Ram or krishna was presented back to indians by europeans. Ask yourself how many common indian households even have elementary knowledge of vedas - even brahmins. its zero, zulch. Indians did not even have a concept of history - that was a european concept.

Dear, since you have a problem in understanding what an academic source means, let me do it for you

 

[letsrock]

Dear, since you have a problem in understanding what an academic source means, let me do it for you
View attachment 636824

Apply that to yourself - you pathetic excuse of a man. i have given you ample evidences, common sense, appealed to take a hard look at how ordinary indians are even cursorily non-familiar with veda beda nonsense. Your response is to post one google search as evidence of sanskrit as spoken language and then - instead of addressing the content - keep questioning the credentials.

One of your fellow bhakth is even questioning the concept of a border in another thread.

 

[Naofumi]

Apply that to yourself - you pathetic excuse of a man. i have given you ample evidences, common sense, appealed to take a hard look at how ordinary indians are even cursorily non-familiar with veda beda nonsense. Your response is to post one google search as evidence of sanskrit as spoken language and then - instead of addressing the content - keep questioning the credentials.

One of your fellow bhakth is even questioning the concept of a border in another thread.

Your personal attacks won't change reality dear. Come back to me with some academic sources, as simple as that.

 

[MM_Haider]

There are those who explain the raison d'etre of Pakistan through religion. That is how the Muhajir, according to him, claim a proprietary right to Pakistan; that is why Urdu was imposed on the new state, rather than Persian (remember that their national anthem is in Persian). So he is particular about excluding Muhajir, unless they accept that they are an additional element in the Indus-centric Pakistan.

There are those who explain the raison d'etre of Pakistan by denying their entire pre-Islamic history. That is how the racists, who claim to be exclusively Turanian/Turkish, Iranian or Arab, claim a proprietary right to Pakistan; that is why to this school of thought there is an automatic rejection of everything before bin Qasim. So he is particular about excluding these supposed blue-blooded descendants of the steppe (or the desert).

The whole exercise is an attempt to promote the organic unity of the people of the Indus.

This is quite different from the exclusivity of the RSS. They want to exclude a section of the population because that section has a different religion, and because the RSS has determined and satisfied itself that there is scientific reason to exclude those following a different religious authority.

He didn't said yes too.

They are already but under an union.

- Your basic understanding about Urdu and Pakistan is fundamentally flawed. The very basis of Pakistan lies in rejection of your own brother on the basis of religion. On 14 August 1947 a Muslim Jatt said to the Non Muslim Jatt that although we both eat same food, we sing same songs, our culture, clothing and language is same but since you are Sikh or Hindu, we can't live with each other. Remember it by your heart.

Insofar as Urdu is concerned it contains 70% of Arabic and Persian words with a significant amount Turkish ones. It absorbs other language as its own (a necessary element for any language to evolve and thrive). Hence, our national Anthem may be in Persian but is understandable to all Pakistani as they understand their mother tongue. Secondly, Urdu being Lingua Franca of Northern India, Punjab, Behar, and areas comprising today's Pakistan, it was not imposed on any one. The biggest publications in 19th century were in Urdu. Even today you remove Urdu from Bollywood and there is nothing left.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You're claiming Muhajirs are some kind Islamists who are leading the state of Pakistan into religious hellhole?
You can't be more wrong than this, Muhajirs are the most secular and liberal group of Pakistan whatever their history may have been - they are the most vocal proponent of secularism. So, the assumption is itself misplaced. How can the lynching of Mashal Khan be blamed on Muhajirs?

You didn't read me carefully. I never said Muhajirs are supposed to be Islamists. They are part of Pakistan only because Pakistan, according to them and many others, was created as a homeland for the Muslims of South Asia. So, as Muslims, they are citizens.

That clashes horribly with the effort at getting the Indus-based ethnicities to agree that their common culture, built up due to proximity, is the justification for Pakistan.

You can't have both concepts within one bundle.

 

[Naofumi]

@letsrock Here is Harvard's paper on Vedic Sanskrit, this is called an academic source
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/dialects.pdf

You didn't read me carefully. I never said Muhajirs are supposed to be Islamists. They are part of Pakistan only because Pakistan, according to them and many others, was created as a homeland for the Muslims of South Asia. So, as Muslims, they are citizens.

That clashes horribly with the effort at getting the Indus-based ethnicities to agree that their common culture, built up due to proximity, is the justification for Pakistan.

You can't have both concepts within one bundle.

You can't have, that's the problem. Now they're - you can't expel them to become a pure Indus land. You should be secular but you've to be accommodating too.

 

[letsrock]

@letsrock Here is Harvard's paper on Vedic Sanskrit, this is called an academic source
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/dialects.pdf

And from that very source in page 6 :
"In fact, the Vedic texts seem to have been composed at an unknown time in an unknown area (of N. India); in other words, even after some 150 years of studying the texts, a dark mist still covers the whole Vedic period, which makes it very difficult to make out who did what, where, and at what time."

Nobody knows. She is indulging in academic speculation - it is academic yes but speculation nevertheless.
She did not say it was spoken nor she could put any date.

 

[MM_Haider]

You're claiming Muhajirs are some kind Islamists who are leading the state of Pakistan into religious hellhole?
You can't be more wrong than this, Muhajirs are the most secular and liberal group of Pakistan whatever their history may have been - they are the most vocal proponent of secularism. So, the assumption is itself misplaced. How can the lynching of Mashal Khan be blamed on Muhajirs?

Muhajirs rejected their own blood relatives on the basis of religion although food, culture, music, clothing... everything was same and chose Pakistan. A Muslim Chawla said to Hindu Chawla, although we have same culture and same forefather ... we reject you and choose Pakistan.

What do you mean by Muhajirs are not Islamists? Their is nothing wrong with being Islamist. It was the very basis of their migration to Pakistan. while living among them you are confused and drawing a parallel with RSS, BJ, BajRang dal, Siv Sena etc etc terrorists.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@letsrock Here is Harvard's paper on Vedic Sanskrit, this is called an academic source
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/dialects.pdf


You can't have, that's the problem. Now they're - you can't expel them to become a pure Indus land. You should be secular but you've to be accommodating too.

Of course. I don't think he's advocating eliminating them. Quite the contrary. BUT it is an extreme position to allow space to manoeuvre.

Why not just ask him?

 

[Naofumi]

And from that very source in page 6 :
"In fact, the Vedic texts seem to have been composed at an unknown time in an unknown area (of N. India); in other words, even after some 150 years of studying the texts, a dark mist still covers the whole Vedic period, which makes it very difficult to make out who did what, where, and at what time."

Nobody knows. She is indulging in academic speculation - it is academic yes but speculation nevertheless.
She did not say it was spoken nor she could put any date.

LOL, man, the dates remain unsettled in history, no one knows when Gilgamesh was written for sure. And that's what you could find in a whole paper, LOL.

 

[MM_Haider]

You can't have, that's the problem. Now they're - you can't expel them to become a pure Indus land. You should be secular but you've to be accommodating too.

reference to Indus is to clarify to delusional Hindu audience that Pakistan is not carved out or Republic of India ... It had a separate identity before Pakistan came into being.. while Muhajirs rejected their Hindu brethren although being sons of same grand father... they are as much Pakistanis as anyone else.. make no mistake and keep your propaganda to yourself!

 

[Naofumi]

Of course. I don't think he's advocating eliminating them. Quite the contrary. BUT it is an extreme position to allow space to manoeuvre.

Why not just ask him?

From my understanding, he wants them to be 'Indusized' - whatever that means but yes, let him answer what exactly he wants.

 

[Zee-shaun]

It hardly matters; you might as well call us Zimbabwe. We are India that is Bharat, and will remain so.



Who decides an official name? Some media anchor somewhere? Could you not think of a better argument?

It is so nice to read some pompous stuffed shirt being funny; that provides the contrast that makes the genuine, home-grown humour of wits like you so much more satisfying when we read your posts.

Call yourself whatever you want, who cares?. Urdu takes many geographical references and names from Persian and Arabic. Hindustan is the name given to the land east of the Indus River by the ancient Persians. In Urdu it's still called Hindustan and you have no say in this. Sorry!

 

[MM_Haider]

That clashes horribly with the effort at getting the Indus-based ethnicities to agree that their common culture, built up due to proximity, is the justification for Pakistan.

once again let me spoon-feed every delusional Indian out there .... Indus civilization is not limited to areas comprising Pakistan only.. It was spanned from Afghanistan to today's Pakistan to north western today;s India..

Muhajirs who rejected their blood brothers on the basis of religion and migrated to Pakistan are as much son of the Indus soil as any one else living in Pakistan before partition.. The reference to Indus valley civilization is given clear the myth that India is a pawitr land of Devta's and to deny the concept of Akhand Bharat.

1. The name of India is due to Indus river and related civilization.
2. India was never a one country before British colonialism except in the era of Ashok.
3. India was divided into several states before 1947.

I hope it clarifies.

From my understanding, he wants them to be 'Indusized' - whatever that means but yes, let him answer what exactly he wants.

even you belong to Indus valley if you are from one of these areas as mentioned below. Stop spreading false info about Muhajirs to carryout your propaganda.