What's new

Why is great philosopher Kautilya not part of Pakistan’s historical consciousness?

Even the name of your bogus nation is a lie, why not appropriate Gangadesh to it, are you ashamed of your Ganga heritage???? the reason you folks are known as Indians is the British referred to you Ganga Dravids as Indians, if the Brits would not have made their way into this vast and historically most diverse region, you and the world would find the word Indian alien to your Ganga lands, for heaven sake man even during British rule, folks from Bihar and other Ganga lands were given extra pay to serve in the Indus territories as they were considered foreign lands by Gangadeshis.Kudos doc

Gangadesh mata ki jai

Other name for India is Bharat and we are also referred to as Hindustan.

History is replete with hits and misses. Natives of Americas being called Indian, people of Indus being called Hindus, this subcontinent is still referred to Indian subcontinent, Urdu is being adopted as your national language etc.

Just deal with it. When you are strong, people will see you for what you are.
 
. .
Other name for India is Bharat and we are also referred to as Hindustan.

History is replete with hits and misses. Natives of Americas being called Indian, people of Indus being called Hindus, this subcontinent is still referred to Indian subcontinent, Urdu is being adopted as your national language etc.

Just deal with it. When you are strong, people will see you for what you are.
Gangadesh Mata Ki Jai heheehee:lol:
 
.
Kautilya was indeed a brilliant statesman and a political thinker, the sciences of political power, according to that time, were very nicely written down by him centuries ago.

Aside from his cultural and political heritage, he seems to have had quite a bit of influence on modern Indian political strategists and foreign policy masterminds. For example, he stated that empires face threats from others empires that surround them, therefore, it is best for the ruler of a given empire to build an alliance with other kingdoms that surround it's enemies, and hence , India faces a military threat from Pakistan and so they have sought to surround us with hostile states by attempting to ally woth afghanistan and Iran while aiming to isolate us globally albeit without complete success,

So, I believe that, to understand Kautilya's political strategies, is to understand the way that the Indian State thinks and behaves, no?

To say Kautilya influences Indian foreign ministry thinking anymore than Pakistan's is absurd. I am sure a smart Indian diplomat is well versed in Kautilya, Machiavelli and Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"
 
.
Unnecessary obfuscation.

The Scythians, who lived on the fringelands of imperial Iran, are already known to be Iranian (Iranic, if you prefer). The Yueh Chi came into direct conflict with them; unless it is sought to be represented that it was an internal battle between two sections of the Scythians themselves, it is difficult to identify them as Iranian/Iranic. Indo-European? Was ist los? Only the Tocharian language, a Centum anomaly within the Satem belt.

Well it just depends on where you want the starting point for "origins". I thought you were referring to further past their encounter with the Scythians. Keep in mind the ethnic makeup of various regions was possibly different, as the Mongols hadn't pillaged through this area yet.

You're wrong on the certainty of the language or certainty of them not being "Iranic". I suppose Iranic is a vague term, but generally it's implying Caucasoid, light brown/fair skin, certain features etc.

As the historian John E. Hill has put it: "For well over a century ... there have been many arguments about the ethnic and linguistic origins of the Da Yuezhi (大月氏), Kushans (貴霜), and the Tochari, and still there is little consensus". (wikipedia)

That mix is a possibility; their springing like Pallas Athena from the forehead of Zeus and finding imperium in Peshawar is a trifle unlikely, no?

Why yes. Yes it is a trifle unlikely. It's also an unnecessary segway. It sorta like you asking me if those jeans made you look fat.

They did set up base in Peshawar, made it the capital, and really boosted the city. Their original language was Greek, and eventually became Bactrian. A few scholars believe Pashto to have descended from Bactrian language.

Why are they not allowed to be clearly considered as the closest historical narrative considers them? The Moon Clan, the Yueh Chi, or Kushan (Moon Clan in Tocharian), driven out of their original residences in Gansu? Impacting the Scythians on the Indo-Greek kingdom borders and forcing these neighbours into those kingdoms, at a clearly demonstrated point of time, in the 2nd century of the Current Era? Pushing down further through the fabled bleeding horse country of Ferghana in the second flight before the inexorable pressure of the Hiung Nu, and driving the Scythians further south?

See above. Their origins was in question. Not the timeline of events.

It was at the end of this second push that they found themselves astride the former Indo-Greek kingdoms, and of the Gandhara region, and what later came to be known as Peshawar.

Yes, Gandhara aka Peshawar was at their second push. Sure. Following that they expanded further, upon making Peshawar their capital, and a center for buddhist art etc etc etc.

When in their timeline was this?

By then, they had passed through and kept in conquered condition the entire region that we call Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and Balkh and Kabul. It was demonstrably and provably after this that they penetrated the mountain barriers in force, not in presence in Peshawar and the surroundings alone, and left memorials in Saket and other locations in the eastern and middle Gangetic Doab.

I cannot understand your inability to accept that it was at a mature phase of their imperium (their career? complete with cv?), considering that they had traversed the entire region from Gansu to the banks of the Oxus and Jaxartes, and further down as well. If there is a political point to this reluctance, that is quite different, and does not belong to an academic discussion, and the field is indisputably yours, in such a case.

2-3 centuries of ruling, after making Peshawar their capital, doesn't equate to mature. It's you who's having trouble with reconciling this. Instead of recounting the various events, give me the timeline, and that'll decide whether it was at the mature phase, infancy, or entirety.

I'll save you the time. Yuezhi tribes, best guess, is they started their nomadic migration stuff around 127 BCE. Kushan empire was from 30 CE to 375 CE.

I think not. But then, it's a free world.

You are. You are assuming the Kushans are merely a rewording of the Tocharians. I'm saying they're distinct, as well there is no consensus on their origins.
 
.
Well it just depends on where you want the starting point for "origins". I thought you were referring to further past their encounter with the Scythians. Keep in mind the ethnic makeup of various regions was possibly different, as the Mongols hadn't pillaged through this area yet.

My view, FWIW, is that the entire borderland of Iran, specifically Achaemenid Iran, was peopled by peoples of a mixed ethnicity, but speaking various dialects of East Iranian. It was these peoples, whom the Achaemenid Emperors found to be very slippery customers, very elusive enemies, that we know as the Scythians (and variants on that name). Since my narrative seems to have been unduly obscure, I am referring to the period prior to their - the Tocharians, again, in my view, the Kushans, in yours, in short, the people referred to by Chinese narratives as enemies of the Hiung Nu, who lost both their moments of crisis with those ferocious proto-Mongolians - critical encounter with the Scythians. Not after, as my wording seems to have conveyed.

You're wrong on the certainty of the language or certainty of them not being "Iranic". I suppose Iranic is a vague term, but generally it's implying Caucasoid, light brown/fair skin, certain features etc.

Certainty? Yes, that would be an unnecessary oratorical flourish; nothing belonging to that age and location is 'certain', neither then nor later; take, for instance, the self-elevation of the Mughals 13 centuries after these events as descendants of both Chengiz and Taimur.

May I strongly dissent from your identification of Iranic as Caucasoid, with light brown or fair skin, and 'certain' features (presumably the straight-nosed, strong-chinned type straight from the pages of Edgar Rice Burroughs, or the other Edgar, Edgar Wallace). My sense is of an increasing consensus that even the Indo-Iranians were of mixed ethnicity, and that the unfortunate racist stereotypes are increasingly discredited.

However, you will say, and rightly so, that even this is uncertain; after all, positive identification of human remains with the language spoken by those humans is absent.

As the historian John E. Hill has put it: "For well over a century ... there have been many arguments about the ethnic and linguistic origins of the Da Yuezhi (大月氏), Kushans (貴霜), and the Tochari, and still there is little consensus". (wikipedia)

Not too difficult to understand that despairing point of view, considering that the Tocharian language was a Centum language, awkwardly placed on the wrong side of the Satem languages. They should never have been there, they should have lived cheek-to-strongly-'Caucasoid'-jowl with their linguistic agnates, who later refined and carried the Centum languages. The excitement of discovering these apparently European types, with their Nordic features and gingham dresses, was, to the social consciousness of the Europeans of those times the biggest turn-on. I recommend, having introduced a reference to popular literature of the times already, a re-reading of G. A. Henty, as a necessary carminative.

And wikipedia as a reference? I thought we were having a polite conversation, and I was even enjoying it.

Why yes. Yes it is a trifle unlikely. It's also an unnecessary segway. It sorta like you asking me if those jeans made you look fat.

Hmm. Apparently I am speaking to a scarred and battered consciousness. My commiserations.

Whether or not it is an unnecessary 'segway' (did you mean 'segue'? This discussion is not about personal transportation of a post-modern variety, or am I in the wrong discussion?) is moot. I thought it was a relevant 'ad absurdum' reference that I made.

They did set up base in Peshawar, made it the capital, and really boosted the city. Their original language was Greek, and eventually became Bactrian. A few scholars believe Pashto to have descended from Bactrian language.

The gap widens. Who 'they'? The Pashtun, presumably, from the context. That is a circular argument. The people who spoke Greek in Peshawar were the Indo-Greeks, not the Pashtun; now look who's conflating. By defining the people who spoke Greek in Peshawar as Pashtun we actually take as a certainty what is nothing but the speculation that is under discussion. And 'they' ultimately converting to Bactrian is again an historical development of the Indo-Greeks, amply borne out by their coinage. That had nothing to do with the Pashtun, which nomenclature came in centuries later. Whether or not a mix of these elements, the Indo-Greeks who later took to Bactrian and the Kushans, gave rise to the Pashtun is what is being discussed. Taking it as a given is as sound an argument as the historicity of the Pakistan identity as one that was lovingly crafted in ancient times and bequeathed with solicitous care through the centuries.

As befits a pedant, may I cite the phrase 'ad litteram'?

And if you are saying that the Kushans originally spoke Greek, let me admit crushing defeat and scurry away as fast as I can.

See above. Their origins was in question. Not the timeline of events.

Well, to continue with the obscure, 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'.

Yes, Gandhara aka Peshawar was at their second push. Sure. Following that they expanded further, upon making Peshawar their capital, and a center for buddhist art etc etc etc.

The point precisely is that Gandhara is NOT aka Peshawar. Punjab is NOT aka Lahore. Sindh is NOT aka Karachi. And so on....'Falsus in uno...', etc.

When in their timeline was this?

Their imperial, mature phase? Even with the benefit of being able to look forward at your next argument, it is difficult not to conclude that finding a fixed capital, reasonably safe from attack, in sharp distinction from their years of flight, denotes a rooting and a fundamental element of stability.

2-3 centuries of ruling, after making Peshawar their capital, doesn't equate to mature. It's you who's having trouble with reconciling this. Instead of recounting the various events, give me the timeline, and that'll decide whether it was at the mature phase, infancy, or entirety.

I'll save you the time. Yuezhi tribes, best guess, is they started their nomadic migration stuff around 127 BCE. Kushan empire was from 30 CE to 375 CE.

Bewildering.

My argument is based entirely on their reaching a stable point, from which they would not have to retreat further. Why should not 2 to 3 centuries of ruling, after making Peshawar their capital, not equate to mature?

In fact, to cite your own figures, which are entirely acceptable, though not to the exclusion of other views, the Yuezhi started around 127 BC, or BCE, if you prefer. Considering that they spent nearly a century and a half flying before a determined and implacable enemy, and considering that they won Peshawar AFTER they had displaced their immediate neighbours in their frantic effort to find safe havens, I see no logic behind denying that this was during their mature phase, the phase when they became known to a wider assortment of people as an imperial force, the phase when they acculturated themselves to their surrounding social and intellectual and religious milieu, the phase when they remained a powerful, expansive military force, pushing deep into the Gangetic plain.

You are. You are assuming the Kushans are merely a rewording of the Tocharians. I'm saying they're distinct, as well there is no consensus on their origins.

If you wish. Doesn't really bother me if you wish to use ad hominem. It should, on the other hand, bother you.
 
.
Something only a handful of "indigenous" Hindu people have.

I mark indigenous in quotes because the Vedic Hindu bloodlines come from us.

And were also foreign when they invaded and butchered and then intermingled with native Dravid bloodlines.

This doesn't make sense because brahmins have more proto-indo-iranian ancestry then Parsis/Persians of Iran. In fact 2-3 times more on average. They also butchered ancestors of Iranis believed to be proto-dravidians by some.

They didn't come from you considering R1a is very rare haplogroup among Persians/Parsis unlike brahmins and high caste hindus. Most Iranis are not direct descendent of proto-indo-iranians but speak IE language.
 
.
My view, FWIW, is that the entire borderland of Iran, specifically Achaemenid Iran, was peopled by peoples of a mixed ethnicity, but speaking various dialects of East Iranian. It was these peoples, whom the Achaemenid Emperors found to be very slippery customers, very elusive enemies, that we know as the Scythians (and variants on that name). Since my narrative seems to have been unduly obscure, I am referring to the period prior to their - the Tocharians, again, in my view, the Kushans, in yours, in short, the people referred to by Chinese narratives as enemies of the Hiung Nu, who lost both their moments of crisis with those ferocious proto-Mongolians - critical encounter with the Scythians. Not after, as my wording seems to have conveyed.

Well that's just it then. The point of contention appears to be regarding whether the Kushans were Tocharians or not. Frankly, it's a little irrelevant, because they were almost annihiliated entirely by the Chinese before they made their way to Bactria. The Indo Greeks and the Persians agreed to cease hostilities because of the barbarian hordes - both thought that their fighting will just allow the hordes to enter and take the victory (which is pretty much what happened). But that's a separate thing, not relevant to this.

Certainty? Yes, that would be an unnecessary oratorical flourish; nothing belonging to that age and location is 'certain', neither then nor later; take, for instance, the self-elevation of the Mughals 13 centuries after these events as descendants of both Chengiz and Taimur.

May I strongly dissent from your identification of Iranic as Caucasoid, with light brown or fair skin, and 'certain' features (presumably the straight-nosed, strong-chinned type straight from the pages of Edgar Rice Burroughs, or the other Edgar, Edgar Wallace). My sense is of an increasing consensus that even the Indo-Iranians were of mixed ethnicity, and that the unfortunate racist stereotypes are increasingly discredited.

However, you will say, and rightly so, that even this is uncertain; after all, positive identification of human remains with the language spoken by those humans is absent.

You may dissent with this. But the point of my saying that is simply because your initial argument, lest we forget, was that the Tocharians coming to Peshawar was at a "mature" phase of their career. We don't know the Kushans are Tocharians (as you appear to have agreed to now), therefore your dispute, while interesting and educational, is a diversion to the point at hand.

Hmm. Apparently I am speaking to a scarred and battered consciousness. My commiserations.

Whether or not it is an unnecessary 'segway' (did you mean 'segue'? This discussion is not about personal transportation of a post-modern variety, or am I in the wrong discussion?) is moot. I thought it was a relevant 'ad absurdum' reference that I made.

But I was merely conveying that it was an irrelevant ad absurdum, because my claim was not that they sprung out of thin air into Peshawar, and made it their empire.

My claim is, when they were in Peshawar, that was when they expanded. They had to take a few steps before getting there. The reason I brought it up in the first place was because someone here was trying to claim Kushans as ancestors of Punjabis. That claim is just off, and the fact is Kushans could easily be ancestors of Pashtuns.

Who 'they'?

Kushans.

And if you are saying that the Kushans originally spoke Greek, let me admit crushing defeat and scurry away as fast as I can.

Official language they used was Greek until 127, then Bactrian from then onwards. This is evidenced from, among other items, coins minted by them in their era.

Well, to continue with the obscure, 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'.

Sure. No Falsus here though. Since it wasn't a mature phase of their reign, nor are we certain of their ethnic background.

My argument is based entirely on their reaching a stable point, from which they would not have to retreat further. Why should not 2 to 3 centuries of ruling, after making Peshawar their capital, not equate to mature?

Well mature can mean 2 things. It's either chronological, or based on some kind of a "product life cycle" (for lack of a better term) equivalent. Regardless, it's inaccurate in both. Chronologically we've already seen how it's inaccurate. 2 - 3 centuries in a total of, what... 4 centuries... do the math, it's just not at the mature phase then. Product life cycle way it's inaccurate because after making Peshawar home base, they grew substantially beyond that. There was much growth beyond it, and Peshawar was a place they liked quite a bit it seemed.

So there you go. Wasn't mature, and we don't know they're tocharian, AND best of all... to a fair extent, you're even agreeing with some of the stuff. I think we're making progress here!
 
Last edited:
.
Partition gave Pakistan a fantastic opportunity to be like Iran with regard to their pre-Islamic past. Without baggage (the baggage having moved to India).

Such would have been difficult, if not impossible, were India to have been undivided, and Hindu-dominant still.

Unfortunately Pakistan lost that opportunity of owning and embracing her history. Of the land and its people. Of a civilizational continuum. Not unlike Iran with its Persian legacy.

In refusing to acknowledge and own its Hindu (and Buddhist) past, ironically Pakistan actually remains joined at the cord to India.

This is my personal opinion.

Cheers, Doc
We are working on it!

That is very true. But common misperceptions exist everywhere. If everybody thinks I am a Buddhist I falls on me to fix that error. And if that error has taken root it will take lot of effort.

In this case the branding, distributing and making of world perception as regards South Asia was done by Britain. As the superpower of it's time it influence spread to every nook and cranny of the world. The world began to assoiciate British India to what is now South Asia and that undestanding persists today - to a point even our people have become victims to British narrative of our world. I am as a person brought up in Britain are conspicious of this but it take a clear mind to get rid of the fudge. But most people just buy te fudge.
True is what you write! Indeed Pakistanis have been brainwashed by the Colonial master's narrative. Pakistanis must challenge this!
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom