What's new

Why the creation of Pakistan does not negate my Indian identity

Okay here is drawing of the Battle of Miani 1843. On one side are British East Indian Army soldiers trying to annex the Sindhi's to British India. Please tell me why the Sindhi's are fighting like lions and the river goes red with blood? Why are they fighting to avoid being part of India? Please tell me?


4435716938_131534a06f_b.jpg

They fought British like they fought the Arabs.

Muhammad Bin Qasim: Predator or preacher?
Akhtar BalouchUpdated April 08, 2014
2729

204

5344111d27820.jpg

We all know that Arab General Muhammad Bin Qasim conquered Sindh in 712 AD. However, the facts surrounding this conquest, and the ill fate that followed for the conqueror is known to few among us.

According to researcher and historian Dr Mubarak Ali, the war between Muhamad Bin Qasim and Raja Dahar was never a war of faith versus infidelity. He further says that it is not correct that Muhammad Bin Qasim’s men included Hindus of scheduled castes fighting for him.

It was after Muhammad Bin Qasim had conquered Sindh and had marched further ahead that locals started joining the Arab forces due to poverty and joblessness. According to Dr Mubarak Ali, the Arabs started ruling under the umbrella of an ancient elite class, thus their behaviour towards the lower and humbler communities never changed.

As such, the taking over of the reigns of Hind and Sindh by the Arabs never changed a thing for the already oppressed and victimised classes of society, which is claimed to be the focus of Islamic governance.

So, who is to decide if Muhammad Bin Qasim was a predator or a preacher?

No glory in death
Chachnama, a Sindhi book published by the Sindhi Adabi Board in 2008, speaks of Muhammad bin Qasim's demise on page 242 to 243. I will try to summarise it for you.

After Raja Dahar was killed, two of his daughters were made captive, whom Muhammad Bin Qasim sent to the capital Damascus. After a few days, the Caliph of the Muslims called the two young women to his court. The name of the elder daughter of Raja Dahar was Suryadevi, while the younger one’s name was Pirmaldevi.

Caliph Waleed Bin Abdul Malik fell for Suryadevi’s extraordinary beauty. He ordered for her younger sister to be taken away. The Caliph then began to take liberties with Suryadevi, pulling her to himself.

It is written that Suryadevi sprang up and said: “May the king live long: I, a humble slave, am not fit for your Majesty's bedroom, because Muhammad Bin Qasim kept both of us sisters with him for three days, and then sent us to the caliphate. Perhaps your custom is such, but this kind of disgrace should not be permitted by kings.”

Hearing this, the Caliph’s blood boiled as heat from anger and desire both compounded within him.

Blinded in the thirst of Suryadevi’s nearness and jealousy of Bin Qasim who had robbed him of the purity he would otherwise have had, the Caliph [sic] immediately sent for pen, ink and paper, and with his own hands wrote an order, directing that, “Muhammad (Bin) Qasim should, wherever he may be, put himself in raw leather and come back to the chief seat of the caliphate.”

Muhammad Bin Qasim received the Caliph’s orders in the city of Udhapur. He directed his own men to wrap him in raw leather and lock him in a trunk before taking him to Damascus.

En route to the capital, Muhammad Bin Qasim, conqueror to some, predator to others, breathed his last and his soul departed to meet with the Creator in whose name he claimed to crusade in Sindh.

When the trunk carrying Muhammad Bin Qasim’s corpse wrapped in raw leather reached the Caliph’s court, the Caliph called upon Dahar’s daughters, asking them to bear witness to the spectacle of obedience of his men for the Caliph.

One of Dahar’s daughter’s then spoke in return and said: “The fact is that Muhammad Qasim was like a brother or a son to us; he never touched us, your slaves, and our chastity was safe with him. But in as much as he brought ruin on the king of Hind and Sind, desolated the kingdom of our fathers and grandfathers, and degraded us from princely rank to slavery, we have, with the intention of revenge and of bringing ruin and degradation to him in return, misrepresented the matter and spoken a false thing to your majesty against him.”

The author of the Chachnama then writes that had Muhammad Bin Qasim not lost his senses in the passion of obedience, he could have made the whole journey normally, while wrapping himself in raw leather and locking himself in a trunk only when a part of the journey remained to be covered.

He could have then proven himself innocent in the Caliph’s court and saved himself from such a fate.

Translated by Ayaz Laghari


2729

204

Akhtar Balouch is a senior journalist, writer and researcher. He is currently a council member of the HRCP. Sociology is his primary domain of expertise, on which he has published several books.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1098562
 
They came over, they brought another religion, they ruled then they were ousted by Britishers and they demanded separate land.

Real Indians belonged from Afghanistan to Myanmar. They just got converted and got divided. End of Story.
 
no need to get angry
I am sat in the rather comfortable luxury of my front room with glorious views of the English countryside. I have some work to do [should take about one hour] and I am off on my trek. The weather is overcast but fresh. why oh why would be angry? I do have a direct way of thinking out aloud but that is just my style. I think I said it before - how you lot confuse that with 'anger' is beyond me.

simple point is that Delhi ; Agra and other historical places which are the roots of present day Pakistan are located in India
Seriously tell me how these places are "roots" for your typical Baloch, Sindhi, Pakhtun or Punjabi who make over 90% of Pakistan. Seriously? Punjabis are crazy about Lahore - that I know for a fact.

GEN Musharraf became sentimental on visiting these places ; therefore such romanticism and nostalgia is not wrong or improper
That is natural. Musharaf was a mohajir from Delhi and that is expected. Nothing wrong with that. Your PM Singh was from a village in Pakistan Punjab and he felt the same way. President Kennedy's ancestoes were from Ireland and he felt the same way about Dublin. These are personal examples and reflect on that family it's personal history. Don't conflate that on entire country. As I said about over 90% of Pakistani are native to their soil.

UK minister Priti Patel is of Indian extraction. If she goes to India she is bound to get nostalgic but does that reflect on rest of United Kingdom?
 
They came over, they brought another religion, they ruled then they were ousted by Britishers and they demanded separate land.

Real Indians belonged from Afghanistan to Myanmar. They just got converted and got divided. End of Story.

LOL That is a whole new tale by this Indian... At least convince your countrymen to keep one narrative. You Indians cannot even create one BS narrative.
 
Real Indians

never existed, Hind, Hindustan, india was always a geographical term just like Asia, it was never united as one nation, nor a single entity, always divided between many nations, cultures, and ethnic groups.

Only in bharati sanghi history book bharat existed as one unit, one culture and one people.. which fail whenever someone factually and logically counter them,

at the same time sanghi are teaching that Pakistani suffer from identity crisis :lol:
 
Narrative changes from person to person, get some education. :sarcastic:

LOL This fool has no shame in admitting that his narrative changed from one person to another. Well, what else is there left to discuss here with people who say one thing, but admit that narrative changes. In other words, all BS stories from one ear to another.

You know what, Laloo Prasad. You just stay happy in your land and stop believing in fairy tales.

Pakistan and Hindustan are two realities. Just let go of fantasies.
 
They fought British like they fought the Arabs.
And did I at any point say the Sindhi did not fight Arabs? They fought every invader because they were Sindhi. It did not matter if the invader was Arab, Turk, English, Maratha, Bengali etc.

I only mentioned the British because 1947 was direct result of and preceded by 1843. The British left in 1947 and they arrived in 1843. The diffeance is they arrived with guns blazing and they left on back of GM Syed's Sindh resolution by elective choice to opt for Pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Resolution_in_Sindh_assembly
 
I am sat in the rather comfortable luxury of my front room with glorious views of the English countryside. I have some work to do [should take about one hour] and I am off on my trek. The weather is overcast but fresh. why oh why would be angry? I do have a direct way of thinking out aloud but that is just my style. I think I said it before - how you lot confuse that with 'anger' is beyond me.

Seriously tell me how these places are "roots" for your typical Baloch, Sindhi, Pakhtun or Punjabi who make over 90% of Pakistan. Seriously? Punjabis are crazy about Lahore - that I know for a fact.

That is natural. Musharaf was a mohajir from Delhi and that is expected. Nothing wrong with that. Your PM Singh was from a village in Pakistan Punjab and he felt the same way. President Kennedy's ancestoes were from Ireland and he felt the same way about Dublin. These are personal examples and reflect on that family it's personal history. Don't conflate that on entire country. As I said about over 90% of Pakistani are native to their soil.

UK minister Priti Patel is of Indian extraction. If she goes to India she is bound to get nostalgic but does that reflect on rest of United Kingdom?

I have seen Pakistani tourists (Grown ups And middle Aged people )
in Delhi and Agra giggling like Kids in Disneyland
 
And did I at any point say the Sindhi did not fight Arabs? They fought every invader because they were Sindhi. It did not matter if the invader was Arab, Turk, English, Maratha, Bengali etc.

I only mentioned the British because 1947 was direct result of and preceded by 1843. The British left in 1947 and they arrived in 1843. The diffeance is they arrived with guns blazing and they left on back of GM Syed's Sindh resolution by elective choice to opt for Pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Resolution_in_Sindh_assembly

May I add, a Sindh which India can only dream of reuniting LOL The pain I have seen on the faces of Indians. Man, the Brits really screwed these Indians. They just can never recover from this scar. This scar is too much to bare for Indians. What a pain it must be for these Indians to endure.
 
Last edited:
never existed, Hind, Hindustan, india was always a geographical term just like Asia, it was never united as one nation, nor a single entity, always divided between many nations, cultures, and ethnic groups.
Where did you get your education? Entire world history is filled with India. It got shrinked by creation of new nations, but India was always a nation like Britain or Russia.

We know people from USSR were Russians, From Britain called as British. Same way Indian.

You can deny all you want. You can't change history. :drag:
 
And did I at any point say the Sindhi did not fight Arabs? They fought every invader because they were Sindhi. It did not matter if the invader was Arab, Turk, English, Maratha, Bengali etc.

I only mentioned the British because 1947 was direct result of and preceded by 1843. The British left in 1947 and they arrived in 1843. The diffeance is they arrived with guns blazing and they left on back of GM Syed's Sindh resolution by elective choice to opt for Pakistan.

Well Punjabis also fought the Pushtuns. So why is KPK and Punjab part of Pakistan?
 
Sindh does not support the Punjabi Hostility towards India

Mostly Punjabis are IRRECONCIABLY hostile towards India

Others are not

LOL According to your fairy land Hindu narrative. Pakistanis, be it Sindhis, Punjabis, Pashtun and Baloch share an equal hate for India. Indians are the arch enemy of every Sindhi and Pakistani. We don't need lecturing from an Indian about how we view your kind. We loath Indians and there is no dispute whatsoever.
 
Where did you get your education? Entire world history is filled with India. It got shrinked by creation of new nations, but India was always a nation like Britain or Russia

Word India was used for region same as asia, it never was a single entity, maybe your sanghi history books says otherwise? present your facts, when was india a single entity before 1947?when it start getting divided?

Sindh does not support the Punjabi Hostility towards India

Only Punjabis are IRRECONCIABLY hostile towards India

Others are not

You should only talk on behalf of your people, let Sindhis explain what they feel about bharatis.
 

Back
Top Bottom