It is a sad observation that we Pakistanis are not sure about being really separate from India. Are our roots in the Indian nation? Are we as Pakistanis, really a separate nation - cultural, religious, linguistic identity etc… Please do shed some light on this because some people on this site seem to be confused about this!
Re: Crisis of identity?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by laeeqkhan: *
It is a sad observation that we Pakistanis are not sure about being really separate from India. Are our roots in the Indian nation? Are we as Pakistanis, really a separate nation - cultural, religious, linguistic identity etc... Please do shed some light on this because some people on this site seem to be confused about this!
[/QUOTE]
actually our root are in mohan-jo daro and harrapa that is very core of indian identity. very name of india is from sindhu
I believe you claim you roots to be the people who actually conquered and over ran Moenjodaro and Harrappa, enslaving those citizens.
whart were pakistani calling themselves before 1947? punjabi provinse?
name of the region is called punjab?
Re: Crisis of identity?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by laeeqkhan: *
It is a sad observation that we Pakistanis are not sure about being really separate from India. Are our roots in the Indian nation? Are we as Pakistanis, really a separate nation - cultural, religious, linguistic identity etc... Please do shed some light on this because some people on this site seem to be confused about this!
[/QUOTE]
u must be aware that punjab has been a part of the india from the start of known history to 1947. sindh was a part of india till the rule of the mauryas. after that it came under persian/arab influence. and there were periods during which sindh remained independent. but it came under the rule of mughal empire and was always under the influence of the rulers at delhi. so for the past 800 years sindh has been a part of india.
the part that is called NWFP was mostly a part of the afghan kingdom. even this was conquered by the mughals. baluchistan was a part of persia.
the above is a rough history of punjab and sindh.
it clearly shows that punjab and sindh have been a part of india for most of the recent history. NWFP and baluchistan r the gifts of the british rule.
We are damn proud of our Sohni dharti 
We come from the land of Harrapa, Taxila
We are descendents of Rajputs, Jats, Kushans, Huns, Greeks, and many more..
Ashoka was ours, Kautilya was a native, Pannini was a son of the soil.
Alexander took his fatal blow in our land.
All this even before Islam came..
If you Indians want to bring it (history) on, I can personally assure you that I WILL bring up Aryans and their crimes against the Dravidian nation. Don’t forget that it was the Rajput Sun worshippers that could never be tamed by the ferocious Aryans…Ever hear of the word m’leech? Meaning unpure…the words used to describe the inhabitants east of the Ravi? We’ll we’re back from history to torment the Arya Bharat once again 
Indus is OURS, so is the great civilization of Gandhara, and the Mauryan empire. You can have the Gangetic valleys, the South Indian Ghats, heck even take the Bengal delta but never delude yourselves into believing that we are the same.
The only Jats, Rajputs in India are Sikhs and Rajasthanis…soon they too will realize their destiny, for they will never be true members of the Brahmincal state.
Why do Indians have to jump into every topic we want to discuss? Anyway!
"PAKISTAN RARELY PART OF INDIA
But, as the following discussion will prove, during the Hindu period it was the people of the Indus Valley in the West and the Padma-Meghna Delta in the East that mostly emerged triumphant. Both the wings remained independent of Gangetic Valley and in fact Pakistan-based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than India has ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ------ cultural, commercial as well as political ---- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that these two wings became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by the two wings. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the sub-continent took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. I shall quote a few passages from history to substantiate my statement.
"At the close of Samudragupta’s triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith).
"Harsha’s subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid)
"The Gurjara empire of Bhoja may be defined as, on the north, the foot of the mountains; on the northwest, the Sutlej; on the west the Hakra or the ‘lost-river’ forming the boundary of Sind." (Ibid).
"The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is extremely obscure. At some time, not recorded, a powerful kingdom had been formed, which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra of lost-river, so that it comprised a large part of the Punjab, as well as probably northern Sind." (Ibid)
"Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown)
The above quotations amply prove that none of the periods of its greatest expansion did India succeed in occupying Pakistan. The only exception is the Maurya period in the 3rd century BC when Asoka’s empire is said to have extended up to the Hindu Kush, north of Kabul. Even in this isolated case of the Mauryas, historians are aware that Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who hailed from Pakistan (Punjab), did not get Pakistan by conquest but by diplomacy from the Greek rulers who had succeeded Alexander.
As pointed out by more than one writer, the five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that its independence had been a rule while its subservience to or attachment with India an exception. "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer’s nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee)
During its five thousand-year known history, Pakistan has been subservient to Central Indian governments only during the Maurya, the Turko-Afghan and British periods who were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian respectively. While the Mauryan (300-200 BC) and British (1848-1947) periods lasted barely a hundred years each, the turko-Afghan period was the longest covering a span of 500 years.
Here we come across an important ideological point. All the three religions i.e. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which succeeded in uniting the sub-continent under the Maurya, Turko-Afghan and British rulers stood for universal brotherhood and were spread all over the world. In the context of ideology, the implications are obvious i.e., only people believing in universal brotherhood could unite and hold this sub-continent together. Otherwise Pakistan’s independence could never be challenged nor its people subdued by India’s Hindu Governments. "
Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:
-
Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran’s Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.
-
Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.
-
Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.
-
Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.
-
Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.
-
Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.
-
White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.
-
White Huns (2nd phase— mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.
-
Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.
-
Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.
-
Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.
-
Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.
-
Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.
-
British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.
-
Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.
The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan’s known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian ‘claim’ that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.
Hindu Dharma and Pakistan
Almost all the religious books of the Hindus, particularly the Dharma Shastras regarded Sakas and Yavanas, the inhabitants of Pakistan in those days, as M’leechas (unclean). The Atharva-veda regarded Pakistan as outlandish. Similarly they were unanimous in considering Vangals i.e., Bengalees, as barbarous, outside the pale of Aryans–outscastes, outsiders. Further, they were all termed dasyus (slaves) and rakashas (devils). According to a passage in the Mahabharata, Yavanas and Gandharas (people of Pakistan), and Vangals (Bangladeshis) are sinful creatures in earth. They did not respect the Brahmins and their religion; did not follow their laws, spoke different language and were therefore detested and despised by the Aryan high castes. Inter-mixture with them was prohibited. Patanjali speaks of Yavanas and Sakas as sudras and relegates them outside Aryavarta (A History of Indian Culture, by Radhakumad Mukherjee).
The basin of the Indus and the Punjab West of Sutlej came to be regarded as impure land by the Brahmins of interior India at quite an early date. Orthodox Hindus are still unwilling to cross the Indus, and the whole of West Punjab between that river and the Sutlej is condemned as unholy ground, unfit for the residence of strict votaries of Dharma (Oxford History of India, by VA Smith, 3rd edition, edited by Percival Spear).
The Jat’s spirit of freedom and equality refused to submit to Brahminical Hinduism and in its turn drew the censure of the privileged Brahmins of the Gangetic plain who pronounced that 'No Aryan should stay in the Punjab for even two days because the Punjabis refused to obey the priests (A History of Sikhs, by Kushwant Singh).
The inroads of those foreigners blotted out the memory of the memory of the Aryan immigration from the North-West (i.e. Pakistan) which is not traceable either in the popular puranic literature or in the oral traditions of the people. To the east of Sutlej (i.e. India) the Aryans were usually safe from foreign invasions and free to work out their own way of life undisturbed. They proceeded to do so and thus to create Hinduism with its inseparable institution of caste (Oxford History of India, by VA Smith, 3rd edition, edited by Percival Spear).
It is noteworthy that according to the Bandayana Dharma Shastra the Indus Valley was considered impure and outside the limits of Aryandom proper. Any one who went there had to perform sacrifices of purification on return. (Tribes in Ancient India, by BC Law)
The Brhat-Samhita mentions Vokkana country as situated in the western region of Indian subcontinent (Pakistan). In chapter XVI, V.35, Varaha Mihira includes the Vokkana among those belonging to Rahu, together with barbarians, evil-doers and the like (Roruka: was it Moenjodaro? by Pranavitana, Studies in asian History: Proceedings of the Asian History Congress held at New Delhi in 1961).
In later vedic literature there are references to confederation of un-Aryan tribes living in the north-east and north-west of the sub-continent in the first half of the 1st millennium B.C. Pundra and Vanga in Bengal, Madra in the Ravi-Chenab Doab (The Peoples of Pakistan, by Yu Gankovsky).
While the Aryans by now expanded far into India their old home in the Punjab and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where the Vedic sacrifices are not performed (The Wonder that was India, by AL Basham).
Both Buddhism and Jainism flourished in Sind and it had revolted against the superiority of Brahmins. They ignored their Gods and denied the Vedas (Sindhi Culture, by UT Thakur).
It might have been noticed that by the beginning of the Christian era, the racial and ethnic character of Pakistan had undergone complete transformation. Whatever Aryan elements were left had almost disappeared in the avalanche of Central Asian Saka and Kushan tribes whose disregard of strict Hindu principles antagonised the high caste Hindus, ultimately leading to mass conversion of Pakistan to Buddhism during Kanishka’s time. With this development, the differences in ethnic and racial composition between Pakistanis and Indians also assumed religious colour. It was because of the hatred for the people of Pakistan that, as already stated, the Hindus never built any holy city or temple or regarded any river in Pakistan sacred. The Punjab Gaztteer Vol. XX says that “the Punjab can show but few Hindu antiquities.” It may be be noted that the remains of pre-Vedic (Indus Valley Civilization) and Buddhist periods are found in Pakistan but not of the Hindu period which came between the two and again appeared to a limited extent after the fall of Buddhism.
The Aryans who settled down in the Gangetic Valley had come to their journey’s end after a very long and arduous march. The rich fertile doab of the Ganges was the baikuntha, according to their heart’s desire. To entrench themselves in this paradise they took two measures:
(i) they adopted the policy of aparatheid (the caste system); and
(ii) they made earnest efforts to turn the marginal lands into a buffer zone and to seal their nearer borders (i.e., the eastern border of the western wing and vice versa) against foreign intrusions.
For their further expansion and colonisation they took north-south bearings. This vertical lay-out of this Hindu (Neo-Aryan) map of the subcontinent is the key to the understanding of geo-history of this part of the world. Vishnu Purana (II, 3.1) thus delineates the land of Bharata:
The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharata; there dwell the descendants of Bharata;
Kautilya, the Hindu Machiavelli, spoke of the “thousand Yojanas (leagues) of land that stretch from the Himalayas to the sea” as “the proper domain of chakravartia patha (a single universal emperor)”. This north-south (vertical) lay-out of the land of Bharata has been well summed up in the famous aphorism: Himalachala stu paryantum, i.e. from Himalayas to the end of land (Rameswaram). Vishnu Purana (11. 127-9) gives the geo-political reason for the vertical lay-out of Bharat; it states:
On the east of Bharata dwell the Kiratas (the barbarians); on the west, the Yavanas (the outlandish Greeks/ Bactrians); in the centre reside Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishayas and Sudras.
To protect the blue-blooded Aryans from the contamination of the ‘demonaic’ (Ashuras), ‘wild’ and ‘carrion-eating’ (Paisachas) and outlandish (Yavana)–people of the western wing and the ‘barbaric’ and ‘boorish’ Kirates, Pundras and Vangas of the eastern marginal land, the Hindu shastras laid down strict rules. The Dharma Sutra (II, 1.2.2) of Baudhayana states:
Who visits the country of the Arattas (the Punjab), or of the Pundras and Vangas (Northern and Eastern Bengal) must perform a purificatory sacrifice.
The Sutras and the Puranas are relatively late compositions. We find that the Aryan aversion for the people of the rimland had developed quite early during their migration from the land of the seven rivers. The Satapatha Brahmanas of the “White” Yajur-Veda (OX.31 18) show that the emigrant Aryans regarded those Aryan tribes, that were still in the basin of the Indus, with mistrust. The Aitareya Brahmana of the Rigveda states that beyond Magadha lived the Pundras of North Bengal and the Vangas of Central and Eastern Bengal who were outside the pale of Aryandom. The Mahabharata speaks of the Bahikas of the Punjab “who are outcasts from righteousness, who are shut out from the Himavat, the Ganga, the Saravati, the Yamuna, and Kurukshetra, and who dwell between the Five Rivers” (VIII 202, 9) It further lays down:
In the region where the Five Rivers flow let no Aryan dwell there even for two days. There they have no Vedic ceremony nor any sacrifice (V, 20, 63).
The imperialistic Hindu chakravartins did not always follow these rules of their Shatras. Whenever they found themselves powerful enough they invaded, pillaged and annexed as much of the portions of the marginal lands as they could. This expansionist hunger of the Hindus has not been satiated to this day. However, though they protested vehemently against “the vivisection of Bharat Mata” yet they never ceased to regard the marginal lands as impure. A remarkable evidence of their constancy in this respect is the fact that while the length and breadth of Bharat is studded with their tirathas, — holy towns, e.g. Kurkshetra in Hariana, Kashi (Benaras), Mathura, Haridwar (Hardwar), Prayaga (Allahabad) and Ayodha (Faizabad) in UP; Gaya in Bihar; Navadvipa (Nadiya) in W. Bengal; Cuttack Puri in Orissa; Avantika (Ujjain) in central India; Dvaraka in Gujrat; Kanchi and Ramesvram in the south; holy rivers all over Bharat and their holier confluences,— not a single notable tiratha ever existed in what is now Pakistan (Islam in the Geo-historical Perspective of Pakistan, by Qudratullah Fatimi).
It is indeed strange for the Hindus to claim Pakistan as part of Akhand Bharat on the basis of history when the entire history not only thoroughly disproves this claim but, on the contrary, amply bears out that Hindus themselves have regarded it as outside Aryavarta, as an impure land, not fit for their holy places; a land inhabited by sinners outside their fold.
Thanks Islamabad!
Your sources draws mostly from the work of Ahmed Abdulla, while my sources are a bit more diverse, however the spirit is the same.
Who gave the word Hindu and what does it mean? Does any Indian have an answer to that?
Who "created" and coined the word India?
It's amazing how you Indians INTRUDE on our thread, so it's time to offer some explanations for the word Hindu and India. Yea let's see how much of that Bharati history you all know!
Thanks Rajputfury! for adding to what Islamabad said. We want answers from Indians. We are here with facts now. I think the word India was invented by Muslims. The Hindu word for India is Bharat. Indian Hindus later adapted it as their own.
this is a flow chart how languages originated
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by laeeqkhan: *
Thanks Rajputfury! for adding to what Islamabad said. We want answers from Indians. We are here with facts now. I think the word India was invented by Muslims. The Hindu word for India is Bharat. Indian Hindus later adapted it as their own.
[/QUOTE]
The name Hindu(stan) was given my Muslims and India by Brits.
Pakistan Zindabad. Pakistan is a distinct nation of multiple exotic backgrounds, as RF said 
pakistan identity is more like proving they are not indians or anything to do with india. when somebody asks who are you the answer would be "i am not indian"
I think you'd have to be stupid to claim there's no Indian ancestry. On the other hand, judging by the number of posts by Durango on this forum, I'm not sure it's Pakistanis that are obsessed about it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr Xtreme: *
I think you'd have to be stupid to claim there's no Indian ancestry. On the other hand, judging by the number of posts by Durango on this forum, I'm not sure it's Pakistanis that are obsessed about it.
[/QUOTE]
remeber bangaldeshis were pakistanis once who could be more indians
than bangaldeshis in terms of native dwellers?they have nothing to with central asians or arabs.
Rvikz, it is all purely semantics. Pakistanis are racially, ethnically, and religiously very different than Indians. In addition, the more southward or eastward one travels farther away from Pakistan into India, the differences become exponentially more apparent.
Pakistan Zindabad! 
you consider musharuff indian ?
advani pakistani?
basically pakistanis are punjabis without turbans
why does no pakistani want to believe that pakistan was different from india. the fact is that there was not pakistan before 1947. it was all india. The ethnicity of the people may be different but it would be foolish to claim that pakistan was different from india.