We’re Aryans and Indians are Dravidians therefore we’re far superior. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistan4ever: *
India was created by the British colonialists who after invading/annexing the various nations/kingdoms of South Asia consolidated them into a single administrative unit naming it India. No country with such name or size existed prior to the advent of British.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know much about what went on before but there was definitely a Moghul empire just before the British one. It might have been called Hind then I think.
ON INDIA, HINDU, AND HINDUISM
"Hindu/India" (derived from 'Sindhu' in present day Pakistan --
btw the people of Sindhu continue to call themselves Sindhis,
not Hindus/Indians) was exclusively the non-religious geographic
foreign term for only Indus Valley (Pakistan) in ancient times.
It had nothing to do with the religion of Hinduism, nor the region
of present day India. This is proven in the Achaemenian inscriptions
(at Persepolis) and Greek texts (like those of Herodotus).
It was many centuries later that the term "Hind/India"
was used by some foreigners to further encompass much of South Asia,
again as a geographic term having no religious or national meaning.
The broadening of this term's usage was no different than how the
word "Farangi" (derived from Franks/France) became the term for all
Europeans used by Middle Easterners (and South Asians) during the
Middle Ages due to French interaction (Crusaders) with them. Indus
Valley is located at the entering point (from west) into South Asia,
thus its geographic term was later used by a few foreign visitors
and invaders for the whole region. However, others used 'Hind' for
present day north India and 'Sindh' for present day Pakistan.
The bottomline is that the term/word "Hind/Hindu/India" was foreign
(for their own references), and had no religious or national meaning.
It was no different than how the words 'Africa' and 'America' were used
--- i.e. foreign geographic terms encompassing many different
peoples/religions.
Not a single South Asian text/inscription (Vedic, Buddhist,
Brahmanic, etc.) mentions any word 'Hindu/Hinduism/India'. It was only
with the arrival of Muslim invaders (Ghorids --- 12th century AD)
that the foreign term 'Hindu/Hindustan' was imposed in South Asia to
denote its ruled subjects and lands. It was also starting from this
period that the word 'Hindu' started to gain a religious color. It was
easy for the new invaders to differentiate their religion from the
countless local ones with just a single word. Later on, with the
arrival of the British, their introduced term 'Hinduism' became widely
in use.
The foreign word 'Hinduism' simply became the term for many different
local religions of South Asia. Hinduism is a meaningless term in the
sense that it can include any thing or nothing. Contradictory or
opposing aspects are quite common in it, and as quoted by many
scholars it cannot be truly defined. Hinduism as a "civilization of
Hindus" is another hollow definition in the same way "Western
civilization" can include many different religions, peoples,
regions, etc. To say Hinduism has been evolving since ancient times
is a farce as the term/word itself has recent origins, and humans
and their ideas/beliefs have been evolving since time-immemorial all
over the world.
Present-day India was created one day after Pakistan's creation …
that's a fact! Pakistan was created by the Pakistanis themselves.
On the other hand, the British conquered the various
countries/peoples/kingdoms of South Asia and for the ease of
administration consolidated them into a single unit called India;
no country with such name or/and size existed before the British.
Upon the departure of British, their colonies were divided,
with present day India being a direct descendent of that British
creation. In the words of Winston Churchill, 'India is no more a
country than the Equator'. It is no wonder there are many separatist
movements in India, having many distinct nations, races, languages,
cultures, religions, histories, etc.
Pakistan might be a few decades old, but the land and its people
have a history dating back to thousands of years. Indus Valley
Civilization is their heritage, the continuity is obvious in many
aspects of their culture and race, absorbing and/or adopting the
many different waves of migrants/invaders throughout the centuries.
Pakistan---the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the
greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way
present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries also
recently created) inherits their own great ancient civilizations.
It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now
mostly Muslims! Descendents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians
are also now mostly Muslims, descendents of ancients Greeks and
Romans are now mostly Christians! So what! And also, if lets say,
today's Syrians are mostly Muslims, should Christians of today's
Nigeria claim the heritage of Syria just because Syria was once
mostly Christian? No!
The region of Pakistan was never part of present day region of India
except for 100 years under the Mauryans, 522 years under the
Muslims, and 100 years under the British. These are historical facts
that no one can deny! Most Indians have no right to claim the
heritage of Pakistan (Indus Valley Civilization, Rig Vedic Aryans,
Gandharan Civilization, etc.) because the region was rarely part of
India, with its mostly distinct religion, culture, language, etc.
since ancient times! Why should a Tamil (Indian) claim the heritage
of a Punjabi (Pakistani)? Or why should a Vishnuvite of Bengal
(Indian) claim the heritage of Kalasha's Kafirs of NWFP (Pakistanis)
or Buddhist ancestors of Sindhi Muslims (Pakistanis)? And let's say,
even if the ancestor of a Pakistani was Shaivite, does that mean that
Shaivites of Indonesia can claim the heritage of Pakistan? Of course not!
True !! I had personally heard Jamait-e-Islami chief in Pindi demanding the world to give Pakistan the status of a white nation. If we, Pakistanis and Indians are from same stock or the same race (tryin’ to be politically correct) why are we taller, fairer and Indians shorter, weaker and dark - many a times very dark. People can mistake Imran Khan or Wasim Akram as Italians or Greek but Kapil Dev or Srinath are pakka dirty looking dravidians.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabir: *
AND I THOUGHT that rajputs and jatts were only hindu sub castes
[/QUOTE]
No putter, WRONG. Ask any Pakistani and he'll tell you. Sikhism was created outta Hinduism because of the caste problems, so how can they be caste-ridden society? Hindoos have brahmin, shatriya (the warrior), and Shudras as three major castes. Shatriya is kinda like Rajputs but Rajput is an Urdu word and Rajputs are Muslims. Jats and Gujjars are only Punjabi Musalmaans, period. I, personally don't treat any non-muslims as Punjabis but sikhs are exceptions because they are fighting against India and are on Pakistan's side :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistan4ever: *
ON INDIA, HINDU, AND HINDUISM
"Hindu/India" (derived from 'Sindhu' in present day Pakistan --
btw the people of Sindhu continue to call themselves Sindhis,
not Hindus/Indians) was exclusively the non-religious geographic
foreign term for only Indus Valley (Pakistan) in ancient times.
It had nothing to do with the religion of Hinduism, nor the region
of present day India. This is proven in the Achaemenian inscriptions
(at Persepolis) and Greek texts (like those of Herodotus).
It was many centuries later that the term "Hind/India"
was used by some foreigners to further encompass much of South Asia,
again as a geographic term having no religious or national meaning.
The broadening of this term's usage was no different than how the
word "Farangi" (derived from Franks/France) became the term for all
Europeans used by Middle Easterners (and South Asians) during the
Middle Ages due to French interaction (Crusaders) with them. Indus
Valley is located at the entering point (from west) into South Asia,
thus its geographic term was later used by a few foreign visitors
and invaders for the whole region. However, others used 'Hind' for
present day north India and 'Sindh' for present day Pakistan.
The bottomline is that the term/word "Hind/Hindu/India" was foreign
(for their own references), and had no religious or national meaning.
It was no different than how the words 'Africa' and 'America' were used
--- i.e. foreign geographic terms encompassing many different
peoples/religions.
Not a single South Asian text/inscription (Vedic, Buddhist,
Brahmanic, etc.) mentions any word 'Hindu/Hinduism/India'. It was only
with the arrival of Muslim invaders (Ghorids --- 12th century AD)
that the foreign term 'Hindu/Hindustan' was imposed in South Asia to
denote its ruled subjects and lands. It was also starting from this
period that the word 'Hindu' started to gain a religious color. It was
easy for the new invaders to differentiate their religion from the
countless local ones with just a single word. Later on, with the
arrival of the British, their introduced term 'Hinduism' became widely
in use.
The foreign word 'Hinduism' simply became the term for many different
local religions of South Asia. Hinduism is a meaningless term in the
sense that it can include any thing or nothing. Contradictory or
opposing aspects are quite common in it, and as quoted by many
scholars it cannot be truly defined. Hinduism as a "civilization of
Hindus" is another hollow definition in the same way "Western
civilization" can include many different religions, peoples,
regions, etc. To say Hinduism has been evolving since ancient times
is a farce as the term/word itself has recent origins, and humans
and their ideas/beliefs have been evolving since time-immemorial all
over the world.
Present-day India was created one day after Pakistan's creation …
that's a fact! Pakistan was created by the Pakistanis themselves.
On the other hand, the British conquered the various
countries/peoples/kingdoms of South Asia and for the ease of
administration consolidated them into a single unit called India;
no country with such name or/and size existed before the British.
Upon the departure of British, their colonies were divided,
with present day India being a direct descendent of that British
creation. In the words of Winston Churchill, 'India is no more a
country than the Equator'. It is no wonder there are many separatist
movements in India, having many distinct nations, races, languages,
cultures, religions, histories, etc.
Pakistan might be a few decades old, but the land and its people
have a history dating back to thousands of years. Indus Valley
Civilization is their heritage, the continuity is obvious in many
aspects of their culture and race, absorbing and/or adopting the
many different waves of migrants/invaders throughout the centuries.
Pakistan---the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the
greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way
present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries also
recently created) inherits their own great ancient civilizations.
It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now
mostly Muslims! Descendents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians
are also now mostly Muslims, descendents of ancients Greeks and
Romans are now mostly Christians! So what! And also, if lets say,
today's Syrians are mostly Muslims, should Christians of today's
Nigeria claim the heritage of Syria just because Syria was once
mostly Christian? No!
The region of Pakistan was never part of present day region of India
except for 100 years under the Mauryans, 522 years under the
Muslims, and 100 years under the British. These are historical facts
that no one can deny! Most Indians have no right to claim the
heritage of Pakistan (Indus Valley Civilization, Rig Vedic Aryans,
Gandharan Civilization, etc.) because the region was rarely part of
India, with its mostly distinct religion, culture, language, etc.
since ancient times! Why should a Tamil (Indian) claim the heritage
of a Punjabi (Pakistani)? Or why should a Vishnuvite of Bengal
(Indian) claim the heritage of Kalasha's Kafirs of NWFP (Pakistanis)
or Buddhist ancestors of Sindhi Muslims (Pakistanis)? And let's say,
even if the ancestor of a Pakistani was Shaivite, does that mean that
Shaivites of Indonesia can claim the heritage of Pakistan? Of course not!
[/QUOTE]
So true sada-bahaar Pakistani !! Last heard there were 22 separatist movements in India and none in Pakistan. India has 26 states - this means almost every state will be a separate country in 5-10 years. We didn't want Bengladeshis in the first place. Good that we got rid of them - they are hardly Muslims or Pakistani by culture.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mulz: *
True !! I had personally heard Jamait-e-Islami chief in Pindi demanding the world to give Pakistan the status of a white nation.
[/QUOTE]
What a traitorous SOB. How come he didn't demand the world give us the status of an arab nation!
racist :nono: i was only joking about the superior thing.
white nation, hahahaha, i wouldn’t go that far.
A muslim who thinks taller, fairer people are better than shorter, darker people… 