Re: Pakistan’s great history
I know, people of Pakistan have a history that is tied to other groups and races that I mentioned in my previous post but these people were not Pakistanis. You can not call Muhammad Bin Qasim and his generation Pakistanis, even though they conquered and settled in the areas now known as Pakistan.
Re: Pakistan's great history
Your arguing semantics again. I started this thread to talk about the history of the people that are known as Pakistanis. Same as the history of the people of France. The thread title is not strictly correct because I did not want to have to write "The great history of the people that are currently known as Pakistanis"..It is too long and much simpler to write what I did. It's a semantic point your making and most people know exactly what I mean. So perhaps we could move on from here now since even you must now know what this thread is about.
Re: Pakistan's great history
I am not in conflict with any semantics. The problem is subcontinent, before the partition, comprised of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other regional countries and the very first documented religious civilization is of Vedic, which started from 500 BCE up to 1500 BCE and compromised of part from Punjab in India to NWFP in Pakistan. The Muslim empire started from 1200 BCE. Before partition, how people lived, integrated in those areas is a long historical research. We cannot say that the people in Pakistan and their history do not include people in majority that once did not practice and were part of Vedic Civilization or once lived in what we now call India.
Try relating history of people with religion rather than Geography. You will understand it better because people changed their places more often than their believes, as it shows in the history of South Asian Civilization.
Re: Pakistan's great history
once pakistan wanted to the world to accept a new name for Hind mahasagar.....hind pak mahasagar, but off course no one paid attention.
Re: Pakistan's great history
I get what roadrunner is trying to say. I don't believe its an extremely valid argument though. The problem lies in the fact that some people believe Pakistan detached from India. That is not true. Both Pakistan and India gained independence from the British empire at the same time. The India of today is technically not the same as the India of any time before 1947. So after the partition, Pakistan could have been called India and present day India could have been called Pakistan and it would have made no difference. Its just that in the past, the South Asian region was referred to as "India", thus people get this false image that the present day India is the same and that Pakistan detached from it. Once again, both countries gained independence from the British empire. With that in mind, both countries are can claim each other's heritage but for some Indians to think that only they can claim Pakistan's heritage as their own but Pakistanis can't claim India's history as theirs is completely erroneous. I know that is the concept that roadrunner is trying to convey but you have seemed to taken it a step further.
Re: Pakistan's great history
**
Yes, we can, unless you are advocating that genocide took place and an entire population was wiped out*. *
[QUOTE]
Try relating history of people with religion rather than Geography. You will understand it better because people changed their places more often than their believes, as it shows in the history of South Asian Civilization.
[/quote]
it seems to me we have a difference regards history here. My understanding of history, Pakistani history, is that the empires did not eradicate people, they asimilated people. Example, the Greeks. They simply ruled Pakistan area, they did not bring the whole of Greece over to live in.
Now the Aryans could be a different matter, but again the concept that a genocide could have taken place borders on the absurd. Assimilation is what happens with all people when kingdoms fall and new ones rise, not genocide.
Re: Pakistan's great history
I dont think so. Pakistan's heritage is only what the history of the land now known as Pakistan was. India's heritage can only be what the history of the land now known as India was. Two different histories, sometimes overlapping, but not the same (and for the religious folk amongst you, Pakistan's history is seperate from Persian and Arab histories also).
Re: Pakistan's great history
i think there is a film on now...
Re: Pakistan's great history
Sorry. I meant the overlapping part only.
Re: Pakistan's great history
Roadrunner, how can you prove that the empires did not eradicate rather assimilate people. We can not quote a real legitimate historical quote with that event. There is a very good chance that the history and cultural of the South Asian is the same from start but due to introduction of religion mainly Islam, things started to change. Remember, Islam was introduced in the regions mostly by Arabs.
Furthermore, genocide is common in battles and mostly in battles in those eras where people mostly fought face to face and after that looted and killed as many as people they wanted.
In addition, keep in mind that people did migrated from place to place as most of the were hunters and gathers and their main source of income was food i.e. fish, animals and agricultural that has lot to do with climate. So, if these "Pakistanis" moved form Pakistan to India and lived there for considerable amount of time is a possibility. Also, that these people picked up the cultural is imaginable, as there were not borders in subcontinent at that time.
I understand your concern of this topic from start that is when Indians call it India. I think this is because the main center, population and history of Hinduism is in India and Hindustan and India is mostly the same term. Hinduism is one of the first documented religions in South Asia. When Indians say that it is 'their country's heritage and culture' they are wrong, when they say they have a part or share the history and culture, they have a point because before the partition there was an overlapping of culture and heritage.
Re: Pakistan's great history
Furthermore, genocide is common in battles and mostly in battles in those eras where people mostly fought face to face and after that looted and killed as many as people they wanted.
In addition, keep in mind that people did migrated from place to place as most of the were hunters and gathers and their main source of income was food i.e. fish, animals and agricultural that has lot to do with climate. So, if these "Pakistanis" moved form Pakistan to India and lived there for considerable amount of time is a possibility. Also, that these people picked up the cultural is imaginable, as there were not borders in subcontinent at that time.
I understand your concern of this topic from start that is when Indians call it India. I think this is because the main center, population and history of Hinduism is in India and Hindustan and India is mostly the same term. Hinduism is one of the first documented religions in South Asia. When Indians say that it is 'their country's heritage and culture' they are wrong, when they say they have a part or share the history and culture, they have a point because before the partition there was an overlapping of culture and heritage.
Islam was introduced into the region of the subcontinent mainly by the Sufi Saints who were not Arab as far as I recall.
Genocides have not been so common in history. Assimilation also has not. Cultural changes have occurred where one group of people has completely lost their language or their traditions, but not their ancestry. If you take the example of some "Pakistanis" moving to "India", (which undoutedly occurred over the course of history, most recent example is the Sikhs), you can nevertheless tell an Indian apart from a Pakistani in most cases. The reason is that the nucleus of people in each country (in fact each country of the world) has a different ancestral heritage that defines the people presently living in those countries.
Either way, genocide or assimilation (both unlikely), this does not take away from the fact that the land of current Pakistan has a history and a heritage that includes all the great historical empires mentioned above.
Re: Pakistan’s great history
I never denied that…
Nucleus of a family might not have changed but lifestyle and is very parallel to each other, which is the result of subcontinent and overlapping of cultures.
Re: Pakistan's great history
Nucleus of a family might not have changed but lifestyle and is very parallel to each other, which is the result of subcontinent and overlapping of cultures.
Pakistan can be considered part of the subcontinent or central asia or even the Middle East. It's that much of a mixture. Whilst noone can deny the some more recent similarities with Indian culture as a result of the recent British conquest of the subcontinent, historically Pakistan has not been culturally similar to the land modern day India. Throughout the majority of Pakistan's (land) history, most of the Empires have been run from either Pakistan or some more Westerly Empires, but not the land of current India. Just as the Persian cultural nfluence faded, the Greek cultural influence faded, next up it is the turn of the Indian influence to fade, and for Pakistan to establish it's own uniquely Pakistan character once again.
Re: Pakistan’s great history
What is to days Pakistan was often seperate states, but then so were a lot of the independant kingdoms of India which are now a part of India proper. despite being seperate, these states were still quite closely itertwined with the entire Indian region.
The people of Pakistan claim descent from Arabs, persians, Turks and Central Asians, so to claim the Indus civilization as their still seems a little far fetched. Indians on the other hand claim descent from ancient Hindu civilizations and are probably related to Indus people aswell… There are people in South India for instance who have through DNA evidence, been shown to be among the descendants of the very first people to set foor on the subcontinent.
Your right in the sense that since the Indus civilization falls within the borders of Pakistan, it can be seen as the first civilization to flourish within OUR country, but I think of Pakistans heritage on a regional level. There is no doubting that our heritage extends from my understanding, present day Pakistan, Parts of Afghanistan, Iran, and most of all, India. This was through trade, cultural influence, invasion etc.
Re: Pakistan's great history
Some were. Some were not. One could quite easily make the connection of Pakistani history intertwention with Persian, or central asian states. There is some shared history with India, the Indus Valley civilization is a "Pakistani" civilization that had some overlap with India, and also some with Afghanistan and Iran. However, literature states it is an Indian civilization which is incorrect for the laymen.
[quote]
The people of Pakistan claim descent from Arabs, persians, Turks and Central Asians, so to claim the Indus civilization as their still seems a little far fetched.
[/quote]
Not at all. When talking about Indus Valley Civilizations, most Pakistanis will have a connection with it because somewhere along their ancestry there will have been an Indus Valley citizen (subsequent Turk, Central Asian and Indian mixing does not matter since that same Indus Valley Citizen is still a member of the ancestry). As an example, say you have one Turk great great grandparent, and all the rest Pakistani. If the Turk great great grandparent was living in the Ottoman Empire, you would have a heritage that was not only Pakistani, but also an ancestry extending into the Ottoman Empire
[quote]
Indians on the other hand claim descent from ancient Hindu civilizations and are probably related to Indus people aswell...
[/quote]
This is factually incorrect. The only Indians that can claim descent from the Indus Valley civilization are some Gujeratis (the descendants of those from Lothal) and to a lesser extent those on the Punjabi Indo Pak border). Under no circumstances was the Indus Valley Civilization a Hindu Civilization. This is completely erronous.
[quote]
There are people in South India for instance who have through DNA evidence, been shown to be among the descendants of the very first people to set foor on the subcontinent.
[/quote]
The Dravidians are known to have been the first inhabitants of modern India.
[quote]
Your right in the sense that since the Indus civilization falls within the borders of Pakistan, it can be seen as the first civilization to flourish within OUR country, but I think of Pakistans heritage on a regional level. There is no doubting that our heritage extends from my understanding, present day Pakistan, Parts of Afghanistan, Iran, and most of all, India. This was through trade, cultural influence, invasion etc.
[/quote]
The last part is incorrect (highlighted). Science has proven that statement to be incorrect in fact. Genetic maps show a clear difference between Indian and Pakistani ancestries that becomes a huge difference once you go outside of NW India. Phenotypic maps also show clear physical differences between Indians and Pakistanis (one example being the Basuti map). Culturally, there are currently similarities between Indians and Pakistanis only because of the recent (british india) joint history. Time will seperate out the two cultures, as the did the Persian influence for example.
Re: Pakistan’s great history
Punjab of Pakistan and Punjab of India are pretty much the same thing… Urdu is in essesence an Indian language, albeit with many outside influences. There is a reason why people who speak Urdu can communicate with those who speak Hindi.
Sindh itself is very similar to India, far more so then with any other region.. Not to mention our large formerly Indian Urdu speaking community. The greatest influence on Pakistan has always been India.. Pakistan has had persian influneces but these influences were minimal… Afghanistan is also an influence, but that to is minimal compared to India. We eat the same types of food, same types of music, same languages… Indias influnce is huge.
Re: Pakistan's great history
Punjab is essentially nothing like India. Punjab as a whole is majority Muslim, with many Sikhs and some Hindus. Historically Punjab was never accepted as part of the Hindu religion. However, some Punjabis have crossed over so that there is some intermingling.
[quote]
Urdu is in essesence an Indian language, albeit with many outside influences. There is a reason why people who speak Urdu can communicate with those who speak Hindi.
[/quote]
Urdu is derived from Sanskrit (Prakrit) grammatically, with words from Persian and Arabic. It was created to communicate with foreign Army soldiers after all. Hindi is probably a dialect of Urdu, rather than Urdu being a dialect of Hindi.
`The birth of Urdu language was the direct result of the synthesis between the invading armies of Mahmud of Ghazni with the civilian population of the indian cities. The word Urdu itself means Lashkar, derived from teh Turkish language meanign armies... In the south of India it flourished under the name of Dakhani and southwest as Gurjari while in Delhi its name changed from Hindi to hindavi and Hindustani. The people of Delhi have called it Delhvi or Zuban-e-Delhvi or Urdu-e-Mualla. There are various theories where exactly it was born, One theory is that it originated in basti Nizamuddin of Nizamuddin Auliya and Amir Khusrau. Another theory is that it was born in the seminary of Baba Shaikh Farid at Pak Patan in the 13th century and its old name is Multani or Old Lahori... When Babur came to India, he did not find anything exclusively Hindu or exclusivley muslim. He talked of the Hindustani way of life.'
-- [Khullar]
[quote]
Sindh itself is very similar to India, far more so then with any other region..
[/quote]
Sindh isnt similar to India. Karachi has quite a few Indian Muhajirs, but again this is the Muhajir destination. Many other places in Pakistan are anything but Muhajir.
[quote]
Not to mention our large formerly Indian Urdu speaking community. The greatest influence on Pakistan has always been India.. Pakistan has had persian influneces but these influences were minimal... Afghanistan is also an influence, but that to is minimal compared to India. We eat the same types of food, same types of music, same languages... Indias influnce is huge.
[/quote]
This is an incorrect way of looking at things, the effects are seen but not the causes. The reason for India's current influences on Pakistan are simply because it's only been 50 some years since Pakistan and India were one country. In time one would expect the gradual erosion of the remaining Indian influences as Pakistan develops its own seperate identity. One cannot also say Afghanistan's influence is minimal, there is a letter in Pakistan that demonstrates the importance of Afghania on Pakistani culture which is not homogenous of course.
Re: Pakistan’s great history
I would like to tie this thread up with modern day observations of Dravidian stature.
Clearly, the “shorter” Indian does some "short"comings. This should not be taken in a negative light or associated with the “lack” of something 
However, physical anthropology is a clear indicator of Indian and Pakistani “dimensional” differences.
I propose the following scenario. The Saraswati River served as a genetic barrier to the flow of genes from India to Pakistan, and this would account for the differences in physical anthropology between Indians and Pakistanis. Please, only serious replies as this should be discussed in a mature manner..
Re: Pakistan’s great history
Serious about this is pretty difficult… But will give it a shot a little later:)
Re: Pakistan’s great history
Did u measure the size of indus valley people.