Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Arts & Culture Culture, Arts, Literature & Linguistics
1

The question should not be why the so called partition of India took place… it should be rather when, how, and why was India created?

There was NO such entity by name or size called “India” until its creation by British colonialists. It were the British imperialists who for the first time in history after invading/annexing the various kingdoms/nations of South Asia consolidated them into a single unit for their ease of administration and called it by the name of India.

The fact is the artificial entity of India has no unifying factors except for being former British colonies. To unite a country and justify its existence, at least one of the following aspect should have commonality amongst its people:

  1. Language: There is no common language among Indians. Hindi/Urdu (formerly known as Hindustani) is the mother-tongue of only a portion of north Indians, particularly Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, etc. This language is imposed on other nations that inhabit the so called India.

  2. Linguistics: North India is linguistically Indo-European, North East India is linguistically Sino-Tibetan, South India is linguistically Dravidian, and pockets of Austro-Asiatics in Central/East India. These are distinct linguistic family of languages, therefore Indians have no linguistic commonality.

  3. Race: North West Indians have more of the Caucasoid genes, North East Indians have more of the Mongoloid genes, South/East/Central Indians have more of the Dravidoid/Australoid/Sudroid genes. These are distinct races showing that Indians have no racial commonality.

  4. Religion: Indian Punjab is mostly Sikh, Kashmir is mostly Muslim, Nagaland, Kerala, Goa, etc. are mostly Christian. Sikkim is mostly Buddhist. Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, etc. are mostly Animist Tribals. Then Hinduism (a term invented by Muslims-British) itself in not a single religion. Shaivism is more dominant in South India, Vaishnuism is more dominant in north India, Kali-worship more dominant in Indian Bengal, Sauraism more dominant in Rajastan, etc. Dalits/Untouchables were never considered Hindu until Gandhi got the British approval of labeling them as such for “Hindu” voting/cesus vested interests. Hence Indians have no commonality in religion.

  5. Culture: There are many different cultures in India. Gujaratis, Nagas, Tamils, Punjabis, Andhras, Bengalis, Mizos, Assamese, Kashmiris, and many others have their own distinct cultures. Hindi dominated Bollywood film industry and govt/media has been promoting Hindi culture on the various nations of India. Indians have no commonality in culture.

  6. History: India is purely a British creation. Prior to the arrival of British there was never political unity among South Asians. Mauryans managed to conquer much of South Asia (excluding North East and South India) for barely a century. Guptas were limited to Central/North India. Mughals conquered much of India (excluding North East and South India) for more than a century. So Indians do not share much history.

  7. Democracy: Democracy in India has been a sham ever since its creation in 1947. Kashmiris, Nagas, Sikhs, Goans, Sikkimese, Dalits, Muslims, Tamils, and others have been oppressed… some denied plebiscite despite promises by its founders… ethnic cleansing and pogroms a state policy… The fact is democracy is just a mask India wears to continue the genocide of its various peoples by the Brahmanist-Hindian ruling elite.

In conclusion… say NO to confederacy with India! There was no “partition” rather “independence” from the British legacy. But the independence is not yet complete. As long as Urdu (aka Hindi) language and culture is imposed in Pakistan we will not be independent. As long as the federation is not based on a equitable/just system we will not be independent. As long as the former British colonial mentality/setup is not eradicated we will not be independent. As long as feudalism, the mililtary, and business monopolies/elite are not controlled we will not be independent. As long as religious extremism is not weakened and masses educated with secular education we will not be independent.

2

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

There was no such entity called pakistan either. There was no such entity called china either. there was no such entity called USA either!. etc etc etc etc....It was only those european nations that were united politically

Differences in languages wont amount to any difference. All those languages in india find their roots only to two languages i.e either sanscrit or tamil.

And agree dalits had been oppressed (which they were for hundreds of years !. ) and muslims also in gujrat

and for your information, India united politically during the time of emperor asoka and aurangzeb!

and religiously it united during the time of adi shankaracharya.

and happy pakistan.
dont struggle too much in your identity crisis:D . There is lot of similarity among chinese, japanese and koreans. but still they are not same. Just tell yourself, like them we are also not similar to indians(if you really see any similarities that is)....and JUST ENJOY!

3

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

dont struggle too much in your identity crisis:D . There is lot of similarity among chinese, japanese and koreans. but still they are not same. Just tell yourself, like them we are also not similar to indians(if you really see any similarities that is)....and JUST ENJOY!
[/quote]

He is so lucky ssingh. he resembles himself with arabs:D

4

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??


Well this is incorrect. As ssingh said, all Indian languages trace their roots to Sanskrit and Tamil. Gurmukhi in Punjab to Malayalam in Kerala, or Bengali in Bengal and Marathi in Maharashtra share either one of the 2 roots. Thats why all Indian scientific developments in any university are named in Sanskrit.

You may be right about race (though there is nothing called "Austroloid").


Goa has absolute Hindu majority. That Punjab is Sikh is not a devisive factor. They are governed by Hindu laws and come under the umbrella of Hinduism. Same goes for Sikkim.

Mizoram, Meghalaya and Nagaland are Christian. Tripura has Hindu majority.


Just like Muslims have Shiites and Sunnis Christians have Protestants and Catholics, Hindus have about 10 sub-sects. That is not an implication of no commonality.


Actually that is India's strength and a fact which we ourselves propogate to the world.


This is not true. I haven't seen DoorDarshan since many years.

Anyway, regional films have only regional markets.
Marathi films are not watched in Bengal, Punjab, Kerala and Manipur coz they won't understand a word. Bengali films can't be watched in neighbouring UP.
Similarly Gujarati films won't be seen in neighbouring Maharashtra or Karnataka or Himachal Pradesh.

Hindi is mostly understood in 6 states so Bollywood films are popular.

I know you will and other Pakistanis will find it truly truly shocking, but India's highest paid actor is Tamil actor Rajanikanth whose fee per movie is roughly US $9 million. Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh in comparison take $0.5 mn and $1 mn respectively.


Indians share history of language and religion. Arts, culture, dance forms etc. follow. Like I said, they are as diverse as A and B (and we take pride in that) but they all sprang from the RigVedic peoples who spoke Sanskrit.


I agree that Kashmir must have gotten its promised plebescite in the 1950s and we all could have done with the problem. But the rest of it is not true. Balochistan, Scotland and Greenland are more oppressed than Tamil Nadu, Goa, Sikkim and Punjab.


Urdu is not the same as Hindi.

This is what Hindi sentences are like :
Tat pashchaat, bahar2007 ney apney satya sey vipareet vaakyon ko asatya ghoshi-th kar, vinamrataa sey paraajay ko sweekar kiya.

Say English Word , the other will say Urdu Word for it
5

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

  • Sanskrit is a dead language as it is not the mother-tongue of any living ethnic group. Your logic is like saying the Guatemalans and Italians are the same people because their languages are derived from Latin. BTW, Brahmi script has its roots from the Semitic world. Also, Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic languages spoken in Northeast and Central India have nothing to do with Sanskrit and Tamil.

  • Australoid race is a sub-branch of the Negroid race. Australoids are found in lands stretching from southern India to Australia. Goans have a distinct identity because of Portuguese influence and are about 40% Christian: freegoa.com/ Tripurans are mostly non-Hindus being Animist Tribals. Plebiscite was not only promised to the Kashmiris, but also to the Nagas: nagalim.nl/

  • Very few Indians are descendents of Aryans. A few thousand Aryans migrated to India and Aryanized north/northwest native Indians (forget about northeast and south Indians who have nothing to do with Aryans). This can be equated to Spaniards in Guatemala/Mexico where a few thousand ruling Spaniards migrants were able to Latinize the millions of natives. Furthermore the Aryans of RigVeda inhabited Pakistan and Afghanistan region, not India. Rig Vedic religion was very different from Hinduism: geocities.com/pak_history/nonhindu.html

  • Hindi and Urdu are the same language minus the script and loanwords. Originally called Hindustani, this language was communalized during British rule (Fort Williams College, etc. played the major role) by inventing Hindi language with the adoption of Devangari script and infusing Sanskrit words, whereas Urdu kept the Perso-Arabic script and more emphasis on Perso-Arabic words. What you wrote in Hindi is the Sanskritized Hindustani/Urdu which very few people speak in India. Even Bollywood's Hindi movies use more of the original Hindustani as its Hindi which is very similar to Urdu.

6

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

90% of the time i can separate a pakistani from a indian pure on their looks/appearance .enuff said:halo: …

7

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

wtf this guy trying to prove? you just feel what you want to feel like.

Who makes Christmas Dinner at their place???
8

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

I wouldn't give a damn to non-indian languages. sanscrit is not dead. It is still there, in my own university it is being taught. i am talking about a US university. all indian languages have their roots to either to sanscrit or tamil. and back your arguments to what i have highlighted. Give me a genuine link. right away, i can kick it now. give me the link, let me see what you have got

why?? paganism, animism is not there in hinduism???..not telling this in negative sense.

[quote]
- Very few Indians are descendents of Aryans. A few thousand Aryans migrated to India and Aryanized north/northwest native Indians (forget about northeast and south Indians who have nothing to do with Aryans). This can be equated to Spaniards in Guatemala/Mexico where a few thousand ruling Spaniards migrants were able to Latinize the millions of natives. Furthermore the Aryans of RigVeda inhabited Pakistan and Afghanistan region, not India. Rig Vedic religion was very different from Hinduism: geocities.com/pak_history/nonhindu.html
[/quote]

this hindus will be very happy to accept or atleast brahmins:D as according to this theory, which says brahmins came from outside india. Besides, according to this theory, aryans pushed the native dravidians of harappa civilization in pakistan down to southern india.

[quote]
- Hindi and Urdu are the same language minus the script and loanwords. Originally called Hindustani, this language was communalized during British rule (Fort Williams College, etc. played the major role) by inventing Hindi language with the adoption of Devangari script and infusing Sanskrit words, whereas Urdu kept the Perso-Arabic script and more emphasis on Perso-Arabic words. What you wrote in Hindi is the Sanskritized Hindustani/Urdu which very few people speak in India. Even Bollywood's Hindi movies use more of the original Hindustani as its Hindi which is very similar to Urdu.
[/quote]

as i said, dont suffer in your identity crisis:D ...you are an decendent of arab:D ....be happy, you have got nothing to do with india or its people.

9

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Actually thats a misconception. Sanskrit is taught to a few million students in schools all over India daily. All Hindu rites are read in Sanskrit from Vedas and Upanishads in countless prayers.

It is also a main course in German and US universities.

The reason why it has only a few thousand native speakers is that it is extremely dfficult to learn.

I don’t know whats “Austro-Asiatic” language. India has thousands of orthogonal dialects spoken from Nagaland and Manipur to Gujarat and Kashmir to Kerala.

Even Thai, and Indonesians have many Sanskrit rooted names and words, but they are not Indian because they belong to a different race.

South Indians are not aborigines. The aborigines that you talk of are found in the remote Andaman and Nicobar islands. They are technically in the Stone Age and the Govt. of India does not allow outsiders to go there to protect their way of life.

The population of Goa is composed of a Hindu majority of around 65% and a Christian minority of around 30%.
http://www.goatourism.org/People/people.htm

Tripurans follow Hindu worshipping practices. Nagas have agreed not to seek a separate state according to an accord they signed long back. They only want more autonomy and merger of Naga areas of Assam and other neighbouring states into Nagalim.

I’m afraid that website contradicts itself. Rig Veda is the holiest Hindu text and that site quotes from it to prove Hindus are not Hindus.

Its true that RigVedic Aryans inhabited most of Pakistan, but its true that they also inhabited present day North India also. Anyway today’s Islamic Pakistan has no cultural bond with those peoples, whereas India has. Today’s political maps don’t matter.

Hindi is not the same as Urdu. What I wrote was not Sanskritised Hindi, but Hindi itself.

Sanskrit would sound entirely an alien tongue to you :

Nepal’s motto :
**Janani Janmabhūmischa Svargādapi garīyasi

**Goa’s motto :**Sarve Bhadrāni Paśyantu Mā Kaśchid Dukkha Bhābhavet

**India’s motto :
**Satyameva Jayate

**I’m sure non-Indian members would not have understood a single word from these.

Like I said, all Indian languages are rooted in Sanskrit or Tamil and so they borrow heavily from these languages. Its not surprising that they are simila

Bollywood is Hindustani not Hindi.

10

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

although i have no knowledge of these stuff
but one thing i want to say

being tought in universities does it mean a living language
a living languages are the one which are being in used for normal converstation by the community or group of people

my question is there any area in India where community use sanscrit as their first language of conversation

Where do u see yourself in 20 years time?
11

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Sanskrit is spoken by natives of a village called Mattur in Karnataka. There are a only few thousand speakers of Sanskrit in India. DoorDarshan used to telecast Sanskrit news once upon a time, but that has been discontinued.

Even Muslims in India are now getting expertise in Sanskrit :

Muslim girl tops Sanskrit PG exam

NAVAIKULAM: At a time when inspiring lyrics like Vande Mataram are branded communal, a Muslim girl who opted for Sanskrit has topped the Kerala University MA (Sanskrit) exam in 2006.

Shajeena S notched up 79% and is the first Muslim topper in the university’s history.

The 24-year-old is the second of three daughters of Shahul Hamid, a poor labourer from Navaikulam. She took up Sanskrit three years ago.

“She is a very bright and sincere student,” says Shajeena’s teacher R Nirmala. Did Shajeena confront any resistance from community leaders or from her parents?

“Not really”, she says, adding, “my parents agreed when I told them I want to learn Sanskrit. When I topped the university exam, my ustad in the community asked for sweets.”

Though some people ask her why she didn’t take up Arabic for higher studies, she tells them that Sanskrit is the most apt language for Indians since most Indian languages are offshoots of Sanskrit.

“Besides, it also offers better job opportunities”, she says. Shajeena recites Sanskrit slokas at home. “Nobody at home understands them though”, she smiles.

“But they say it sounds melodious when intoned in a low pitch. The Sanskrit language is poetic. There is rhythm in every syllable.”

She dreams of launching a Sanskrit publication, which can help Sanskrit lovers in India give vent to their creativity. She swears that she will teach her children this rich language.

**“It’s a shame this beautiful language is reduced to a Cinderella in her own land,” she says.
**
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2100592.cms?headline=Muslim~girl~tops~Sanskrit~PG~exam

Look who’s teaching Sanskrit in UP

Contrary to the popular notion that Sanksrit is confined to the Hindus, there are many Muslim teachers in the State who have specialised in the language.

Name: Shahid Zama Ansari. Profession: Sanskrit teacher in Azamgarh district. Name: Mohammad Lam Ansari. Profession: Sanskrit teacher in Allahabad district.

Contrary to the popular notion that Sanksrit is confined to the Hindus, there are many Muslim teachers in the State who have specialised in the language.

Not only have they learnt Sanskrit at the graduate and post-graduate levels, but they are also teaching it. Most have also undergone training at the camps organised by the Uttar Pradesh Sanskrit Sansthanam.

‘‘Our trainings are not restricted to any particular caste or religion. We were really surprised when Muslims also showed interest in the course. Incidentally, they all had studied Sanskrit till the graduation level, which was one of the essential qualifications to attend our Sanskrit teachers course,’’ said Chandrakant Dwivedi, deputy director of the Sanskrit Sansthanam.

While over half-a-dozen Muslims attended the training course organised in several districts, only two were able to make it to today’s workshop at the Sansthanam.

‘‘I knew that there would be a lot of opposition, but it’s only because of the politicians that this divide between the languages has been created,’’ said Mohammad Lam, who hails from a small village in Allahabad district.

Mohammad Lam has been studying Sanskrit since he was in Class VI. While he left Urdu later, he continued to study Sanskrit. He did both his graduation and B.Ed. in Sanskrit. ‘‘I did my B.Ed. in Sanskrit because I wanted more people, including those from my community, to understand this beautiful language,’’ he said.

He attended the Sansthanam’s teacher training course in 2003-04. Since then, he has been organising regular camps where he teaches Sanskrit to beginners in 15 days to one month.

A post-graduate in Sanskrit, Shahid Zama now plans to do his doctorate in Sanskrit, apart from teaching several others. ‘‘My family was very supportive when I wanted to learn Sanskrit. I did my post-graduation in Sanskrit from Sarvodaya PG college at Mau, and am now preparing for my doctorate in Sanskrit,’’ he said.

He too attended the Sansthanam’s training course in 2003-04, and has been conducting regular camps since then. ‘‘People should realise that Sanskrit is a language which is closely associated with the Indian culture and ethos. It has nothing to do with religion, and people should not try to create any such rift,’’ said Shahid.

12

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Abhiman and ssingh you guys sound like one of them extremist Hindu nationalists who are too stubborn to believe anything except their own wishful version of South Asian history and culture (it's not just you lot, we get plenty of nuts like that too, make me feel claustraphobic, be a bit more open minded guys it'll do you good).

Urdu and Hindi are dialects of the same language because they are mutually intelligible, languages are not created artficially, they develop naturally, both come from Hindustani and were unnaturally Sanskritised on your side and Persianised on ours by Hindu and Muslim nationalists but they failed miserablly because nobody uses them except in official writing, no language in the world is pure and that's not a negative thing, even English has assimilated words from other languages, for a language to not become outdated and incompetent it has to assimilate, evoloution has occured in every language and will continue that way, Urdu assimilating Persian/Arabic/English words does not make it a non-Desi language, it just enhances its beauty but the unneccesary usage of Arabic/Persian in Urdu is ugly.

Look at Sikhs, their religion is also part Middle Eastern in origin, there's Persian and Arabic in the Guru Granth Sahib and the language the Guru Ji's would have spoken is way different from the horrible unnauturally Sanskritised Punjabi we hear on the news from east Punjab, are they going to edit the Granth Sahib as well? I know many Hindus eagerly try to pass Sikhsimoff as a branch of Hindusim much to the disgust of many Sikhs I know..

By the way I always thought Sanskrit was refined and artfically created in presentday Pakistan and the spoken dialects Punjabi, Hindi/Urdu etc. existed way before it rather than being drived from it??

Everyday Pakistanis and Indians both use pretty much the same dialect which is more or less Hindustani. I have friends from Delhi to Mumbai and we have no problem talking to each other, Pakistanis don't have a problem with Star TV, Zee TV, B4U, Bollywood and Indians don't have a problem understanding ARY, Geo or Pakistani drama serials.

We are Muslim but changing our dharma doesn't change our ethnicity and culture. We use Arabic in liturgy because it's a unifying universal language for all Muslims around the world regardless of whether they're Indian or Bosnian but as well as our religious language we also have our ethnic languages.

Bahar is right in a way, India is a former British empire turned into a state by the British, I know all of South Asia has been part of the same empires before but that doesn't make it one nation because Pakistan was once part of the Mongol empire and once the Greek but does that make Punjabis the same as Mongols and Greeks? I guess language is the biggest cultural hallmark of a ethnicity so if everyone in India were to start speaking Hindi they would become one nation, other aspects of culture such as music, foods and clothes are not so important because they are universal property and will be the same world over in this cosmopolitan world in a few years time.

I guess it'd be a good idea to start promoting Hindi more in southern India, just as Pakistan should promote it's sister dialect Urdu in non-Urdu areas of Pakistan, Punjabi regions are okay as they're because I consider Punjabi a crude/rural dialect of Hindi/Urdu.

The dominant cultures in all of South Asia: Pakistan, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives are all related, especially the the first three because their national/main languages and cultural traditions are related more closely than the others, they're multi-racial from region to region but race is irrelevant in this day and age.

There's more to Desi history and civilisation than just Vedic/Hindu past, undoubtly they're amongst our ancestors and they're our history but later Muslims invaders became just as part of South Asia (as were Aboriginies, Dravidians etc.) as thoise that came before them, they enhanced it's culture and genetic makeup, my own people are a mixture of Pashtun and local Rajput (they say even Rajputs once come to South Asia from someplace else) even though today most the eduacted ones just identify as Pakistani and Desi because past ethnicities are irrelevant and there's no place for caste in our faith], the only invaders who thought they were too good to mix with us were the Brits but we're better off without our blood being defiled with Anglo blood.

13

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

:rotato: :rotfl:

i really dont know in what language guru granth sahib is written. but their beliefs are very much hindu like. they believe rebirth, karma and for them God is “EK OMKAR”…what is omkar?..it is main symbol and most important divine word of hinduism. besides, i dont consider sikhism as a part of hinduism. i respect their views and opinions

proof??

14

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Good thread. I have always argued that there was no partition from india. India was never a country before 47. Infact, Pakistan came before India. We may look alike, but we are not indians, nor did we broke away from "mother india". yuck. makes me shudder just thinking of the word.

15

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Abhiman/Ssingh:

I can understand how sensitive these issues can be to you being nationalist Hindus/Indians, but try to think rationally instead of being emotional.

Again, just because some languages (Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Bengali, etc.) in north India are derived from ancient Sanskrit does not make these distinct languages/nations as one people. I gave you the example of Spanish-speaking Guatemala and Italian-speaking Italy whose languages are derived from ancient Latin yet both nations/languages are very different. Italian and Spanish are not ancient Latin in the same way Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi, etc. are not ancient Sanskrit. Guatemalans and Italians are not the same people in the same way Hindi-speakers, Gujaratis, Punjabis, Bengalis, etc. are not the same people. Furthermore, while there are partial traces of Sanskrit ancestory in today's Indo-Aryan language, their direct ancestor are ancient Prakrit languages. Sanskrit was never the language of the masses, it were the different Prakrits.

Sanskrit is a dead language in the sense that it is not the mother-tongue of any present-day ethnic group. An ancient language being taught in some universities or learnt for religious/scholarly purposes does not make that language a living language, nor does a small village's recent adoption of this language. There is not a single ethnic group in the world whose language is Sanskrit (including the Dravidian Kannada-speaking Karnataka).

We all know how Dravidian languages (including Tamil) have nothing to do with Sanskrit and Indo-Aryan languages. Then Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in northeast India like Manipuri, Naga, Bodo, Adi, Mizo, Tripuri, etc. have no relationship with Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages. Nor does the Austro-Asiatic languages spoken in parts of central/east India such as Khasi, Korku, Koraput Munda, Kharia-Juang, etc. have any relationship with them.

Now coming back to Sanskrit, this language (Sanskrit, Vedic) was native to Pakistan region and was later on spread to India. Panini, the father of Sanskrit grammar also belonged to Pakistan region, not India. So Hindus/Indians should thank the ancestors of Pakistanis for spreading their language to them. For example, according to Kausitaki-Brahmana 7.6, "In the northern region (Pakistan), speech is spoken particularly distinct. People (Indians) go to the north to learn speech. Or if someone comes from there they like to hear/ learn from him ... For this is known as the region of speech."

As far as Brahmi script is concerned, there is no doubt that it has a Semitic origin. For instance, the symbol for a resembles Semitic letter alif. Similarly, dha, tha, la, and ra all appear quite close to their Semitic counterparts. The Aramaic alphabet was the prototype of the Brahmi script. The transmission took place in the seventh century BC through trade between South Asia and Middle East. Adapting the Aramaic script to the tongue of South Asia was by no means simple or straightforward. The shapes of many Brahmi letters show clear Semitic influence. The Brahmi script was, moreover, originally written from right to left.

Dravidians (South Indians) are descendents of aborigine Australoids mixed with proto- eastern Mediterranean migrants (Megalithic era). However, there are some tribes in south and central India who are purely Australoid. By the way, there is no proof whatsover on the identity of Harappans nor did they migrate to south India. As long as the Harappan script remains undeciphered we will not know the linguistic identity of Harappans. There are all kinds of theories such as them being Indo-European, Dravidian, Semitic, Altaic, or even an isolate like Sumerian. Based on genetic and skeletal evidence, Harappans were a multi-racial people whose closest descendents are people of Punjab, Sindh, and its bordering regions.

Pakistanis are descendents of a blend from their Harappan, Rig Vedic Aryan, Persian, Greek, Scythian, Parthian, Kushan, Hephthalite, Arab, Turkic, etc. ancestory. It does not matter that Pakistanis are now mostly Muslim. Their non-Muslim past is still their heritage. You Hindus can consider my ancestor's works as "holy" but they still are my heritage not yours. Nor did my ancestors follow any religion similar to your Hinduism despite your claims: geocities.com/pak_history/nonhindu.html Today Greeks and Italians take pride at their non-Christian Hellenic and Roman past, and so can Pakistanis take pride at their non-Muslim Harappan and RigVedic Aryan past.

At least you agree that Hindustani is more popular in India. Yet this Hindustani language is labelled by most people as Hindi.

More later...

16

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Ssingh,

Sikhism's linguistic past is embedded with Persian language. Not only its founders spoke this language, but also later on Sikh kingdoms such as Ranjit Singh used Persian as its official language.

By the way, you cannot deny the fact that Sikhism is much closer to Islam than Hinduism:

[quote]

  1. Sikhs believe in One and only One God, whereas Hindus worship quite a number of gods, goddesses, and deities.

  2. The Hindu Trinity---Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva---is altogether rejected by Sikhs. They also do not believe in Krishna and Rama as reincarnations of God.

  3. The worship of any carved statues, images or idols is completely forbidden in Sikhism although it is allowed in Hinduism.

  4. The cow is not considered as a sacred animal by Sikhs, hence it is not worshiped at all.

  5. The supermacy of the Vedas, Gita and other Hindu scriptures is not recognised or accepted in Sikhism. They have their own holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, compiled by the fifth Guru himself.

  6. Sikhism has rejected the caste system, and all men and women are reckoned equal irrespective of their caste, color or creed.

  7. Sikh traditions, customs, and ceremonies of death and marriage are completely different from the Hindus.

  8. Unlike it is in Hinduism, vegetarianism is not given any special spiritual or moral importance in Sikhism. Meat eating is allowed.

"How are you a Brahman and I am a low caste? Is it that I have blood in my veins and you have milk?" (Gauri Kabir p-324)

"Why call Shiv God, and why speak of Brahma as God? God is not Ram Chander, Krishan, or Vishnu whom ye suppose to be the lords of the world. Sukhdev, Prasar, and Vyas erred in abandoning the One God and worshipping many gods. Hindus have set up false religions; I in every way believe that there is but One God." (Swaya- XV, Guru Gobind Singh)

In Zafarnama which Guru Gobind Singh wrote to Emperor Aurangzeb, he mentioned about hill Rajas, "They worshipped idols, and I was an idol-breaker.."

"Five are the Muslim prayers; five their appointed hours, Five their names. These be the true prayers: The first is Truth, the second is lawful earning and the third is to beg the Graces of God for all, The fourth is the right intention in the mind and the fifth is the praise of the Lord." (Guru Nanak, Var Majh)

"You are the Creator, O Lord, the Unknowable. You created the Universe of diverse kinds, colours and qualities. You know your own Creation. All this is your Play." (Guru Nanak, Var Majh)

"He neither has father, nor mother, nor sons nor brothers." (Guru Nanak, Maru).

"Burnt be the mouth that asserts, the Lord takes birth. He is neither born nor dies; neither enters birth nor departs. All pervasive is Nanaks Lord." (Guru Arjan Dev, Raga Bhairon)

"The stone he calls his god, in the end, drowns him with itself... Know that a boat of stone carries one not across" (Guru Arjan Dev, Suhi)

"The stone neither speaks nor gives anything. Therefore its service is fruitless and its worship is of no avail." (Bhagat Kabir, Bhairo)

"They cannot be called satis, who burn themselves with their dead husbands. They can only be called satis, if they bear the shock of separation. They may also be known as satis, who live with character and contentment and always show veneration to their husbands by remembering them." (Guru Amar Das, Var Suhi)

It is obvious that Sikhism has more commonality with Islam, and was actually a movement against Hinduism..

Baba Nanak, in one of his Janam Sakhis he says that he had it revealed to him by God that the religion of Islam is true. It was because of this that he went on pilgrimage to Makka, and adopted all the tenets of Islam. His sacred relics at Dera Baba Nanak bear the clearest testimony to his profession of the Islamic Kalima, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet", and those at Guru Har Sahai in the Ferozepore District, include a copy of the Holy Quran. He also proclaimed that enmity to Islam was enmity to the light that comes from heaven.

[/quote]

17

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Okay then....if you proud of your ancestors, then go and learn sanscrit and start reading rig veda, upanishads, yoga and all!..... in a way it's good as many of yours think that their ancestors are arabs:D

and thats what i told earlier, feel anything you want:D

18

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

i m not sure ..but ancient agyptions also didn,t speak arabic or did they mr singh????:) ...

19

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

[quote]

  1. Sikhs believe in One and only One God, whereas Hindus worship quite a number of gods, goddesses, and deities. [/quote]

agreed. so do many hindus.

[quote]
2. The Hindu Trinity---Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva---is altogether rejected by Sikhs. They also do not believe in Krishna and Rama as reincarnations of God.
[/quote]

agreed. BTW, even i agree with this eventhough i am a hindu:D

[quote]
3. The worship of any carved statues, images or idols is completely forbidden in Sikhism although it is allowed in Hinduism.
[/quote]

agreed

[quote]
4. The cow is not considered as a sacred animal by Sikhs, hence it is not worshiped at all.
[/quote]

agreed

[quote]
5. The supermacy of the Vedas, Gita and other Hindu scriptures is not recognised or accepted in Sikhism. They have their own holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, compiled by the fifth Guru himself.
[/quote]

agreed. and they dont even consider quran as supreme. Besides, the fundamental philosophy of sikhism is to learn from every scripture.

[quote]
6. Sikhism has rejected the caste system, and all men and women are reckoned equal irrespective of their caste, color or creed.
[/quote]

even hinduism does. But with time it has deteriorated. even some scriptures are corrupted to give a wrong picture

[quote]
7. Sikh traditions, customs, and ceremonies of death and marriage are completely different from the Hindus.
[/quote]

dont know. But i am sure it is different from islam as well

[quote]
8. Unlike it is in Hinduism, vegetarianism is not given any special spiritual or moral importance in Sikhism. Meat eating is allowed.
[/quote]

Meat eating is allowed in hinduism as well. but ofcourse it is not preffered.

[quote]
It is obvious that Sikhism has more commonality with Islam, and was actually a movement against Hinduism..
[/quote]

this sikhs usually wont agree. they will either distance themselves from both or stay closer to both.

20

Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??

Not sure...in the end it is all upto you to feel anything you want.

This bahar is telling that sancrit came from pakistan. so what?...i have no problems with it