Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
Try saying Foofa with loads of panjeeri in mouth:D
My favourite is Royal British Empire.
??? For Henry VIII :p
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
Whats special about him? 
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
Some of the empires in northern pakistan/India include:
Greeks (Alexander), mauryan empire, indo Greeks, Kushans, Gupta, Huns, hindushahi/Kabul Shahi, ghaznavi, ghauri, Delhi sultanate, moghuls, Sikhs, Brits etc
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
Panini was from charsadda, khyber pakhtunkhwa (then gandhara).
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
He knew how to deal with a wife 
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
For an empire to be favourite, it would have to meet several criteria:
1) Be powerful militarily
2) Be self-sufficient economically
3) Be politically stable
4) Be benevolent, ie not fall apart in massive bloodshed.
The military requirement is normally met by just about any empire
Economic self-sufficiency would rule out the Ottomans, since they were reliant on trade through their territory and began suffering when naval trade by-passed them
Political stability rules out the Umayyad and Abbasids, since they regularly experienced civil wars of various scales
Not ending with bloodshed rules out most European powers, who had very bloody colonial wars till the last days of their empire.
This pretty much leaves only the British Empire - in worldwide scale it dwarfed all others, it was never defeated in a major war, it was an economic powerhouse, and it fell apart with relatively little bloodshed by generally releasing all countries that wanted to break away.
Pakistan and India never had a war of independence for a reason. Constrast that with the bloodbath in which the Algerian people had to bathe in order to be granted their independence.
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
Like Sher e Punjab.. Ghulam Mushtafa Khar?
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
For an empire to be favourite, it would have to meet several criteria:
1) Be powerful militarily 2) Be self-sufficient economically 3) Be politically stable 4) Be benevolent, ie not fall apart in massive bloodshed.
The military requirement is normally met by just about any empire Economic self-sufficiency would rule out the Ottomans, since they were reliant on trade through their territory and began suffering when naval trade by-passed them Political stability rules out the Umayyad and Abbasids, since they regularly experienced civil wars of various scales
Not ending with bloodshed rules out most European powers, who had very bloody colonial wars till the last days of their empire.
This pretty much leaves only the British Empire - in worldwide scale it dwarfed all others, it was never defeated in a major war, it was an economic powerhouse, and it fell apart with relatively little bloodshed by generally releasing all countries that wanted to break away.
Pakistan and India never had a war of independence for a reason. Constrast that with the bloodbath in which the Algerian people had to bathe in order to be granted their independence.
How about 1857 war nd killing of Millions at the time of partition in 1947? Wasn't there any role of British empire in this one of the biggest masacre in human history?
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
How about 1857 war nd killing of Millions at the time of partition in 1947? Wasn't there any role of British empire in this one of the biggest masacre in human history?
Plenty of desis including my own ancestors on the British side in 1857 and didn't view it as an independence war - south India was opposed to the risk of being taken over by a resurgent Mughal Empire.
And the millions killed at independence was a choice the people of Pakistan and India made. The people of Pakistan and India were not driven to commit mass murder by British commands.... they chose it themselves.
Neither the Pakistani army nor the Indian army, which were generally under the control of British officers even at the company and battalion level at independence, were ever accused of systematicaly participating in or instigating partition massacres.
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
Plenty of desis including my own ancestors on the British side in 1857 and didn't view it as an independence war - south India was opposed to the risk of being taken over by a resurgent Mughal Empire.
And the millions killed at independence was a choice the people of Pakistan and India made. The people of Pakistan and India were not driven to commit mass murder by British commands.... they chose it themselves.
Neither the Pakistani army nor the Indian army, which were generally under the control of British officers even at the company and battalion level at independence, were ever accused of systematicaly participating in or instigating partition massacres.
But don't you think that British policy of 'Divide and Rule' played a role in creating hatred that lead to such massacres. After all Muslims and Hindus lived together in harmony for centuries. Just about two decades before the partition, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus agitated collectively against British at Jaliyanwala Bagh, which shows that British Empire did played some role in creating rivalry (including issues like Kashmir) which still haunt the peace of sub-continent.
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
How about 1857 war nd killing of Millions at the time of partition in 1947? Wasn't there any role of British empire in this one of the biggest masacre in human history?
Before British revenge in seprtember, Rebels killed scores of their kind during intial days of uprising, they also killed Indian Christian community in Delhi suspecting them of sympathising with the british. British didn't instigate riots in 47 but it was commited by Indians themselves:)
??? For Henry VIII :p
For King Geroge III:D
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
But don't you think that British policy of 'Divide and Rule' played a role in creating hatred that lead to such massacres. After all Muslims and Hindus lived together in harmony for centuries. Just about two decades before the partition, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus agitated collectively against British at Jaliyanwala Bagh, which shows that British Empire did played some role in creating rivalry (including issues like Kashmir) which still haunt the peace of sub-continent.
People will blame something or someone for their failures, if they can't find anything then luck is the last thing to blame.
Indian muslims themselves created two nation theory and then implemented it religiously,
For kashmiris, they themselves created hell out of earth themselves:D
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
People will blame something or someone for their failures, if they can't find anything then luck is the last thing to blame.
Indian muslims themselves created two nation theory and then implemented it religiously, For kashmiris, they themselves created hell out of earth themselves:D
Indian Muslims didn't create two nations theory all of sudden and without any incidents. There were incidents which lead to this and British Empire created such conditions that local should be fighting with each other as a revenge for loosing their power. It was second world war that made british empire weak and they left India. They never wanted to leave and handover the country to locals. Remember Churchil's words for Mahatma and locals.
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
Indian Muslims didn't create two nations theory all of sudden and without any incidents. There were incidents which lead to this and British Empire created such conditions that local should be fighting with each other as a revenge for loosing their power. It was second world war that made british empire weak and they left India. They never wanted to leave and handover the country to locals. Remember Churchil's words for Mahatma and locals.
And how did the British create such conditions? What specifically did they do?
Two nation theory was not some British ploy. Recall that the person who became its biggest champion, Jinnah, was vehemently opposed to it less than 25 years before Pakistan was actually made.
Two nation theory was founded on the idea that Muslims and Hindus had separate national and cultural identities.
For most of North Indian history over the past 1000 years, Muslims ruled and had their identity protected. Hindus were oppressed in various ways to lesser or greater extends depending on the ruler. But the majority of the Hindu lower and middle classes were oppressed in some form or the other regardless of whether their ruler was Muslim or Hindus, and in the complete absence of Hindu nationalism, this meant that they were fairly apolitical.
Under British rule, for the first time the idea of an Indian nation emerged, and with the role model of democracy, the idea of Hindu-dominated India emerged. This was a new concept, and people like Jinnah originally believed that unity on the basis on commonality was feasible.
But during the 1920s, Jinnah noticed the undercurrent of Hindu nationalism amongst some, not all, of his Hindu colleagues such as Vallabhbhai Patel. Jinnah had the foresight to see where this would end, and realised that Muslim India would need to be separate to avoid eventual political and cultural domination.
The hatred that led to mass killings came of the cynical, self-serving actions of nationalist politicians on both sides, who created the idea that now that a country had been created for each faith group, they should be expelled to that country, or people shoudl be encouraged to move to that country.
For example, let's say that 2 million muslim farmers had moved from East Punjab to West Punjab. Where should they go? It was easy for some nationalist politician to say that they shoudl kick out a sikh farming community, because they shoudl go and live where those Muslim refugees came from.
And vice-versa - a village of Sindhi Hindu farmers feeling they would be more comfortable in a Hindu-led country arrives, and some local political stirs up a crowd with the belief that Muslims kicked those Hindus out, so they should go and chase out a Muslim village.
Congress and the Muslim League should have mobilised their grass roots organizations to avoid the violence.
The Muslim League knew that millions of Muslims would want to move to Pakistan: it should have taken steps to ensure that Hindus and Sikhs were not displaced by them.
Similarly Congress knew the risk of population exchanges, but did nothing to ensure that Muslims were not involuntarily displaced.
The cynical part of me thinks that both parties wanted the displacement, if not the violence. Congress knew that Hindus and Sikhs would move out of Pakistan, but they needed Muslims to leave India (or be made to leave) to create space. And vice-versa for the Muslim League, which needed a solution for what to do with all the incoming Muslims.
In recent history (for the time), such "population exchanges" resolved Turkey-Greece national lines, and this probably served as a model despite the violence that even Turkey and Greece experienced.
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
And how did the British create such conditions? What specifically did they do?
I was referring to irregularities of Red Cliffe Boundary Commission? Can we deny that some decisions by the Commissions (including handing over of Muslim majority areas to India finally created issues like Kashmir?
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
I was referring to irregularities of Red Cliffe Boundary Commission? Can we deny that some decisions by the Commissions (including handing over of Muslim majority areas to India finally created issues like Kashmir?
Independent state were independent of choosing the country of their choice, the last of best times for kashmiris probably, at least, we had a state then:)
British attitude was more or less same everywhere, They simply walked out of palestine leaving Haganah and Arab Legion to settle it for themselves, and David Ben Gurioun proved himself better father of nation than MK Gandhi:)
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
If you consider the impact on modern day life, my favorite would be the Mughal dynasty.
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
If you consider the impact on modern day life, my favorite would be the Mughal dynasty.
Modern day life and Mughal Dynasty. Interesting point. Can you please, explain it a little more. How do you see the impacts of Mughal dynasty on Modern day life?
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
I was referring to irregularities of Red Cliffe Boundary Commission? Can we deny that some decisions by the Commissions (including handing over of Muslim majority areas to India finally created issues like Kashmir?
The communal violence at partition was not due to issues of national boundaries. Being concerned that your country did not have the right boundaries did not cause people to turn on and expel communities.
Re: Your favorite Empire / Dynasty in History
The communal violence at partition was not due to issues of national boundaries. Being concerned that your country did not have the right boundaries did not cause people to turn on and expel communities.
Violence didn't end after partition. issues like Kashmir compelled the two nations to fight with each other again and again. That has been exploited by the rulers since inception at the cost of public issues like health and education. Issues like Kashmir are one of the reason reasons behind the backwardness of the region.