Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[UnitedPak]

Originally Posted by blitz

Wow talk about lying through one's nose.



I suppose thats not insulting eh ? And now show us where have i insulted you or anyone else ? Isn't waging 'Jihad' supposed to be a duty for all muslims, or are you telling me that 'jihad' is a derogatory term ?

You must learn to differentiate between sarcasm and insults.

Listen smart guy, You only had one intention when you went on a rant about Jihad, and pointing out Muslim duties was not one of them.

Seriously, what are you trying to achieve here?

If you have any intelligent argument to make, then please go ahead, but refrain from making half assed replies. You are not kidding anyone.

[WebMaster]

You must learn to differentiate between sarcasm and insults.

Perhaps you should be reminded of the forum rules again? No sarcasm please!

And also please take your jihad speeches some where else.

Thanks.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by blitz

Whoa this is hilarious !! Pakistanis is so desperate for 'respect' and 'legitimacy' that now you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha. Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc.

What wonderful analysis - we should all go back to living in mud and thatch houses, and forsake the "necessities" (electricity, running water, etc) we have come to depend upon.

Wait! While poverty in South Asia ensures that quite a few of its residents already live that life, even India has a "growing Middle Class of almost three hundred million" mired in the modern "way of life". So your argument essentially discredited modern India from any "right" to any history on the geographic piece of land that it is comprised of currently.

In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.

Did the "Indian ancients" use mobile phones and drive Ambassadors and Marutis, and go see skimpily clad women dancing on the silver screen? Pakistan was part of a "sub-continent".

A nation called India never existed until independence in 1947 - it was flawed nomenclature used by a colonizing power.

[bhangra12345]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

What wonderful analysis - we should all go back to living in mud and thatch houses, and forsake the "necessities" (electricity, running water, etc) we have come to depend upon.

Wait! While poverty in South Asia ensures that quite a few of its residents already live that life, even India has a "growing Middle Class of almost three hundred million" mired in the modern "way of life". So your argument essentially discredited modern India from any "right" to any history on the geographic piece of land that it is comprised of currently.

Did the "Indian ancients" use mobile phones and drive Ambassadors and Marutis, and go see skimpily clad women dancing on the silver screen? Pakistan was part of a "sub-continent".

A nation called India never existed until independence in 1947 - it was flawed nomenclature used by a colonizing power.

Alexander was not from greece proper, he was from macedonia - but all his systems for greek. Do you start calling him something else other than a greek emperor, who did many great things?

A civilizations boundaries expand and contract and sometimes might even shift from the past centre of gravity. Read the history of roman civilization to read about its various contractions, expansions from time to time. This example so that you have a neutral perspective. I differentiate between the civilizational aspect, political aspect and religious aspect. this is not to say that one does not have an affect on the other. They all have interminglings with each other.
But can yet be easily differentiated. Some of the aspects of civilization are some sort of continuity and vaguely some sort of past as torch for future, some shared values and knowledge. For example, ayurveda -Indian, unani -persian. its ofcourse another matter that both India and pakistan have moved on to halopati

Akbar/Ashoka/ harsha/vikramaditya NEVER ruled the entire India. Differentiate a political entity from an civilizational entity (Ashoka came the closest). Yes, India as a political entity, got its form in 1947, but as a civilizational entity it is way back. Understand nepal and srilanka still come under this civilizational (not political, not religious) entity. The whole of SE asia was under the indian civilization at that time(name of indonesian airlines), but today they arent.

whereas Pakistan is a break from the civilizational aspect. I am not talking about political, The civilizational break started with the advent of Qasim (Note I am not saying that the break happened instantly as the Pakistani textbooks proclaim). Afghanistan slid out around 4-5 centuries back. Pakistan got a huge break in 1947 due to political aspect. yes, may be not 100% civilizational aspect but around 99% which for me is good enough from that aspect to be treated as a new entity.

The use of mobile phones and all modernisation all today are technological aspects, which again has its effects. I think you have heard of americanization/consumerism term, what do you think that stuff about?

Read the kingdoms of sodasa mahajanapadas (16 great kingdoms), the names and locations of kingdoms mentioned in ramayana and mahabharata to get a perspective.

In the modern age, look at the rajputs, their claims of being suryavamshis(the clan from the sun) and such, each of them had a very small political kingdom, should I/you start calling each of the district sized political entities as different civilizations? Greece was divided in its hey days into city states each max the size of an average sized town, are they different civilizations? Answer this and you will immediately understand the difference between a political entity and a civilizational entity.

Oh! If I am not wrong, Kandahar is the modern gandhara which is part of afghanistan, which according to the logic being propounded, is now an afghan civilization.

[UnitedPak]

I dont know what you mean by "Indian civilisation", because where ever a term which sounds anything like "Indi", Indians seem to think they own it.
South East asia is Indian?
How?
Pakistan is Indian?
How?

p.s, Ghandara was a Pashtun civilisation spread from Afghanistan to most of North Pakistan, pretty much how Pashtuns are spread out today.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by bhangra12345

The whole of SE asia was under the indian civilization at that time(name of indonesian airlines), but today they arent.

Oh puleazze!! What a ridiculously foolish statement!

whereas Pakistan is a break from the civilizational aspect. I am not talking about political, The civilizational break started with the advent of Qasim (Note I am not saying that the break happened instantly as the Pakistani textbooks proclaim). Afghanistan slid out around 4-5 centuries back. Pakistan got a huge break in 1947 due to political aspect. yes, may be not 100% civilizational aspect but around 99% which for me is good enough from that aspect to be treated as a new entity.

Look, "breaks" as you call them happen in EVERY country's history. By your logic, the Teutons would not be an ancient German civilization, because they had a "break" from the Teutonic customs Even the Gauls would not be an ancient French civilization by this masterly logic of yours!!

Read the kingdoms of sodasa mahajanapadas (16 great kingdoms), the names and locations of kingdoms mentioned in ramayana and mahabharata to get a perspective.

The Mahabharata is a piece of fiction, not historical fact. Do you find anyone here referring to their Holy books as a basis for history?

Greece was divided in its hey days into city states each max the size of an average sized town, are they different civilizations? Answer this and you will immediately understand the difference between a political entity and a civilizational entity.

Ancient Greece was not a load of different civilizations. Ancient Greece was ONE civilization.

Oh! If I am not wrong, Kandahar is the modern gandhara which is part of afghanistan, which according to the logic being propounded, is now an afghan civilization.

Well, you're wrong! Qandahar is a derivative of Iskandaria (Alexander). It was founded in around 300 BC, whereas Gandahara was flourishing way before in around 600 BC. Therefore the name is just a coincidence.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by UnitedPak

p.s, Ghandara was a Pashtun civilisation spread from Afghanistan to most of North Pakistan, pretty much how Pashtuns are spread out today.

Ghandara was located mainly in north-west Pakistan..Peshawar I think was its centre.

[bhangra12345]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Oh puleazze!! What a ridiculously foolish statement!

You need to seriously read history books. Read about Sri Vijaya empire, the chola conquests, and then search why the biggest hindu temples in the world are where they are?(Hint: they are in south east asia). and then probably you will probably understand what was foolish and what was not.

Look, "breaks" as you call them happen in EVERY country's history. By your logic, the Teutons would not be an ancient German civilization, because they had a "break" from the Teutonic customs Even the Gauls would not be an ancient French civilization by this masterly logic of yours!!

As a geographical entity yes, but civilizational no. Are you by any chance saying that todays french are part of gaulic civilization?

The Mahabharata is a piece of fiction, not historical fact. Do you find anyone here referring to their Holy books as a basis for history?

read about the 16 great kingdoms- not from epics but from history also

Ancient Greece was not a load of different civilizations. Ancient Greece was ONE civilization.

So you agree that political entities are different from civilizational entities, good.

Well, you're wrong! Qandahar is a derivative of Iskandaria (Alexander). It was founded in around 300 BC, whereas Gandahara was flourishing way before in around 600 BC. Therefore the name is just a coincidence.

might be not, many historians seem to have other ideas.

read paragraph 15 in the below link
"a book link"


How many years do you the greeks ruled afghanistan? not even 15 years. Alexander conquered around 324 bc and then Darius became king and was almost immediately expelled by chandra gupta mourya around 315 or something like that

Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by bhangra12345

You need to seriously read history books. Read about Sri Vijaya empire, the chola conquests, and then search why the biggest hindu temples in the world are where they are?(Hint: they are in south east asia). and then probably you will probably understand what was foolish and what was not.

There is no such thing as an "Indian civilization". Whilst South East Asia is something unrelated and I don't know much of, there is at least as much Buddhist influence in the region as Hindu influence (in fact more when you consider places like Burma and Cambodia etc). Buddhism might have spread to these countries from Pakistan (silk routes), Sri Lanka, but it was through traders and not through conquests. You original line "The whole of SE Asia was under the Indian civilization" is still just a pompous meandering of a person wishing desperately he was the epicentre of all civilization. SE Asia has never been "under the Indian civilization". SE Asia only adopted a Buddhist/Hindu culture, and if you look at SE Asia today, they have all discarded their Hindu (in fact it was never Hindu, but discuss elsewhere) culture and kept their Buddhist identity. But there is no such thing as an "Indian civilization"

As a geographical entity yes, but civilizational no. Are you by any chance saying that todays french are part of gaulic civilization?

• The French are descendants of the Gaulic civilization, not a part of that civilization.
• The Pakistanis are descendant of the Indus Valley civilization/Gandhara, not a part of it.
• Today's India is not a part of the Indus Valley civilization/Gandhara, because that civilization does not exist anymore.

read about the 16 great kingdoms- not from epics but from history also

Sojasa Muhajanpadas WAS an Indian (Bharati) kingdom. You do not see Pakistanis trying to claim it. Why is it that people like you claim the Ancient Pakistani civilizations?

You are welcome to Sojasa Muhajanapadas! I don't consider it a great kingdom at all.

So you agree that political entities are different from civilizational entities, good.

Dude, Ancient Greece was ONE civilization. Whether the politics of the time meant that different areas had different politics on a provincial scale is IRRELEVANT. That has always been my point.

might be not, many historians seem to have other ideas.

read paragraph 15 in the below link
"a book link"


How many years do you the greeks ruled afghanistan? not even 15 years. Alexander conquered around 324 bc and then Darius became king and was almost immediately expelled by chandra gupta mourya around 315 or something like that

Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a known fact Alexander established many cities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Your wiki link is irrelevant. You obviously have no idea of timescales. Gandhara was FLOURISHING in 500 BC when Qandahar had not even been established. Every single map places Gandara at a different location, except for your mind it seems!

[bhangra12345]

It's a known fact Alexander established many cities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Do you even know how much work and most importantly time it takes to establish MANY cities? Do you know how many years Alexander was in India? Ah! forget it, who am I trying to explain logic to?

P.S: buddha was also an "Indian".

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by bhangra12345

Do you even know how much work and most importantly time it takes to establish MANY cities? Do you know how many years Alexander was in India? Ah! forget it, who am I trying to explain logic to?

Alexander did NOT step foot in today's India (Bharat), nor did he establish a single city in Bharat. There are hundreds of credited links that prove he established cities in Pakistan (like Uch) and Afghanistan (like Qandahar).

P.S: buddha was also an "Indian".

He was Nepalese actually

[UnitedPak]

Originally Posted by bhangra12345

Do you even know how much work and most importantly time it takes to establish MANY cities? Do you know how many years Alexander was in India? Ah! forget it, who am I trying to explain logic to?

P.S: buddha was also an "Indian".

Alexander never set his foot in "India".

And what exactly defines these so called "Ancient Indians"??? What makes south east asians "Indian"?
You have an agenda of linking the modern population of India with everything from Afghanistan to South east asia. It doesnt make sense, thats why Pakistan and South East Asia are not Indian. They have nothing to do with you consider as "Indian".

I know what you mean by "Indian civilisation"; and I can tell you right now that its a disgusting abuse of the origin of the term "India". Why do you stop here though? West Indies, American Indians, Indonesia gained their names by exact same way as India.

History is not linked to the name, its linked to the people and their descendants.

Consider this, If Germany changes its name to "Europe", can Germans claim the history of the entire Europe?

[niaz]

I have seeen an interesting debate about what Pakistan and India constitute.

Let us first understand that it is the land that matters, not the name. For example today's Afghanistan did not exist as Afghanistan until Ahmad Shah Abdali. Does this mean that the country didnt exist??. It was just called by a different name; it was a part of Khurasaan. Ghaznavid's were kings of Iran even though capital was in todays Afghanistan. Khwarizm Shahs were Kings of Iran with their capital near modern day Khiva.

My point is that it is incorrect to say that ancient history belongs to India not Pakistan. I have no hesitation to admit that what is called Pakistan today was called India in ancient times. As a matter of fact India should not be called India at all. It should be called by its correct name " Bharat".

One Hon Member has mentioned the Gandhara was a Pashtun civilization. Regret to disagree. Pashtun is a relatively new language related to Kurdish language among others. Gandhara civilization was at its peak during the Kushan times. The language used was Pali and Khoroshti, even though later Greek script was adopted. If any Pashtoon is any doubt, kindly look at the Kushaan coinage at the Taxila museum, there is no similarity with Pashto or Pakhto at all. This is however correct that a large area of what comes under Gandhara is now inahabited by the Pashto speaking people.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by niaz

Pashtun is a relatively new language related to Kurdish language among others.

No, no, no. Pashto (not Pashtun) is completely unrelated to the Kurdish language. You are thinking of Baloch. Pashto falls into the East Iranic language grouping (same as Ossetic and some extinct languages), Kurdish is a (North)-western Iranic language (again to others reading, don't confuse the words such as "Iranic" with modern day Iran).

Pashto is not relatively new compared with others. Most modern day languages have all evolved from some language or other, so though Pashto is relatively new, it's evolution can be traced back, as with lots of other languages.

Gandhara civilization was at its peak during the Kushan times. The language used was Pali and Khoroshti, even though later Greek script was adopted.

Khoroshti is a script, and Pali is a form of Prakrit that was spoken by common people of Gandhara, the elite were speaking Sanskrit. Prakrit is known as the common vernacular that contributes to several Pakistani languages, including Pashto. The Prakrit in Pashto is well documented. Pali was described as.. This language (Gankovsky), was probably made up of elements from the languages of the 'local pre-Indo-European population and Indo-Aryan tribes, as well as the Dardic and East-Iranian ethnic elements'. The Dardic elements would come from the Kashmiri side, the East Iranic elements would be from the Pashto side. Populations do not change in the way you're insinuating.

Take it from science that the language of the Gandharans was a mix of Sanskrit and Aramaic

It was influenced by the Gandharan language, which was based on India's (not Bharat's) Sanskrit and on Aramaic, brought from the west by the Achaemenid Empire
(you'll need a subscription to read this Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In )

If any Pashtoon is any doubt, kindly look at the Kushaan coinage at the Taxila museum, there is no similarity with Pashto or Pakhto at all. This is however correct that a large area of what comes under Gandhara is now inahabited by the Pashto speaking people.

Dude, please. The coinage of the Kushans would not have language similarities to anything in the subcontinent or central asia today, including Pashto. It's simply that languages have evolved since the times of Gandhara. Whether Pashtuns were behind the Gandhara civilization (and I would say the ancestors of modern Pashtuns were), or whether they were behind the Bactrian civilization is speculation, but coming to such a bold declaration that "If any Pashtoon is any doubt" is a nonsense conclusion.

[shan]

What about DNA results? Were ancient people tamils?