Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[Rig Vedic]

---

---

... it becomes necessary to attack the tested methodology ...

Everything has to be founded on logic and openness.

If the prevalent processes, in any discipline, lose these values, then there is a loss of credibility.

[LaBong]

There is off course civilization continuity, may be not as tightly coupled as some claim to be. Decline of IVC and subsequent rise of Ganges based Vedic Civilization, the Mahajapads, the continuous eastward migration of political center in vedic age which will rest at Pataliputra in time of Mouryas, and even more East at time of Pala. The culture, language, the art of living being continued and enhanced. That's how an Assamese or a Bengali can lay claim on IVC.

Just because Turks are now living in Anatolia, they can't claim the heritage of Hectors and Helens, do they?

A Pushtun living in Pakistani Punjab hasn't inherited IVC.

[Vinod2070]

As a counter to the Assamese arguments, I have seen many people calling themselves Iraqi or "Arain" or some other random Arab/Central Asian/Turk/Mughal/Persian/Afghan, many times being Muhajirs from India and them claiming IVC!

Anyway, I find this overemphasis on IVC pathetic.

[takeiteasy]

the region with non-Hindu culture and population currently Pakistan, and a small portion of Afghan- where these places really considered part of ancient Bharat? Is this the reason that Pakistani Islamics claims that "Pakistan existed much before 1947". The Civilization was 2 distinct ones IMO.

[dk33]

While I personally subscribe to your vision of a wider set of issues beyond those that we started with, it is necessary to point out, to be absolutely fair, that taking up these issues in detail are subtly beyond the scope of the present discussion. It might be appropriate - please consider this a MOST tentative suggestion - to start a separate thread to consider these wider vistas.

New thread created here on the topic:

What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[Atanz]

---

---

As a counter to the Assamese arguments, I have seen many people calling themselves Iraqi or "Arain" or some other random Arab/Central Asian/Turk/Mughal/Persian/Afghan, many times being Muhajirs from India and them claiming IVC!

Anyway, I find this overemphasis on IVC pathetic.

I have addressed this issue many times on this thread. Maybe I am not doing such a good job in getting my message across. So Vinod I will try again.Without a doubt over the millenia waves of conquerors have rolled into South Asia from the Eurasian steppe and Iran.

These waves have been assimilated into the local population. You guy's keep bringing this up but can't you people realize a person can have multiple heritage. One of your forefathers could have been a Harrapan farmer, another a invader from Central Asia and another a vagabond with Ghaznavi army. Acceptance of one does not preclude the other. Most populations evolve over time, the genetic pool is not a static concept but dynamic and evolving all the time.

The big question here is not if there has been any infusion of 'external blood' into the Indus Valley population, that is a incontrovertible fact. Instead we should be asking, does majority of Pakistan's population have direct link to this region going back as far as 5,000 years ago? I think the answer is a clear yes, unless we get solid evidence ( DNA etc ) to the contrary.

I think there is a genetic continuity over the millenia. I would need to do more reading on the subject but from what I did read it appeared that the vast majority of Pakistan's population shared it's DNA with the wider South Asian pool. Although the incidence of foreign influence was greatest in Pakistan then any other South Asian country. In India the north westerly states also had some foreign impact.

So despite what people might want to claim as surnames most Pakistani's have a relationship with the land either on both sides of the chain or at least one side with the other shared with Central Asian/Iranian etc influences but that still enables them to have a link with the past. This is what I meant by duel heritage, the local mixed with the exotic.

Now we move on to the minority of the population ( might I suggest 30%? ) who are exotic. I mean those whose DNA is entirely external and has no South Asian influences. In this category you might include the Pashtun ( 25-30 million in Pakistan? ) or the Baloch ( less than 5 million ). But that is still a minority.

You can't define a country by it's minority. Punjabi and Sindhi are a composite people who have over the centuries been subjected to external influences. But they still retain link with the land through their ancestors even if some of them along the chain might have been from 'abroad'.

And Vinod this 'over emphasis' as you call it on the IVC is not pathetic. First because the IVC was very significant in Sindh, Punjab and even beyond and secondly to me it is a test case for others. I could have focussed on Ghandara but I think IVC is more significant. Whatever conclusions can be drawn can be applied to the rest of Pakistan's heritage.