Pakistan ,Two Nation Theory and a few lies

[Samudra]

The year 1947 , saw the bloody partition of a country under the British Empire into two fragments.One based itself on the Two nation theory , the other claimed its roots to prehistoric times.While much of Indias history lay in the harrapa & mohenjadaro, the pride of pakistanis ,i.e the moghul identity lay much undisturbed in India.

Riots were happening in an Unprecedented scale , much due to Mohammed Ali Jinnahs call for "direct action" for a seperate nation.Some people argue , Mohammed Ali Jinnah had history to back up his claims for the theory of two nations.I ask What history ?

The history of Mohammeds of Ghor and Ghazni who plundered and ransacked along the areas what today is called pakistan ? Would history call them any better than bandits of a higher order ?

Today , we see how easily the two nation theory failed to create a national spirit amongst themselves pakistanis.Bangladesh stands witness to that.

India , on the other hand has managed to survive and preserve its secular identity.Ironies exist even today.A nation created for the muslims has less muslims than the parent nation from which it was seperated.

Four wars,nuclear weapons and much development hinderance , have been the result of the two nation theory and pakistanis attitude to apply the same theory on kashmir.

Does it stand today ? How much of claimed pakistani identity is true ?
What exactly is the identity ?

Where actually does Pakistans identity and history start ? Harrapa and Mohenjadaro ?

[visioninthedark]

Here is a Book Review about a book written by a very well-educated gentleman and the review is carried out by Professor Ahmed Hassan Dani (who is an extremely educated and world-renowned Historian and expert on the Indus Valley Civilisation, if in doubt, please do a google about his name and read about him yourself), :

Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan by Aitzaz Ahsan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, the author endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding many widely accepted myths of Indian history, the book presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age


Review by Prof. Ahmed Hasan Dani:

The DAWN: (September 6, 1996) "The Discovery of Pakistan"Professor Emeritus Ahmad Hasan Dani) Mr. Ahsan was deeply pondering the subject while he was in prison. He has come out with a new vision of the history of Pakistan - a vision that may be termed as the "Discovery of Pakistan". This deserves due consideration on the part of the historians in Pakistan as well as outside. A similar project for writing the history of Pakistan as a part of the golden jubilee celebrations has been undertaken by the National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research. On this occasion, I again submitted a long write-up to the Ministry of Culture stating clearly how the history of Pakistan, the "Indus Land", should be written. But being a humble historian of no great importance, my views have been 'filed' up in the Ministry. I am glad to note that Mr. Ahsan has come forward boldly on a theme which the Pakistani historians have so far hesitated to elaborate - a theme which has been my life's dream. If we have created Pakistan - a land which has deep roots in history - there must be the history of the land and of the people who have lived and laboured here. The future generations deserve to have a history of the country. I congratulate Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan on showing a way to the historians. While he has succeeded, I have stumbled and miserably failed to convey my opinion and persuade the bureaucrats to understand historical Pakistan in the manner in which Mr. Ahsan has so ably done in the present book.

[visioninthedark]

Well Sir,

if you do a search of my posts on this forum, you will come across posts by me making the same point over and over again.

Let me post the following once again (as you will see, this timeline shows that what is today known as "Pakistan" has existed in nearly the same present boundaries for 5000 years. Ofcourse, the new label of Pakistan was given in 1947, but "Pakistan", in its present boundaries and with its present people existed more or less as a cohesive national unit SEPERATE FROM INDIA for MOST of its 7000 year history);

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:


1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

As I have always said ... Islam is ONE factor in our identity ... its not THE ONLY FACTOR ...

Infact, the timeline shows that even without Islam, the land and people that are today known as "Pakistan" always existed as an independent state SEPERATE FROM INDIA!

[visioninthedark]

Originally Posted by chandragupta

The year 1947 , saw the bloody partition of a country under the British Empire into two fragments.One based itself on the Two nation theory , the other claimed its roots to prehistoric times.While much of Indias history lay in the harrapa & mohenjadaro, the pride of pakistanis ,i.e the moghul identity lay much undisturbed in India.

Riots were happening in an Unprecedented scale , much due to Mohammed Ali Jinnahs call for "direct action" for a seperate nation.Some people argue , Mohammed Ali Jinnah had history to back up his claims for the theory of two nations.I ask What history ?

The history of Mohammeds of Ghor and Ghazni who plundered and ransacked along the areas what today is called pakistan ? Would history call them any better than bandits of a higher order ?

Today , we see how easily the two nation theory failed to create a national spirit amongst themselves pakistanis.Bangladesh stands witness to that.

India , on the other hand has managed to survive and preserve its secular identity.Ironies exist even today.A nation created for the muslims has less muslims than the parent nation from which it was seperated.

Four wars,nuclear weapons and much development hinderance , have been the result of the two nation theory and pakistanis attitude to apply the same theory on kashmir.

Does it stand today ? How much of claimed pakistani identity is true ?
What exactly is the identity ?

Where actually does Pakistans identity and history start ? Harrapa and Mohenjadaro ?

Please it has been almost 60 years now.... accept us .... we are not going to vanish of the face of earth or come running back to you.... it did not happen in the first few years of Pakistan and will not happen until eternity. There never was an akhand (greater) Bharat (India) ... it is and was just a Myth ... like many other things about ancient bharat (India) ...

Just like arab loosers continually question the right of Israel to exist ... so people with your thinking from India continue to question our right to exist ...

I have the same answer to both ... you might as well use your imagination somewhere productive ..... because neither Israel nor Pakistan are EVER going to dissappear!

[tarek]

Chandra


You lay no foundation for your claims - and you do not even acknowledge that history is a "selection" of some of the facts, not all of the facts, and that history, becuase of the "selection" remains a pictgure that is a captive of the "lens" with which we "filter" the light that illuminates it.

"Would history call them any better than bandits of a higher order ?" you ask, well certainly it does, just ask Pakistanis - would Pakistanis then agree with the idea that these are mere bandits of a higher order? Shall we next argue that due to the infulence of oil on American policy imperatives, that we can "reasonably" that the American experience is one of banditry or that the interaction with the American Indian suggests that the American is genocidal or the experience with the African American mean that bigotry and pettynes a congenital condition??

All History, all propositions rooted in history, are interpretations - we must be conscious that we are applying the ideas and judgments of today, to those facts of yesterday, that we choose to recall, which were obviously not informed by the ideas and judgements of today --

just easy does it in this department, it keeps the conversation sane and civil.


"Today , we see how easily the two nation theory failed to create a national spirit amongst themselves pakistanis.Bangladesh stands witness to that"

Well, yes and no, depends on what you are suggesting informs the entirety of the TNT - if you will argue that the entirety of the TNT is religious differentiation, then certainly you point to a clear example where Islam as identity failed to unite, to attenuate cultural schism - but then the example of Bangldesh is not needed for that and the example of India would suffice, afterall, how many Pakistanis would agree to give Pakistani citizenship to Muslims of India???

On the other hand, if as VTD points out, should you argue Islam as a element of identity and that the TNT represented competing sense of nationalism, your original statement will be suspect.

One ought to always remain conscious of the "interpretation" of history that is unavoiudable (Pre-suppositions) -- Philosophy of history

[Jay]

I can give 3 reasons (no its not some weird timelines, which I already stated in the forum), why 2 Nation theory didnt work.
1. Pakistan was created for sub-continent muslims (or minorities as per Asim). But more minorities and muslims choose to remain in sovreign India than moving towards a new state Pakistan. Even if 3 million people moved from India to Pakistan and vice versa, his 2 nation theory failed when millions and millions of muslims and other minorty people choose to remain in India.
2. Declaration of Pakistan as Islamic Republic, change in constitution that only muslims can run for the higer echelons of the govt, passing blasphemy and huddod laws in the parliment, the very Parliment where Jinnah thundered that Pakistan would be the saviour of all the minorities.
3. Breakaway of Bangladesh. Again the very main point for creation of Pakistan was to be a homeland to Indian subcontinent muslims (and non-hindus). East Bengal, then prolly the biggest province in then Pakistan broke away from the nation, which completely defeated the two nation theory. Coz technically now we have 3 nations.

I dont know what Jinnah's original intention was to demand for a seperate counry, from India. But based on what I read here and else were, his idea of having a seperate nation and the reasons behind it were completely false as we see, his creation, the nation Pakistan didnt live up to his dreams.

Now, India clutched to secularism, even when Mahatma Gandhi was killed. Bth Jinnah and Gandhi died very shortly, after the independence.

Jinnah is responsible for the creation of Pakistan and his failed 2 nation theory. Like Marxism and Leninism and other ism's, 2 nation theory was his "ism" and it failed.

[tarek]

"jinnah is responsible for the creation of Pakistan and his failed 2 nation theory"

Fair enuff, is Pakistan, a sovereign nation state, still around? If yes, the announcment of the failure of TNT is premature, wouldn't you agree?

As for 3 reasons u present:

1. Reason number 1 is in the category of half truth, if you will take the population of Pakistan East & West wings, then the claim yolu make is suspect, however; if we look at Pakistan after the creation of Bangladesh, then your statement is more valid.

2.So called "islamization" is a betrayal not of TNT but Pakistan.

3. Your statement would be valid, if Islam as identity were the only criteria, however; if TNT were to be see as a articulation of competing nationalism, it would be difficult to categorically say that TNT was/is a failure.

You have outlined the role of Jinnah, but it seems you think it does not take two to tango -- seems to me there are some personalities missing from your roques gallery Can one argue that TNT succeed in India? Afterall, has not TNT provided a cohesion and justification to the "Indian", especially Hindu, society?

[Jay]

Fair enuff, is Pakistan, a sovereign nation state, still around? If yes, the announcment of the failure of TNT is premature, wouldn't you agree?

The existance of Pakistan doesnt prove that TNT prevailed. In a physical sense, it does but when you look for the reason behind the creation of Pakistan, i.e the essence of TNT is a failure, and I guess I gave adequate supporting arguements on why it failed.

1. Reason number 1 is in the category of half truth, if you will take the population of Pakistan East & West wings, then the claim yolu make is suspect, however; if we look at Pakistan after the creation of Bangladesh, then your statement is more valid.

Sorry my numbers may be "off" the original, but my comparision is not wrong. If I go with East and west Pakistan then the combined population would be tad higher than the combined minority population in India, which again proves that almost half the number of people rejected Jinnah's idea, along with the majoriy Hindus.

2.So called "islamization" is a betrayal not of TNT but Pakistan.

Tarek, Pakistan was formed based on an ideology - TNT. So the "islamization" is a betrayel to the idealogy and the end product of it, Pakistan.

3. Your statement would be valid, if Islam as identity were the only criteria, however; if TNT were to be see as a articulation of competing nationalism, it would be difficult to categorically say that TNT was/is a failure.

If I go by the pen sources, almost all of hem says Jinnah wanted a Pakistan for the sub-continent muslims in particular (and other minorities). Even if I o by your theory of competing nationalism (India Vs Pakistan), it failed miserably bcoz it couldnt hold the aspirations of East Bengal. So Jinnah's idea of having a seperate nation for what ever reason failed bcoz Bengalis decided that they dont want to be a part of it, after being in it for 24 years.

[tarek]

"The existance of Pakistan doesnt prove that TNT prevailed." -- And one can also argue that it does not prove that TNT failed in Pakistan -- That's the problem with theories, there will always be at least one "anomaly" and the need ot harmonize and account for the anomaly will rise to another theory - but we digress, lets move on with your effort:


"when you look for the reason behind the creation of Pakistan, i.e the essence of TNT is a failure"

Well, I am not so sure of this at all - you may wantot refresh my memory of what YOU think is the "essence" of this theory - and while you are at it, you may wish to explain, why this theory succeeded in India.

"If I go by the pen sources, almost all of hem says Jinnah wanted a Pakistan for the sub-continent muslims in particular (and other minorities). Even if I o by your theory of competing nationalism (India Vs Pakistan), it failed miserably bcoz it couldnt hold the aspirations of East Bengal. So Jinnah's idea of having a seperate nation for what ever reason failed bcoz Bengalis decided that they dont want to be a part of it, after being in it for 24 years"

I'll bet a $ to your Dime, that your sources will be hostile to TNT - anyway, - on the contrary, the creation of Bangladesh is a affirmation of competing nationalism - Bengali nationalism in United Pakistan gained it's own unique voice and if we look at TNT as a articulation of competing nationalism, we can with a measure of assurance assert that TNT is validated within this particular definition or interpretation of it.

Now, if you review my earlier post, you will note as long as TNT being defined as Islam as idenity and justification of nationalism, certainly, then we can say that TNT has failed, on the other hand as VTD and now I have pointed out to you, Islam as identity can not (credibly and reasonably) be defined as the entirty of TNT, don't you agree?

.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by tarek

"The existance of Pakistan doesnt prove that TNT prevailed." -- And one can also argue that it does not prove that TNT failed in Pakistan -- That's the problem with theories, there will always be at least one "anomaly" and the need ot harmonize and account for the anomaly will rise to another theory - but we digress, lets move on with your effort:

Well, I didnt base it on a theory, its like a factoid.

Well, I am not so sure of this at all - you may wantot refresh my memory of what YOU think is the "essence" of this theory - and while you are at it, you may wish to explain, why this theory succeeded in India.

Actually, India didnt have an idelogy behind its creation. They were just looking forward for independence to all the sub-continent people, Congress and any/all parties except Muslim League. ML was the only party which had an idealogy for a seperate nation based on their religion (Islam and non-hindus). So as I said, India didnt have a theory to look up to, it was for all the sub-continent people and still remains the same.

I'll bet a $ to your Dime, that your sources will be hostile to TNT -

well, actually no. For instance, the other thread where Asim posted Jinnah's speech on the creation of Pakistan. Show me other sources that has different claims.

anyway, - on the contrary, the creation of Bangladesh is a affirmation of competing nationalism - Bengali nationalism in United Pakistan gained it's own unique voice and if we look at TNT as a articulation of competing nationalism, we can with a measure of assurance assert that TNT is validated within this particular definition or interpretation of it.

The discussion is about Jinnah, his ideology of creating Pakistan. If you just say competing nationalism, almost all the rebel groups throughout the world operate in the same principle. Say from Balochistan or from NWFP.

Islam as identity can not (credibly and reasonably) be defined as the entirty of TNT, don't you agree?

So far all the sources say that Jinnah's 2 nation theory was based on religion (Hindus Vs Muslims/Rest). So unless you prove that TNT is based on competing nationalism, thirst for power or what ever his intention is, I cannot agree on this.

One more tidbit to ponder,

Partition was a development defying all logic. Pakistan was ostensibly demanded as the homeland of Muslims in India but the Muslim majority provinces, Bengal, Punjab, North-West Frontier Province and Sind voted against it. It was still enforced by the British because of the mob tactics of the Muslim League which had a following only in provinces where Muslims were in a minority. The League itself was a party founded by landlords for landlords, and the leader was a man who cared little for religion anyway. Ranged against him were leaders who were men of the highest political acumen and spiritual eminence like Gandhi, Azad, Nehru and Patel. Partition would leave as many Muslims in India as would live in Pakistan but Jinnah could cynically proclaim that the only safeguard for Muslims left back in India against possible ill treatment at the hands of Hindus was that Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan would be properly fixed. Addressing a meeting of bewildered Indian Muslims in the Jama Masjid of Delhi, Maulana Azad made a surpassingly moving speech which, I suggest, should be made compulsory reading for everyone in India. In that speech Azad regretted that his co-religionists had ignored his advice. He said: "I hailed you, you cut off my tongue. I picked up my pen, you severed my hand. I wanted to move forward, you cut my legs. I tried to turn over, and you injured me in the back. When the bitter political games of the last seven years were at their peak, I tried to wake you up at every danger signal... I warned you that the two-nation theory was the death-knell to a meaningful and dignified life, forsake it. To all this you turned a deaf ear. And now you have discovered that the anchors of your faith have set you adrift. The debacle of Indian Muslims is the result of the colossal blunders committed by the Muslim League’s misguided leadership."
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?lay...RF=DefaultMain

Wilfred Cantwell Smith raises a pertinent question which no reader of Jinnah Papers can ignore; "Mr. Jinnah is usually regarded, by Pakistanis at least, as a brilliant leader. That he was a clever dialectician and lawyer seems clear. Yet is it not perhaps time to bring into question his statesmanship, his political sagacity, in view of his apparent failure to foresee - apparently even to try to foresee - the concrete working out of his proposals... If he is to be credited with all of Pakistan's achievements, as is customary, should he be exempted from responsibility for its problems?" (W. C. Smith; Islam in Modern History; p. 273).

Quaid-i-Azam (leader of the Nation) Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the founder of Pakistan Pakistan, one of the largest Muslim states in the world, is a living and exemplary monument of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. With his untiring efforts, indomitable will, and dauntless courage, he united the Indian Muslims under the banner of the Muslim League and carved out a homeland for them, despite stiff opposition from the Hindu Congress and the British Government.

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/perso...erid=P009&Pg=1

Early in his political career, Jinnah was chiefly concerned with achieving independence for a unified India. Increasingly, however, he worried that British oppression would be replaced by Hindu oppression and continued subjugation of India's Muslim minority.

In 1919, Jinnah resigned from the Congress and turned his focus to Muslim interests. Over the next two decades he would become the architect of a dream first voiced by Muslim poet-philosopher Muhammad Iqbal that Indian Muslims would someday have their own nation.

By the late 1930s, Jinnah, who had become leader of the Muslim League, was convinced that a partition of India along religious lines was the only way to preserve Muslim political power.

In 1940, the Muslim League adopted the 'Lahore Resolution' calling for separate autonomous states in majority-Muslim areas of northeastern and eastern India.

In 1946, violence between Hindus and Muslims broke out after Jinnah called for demonstrations opposing an interim Indian government in which Muslim power would be compromised.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/India9...ation.builder/

[tarek]

"Well, I didnt base it ona theroy, its like a factoid." -- Perhaps in it is in some circles, when it is referred to as two nation factoid, however; I will grant that much of your expose in interned in that very same realm.

If anyone should want to creat an argument that TNT has ben successful, they need look no further than India. If Jinnah wanted a seperate "homeland" in which the interests of Muslims and other "minorities" would be protected, we cannot remain innocent (for long) of the fact that this was most convenient to the congress party leadership as well, afterall, it wasn't as they were dragged into this kick and screaming, and the one man who was draged into this kicking and screaming, the mahatma, end up assasinaed by a Hinda fanatic.

For a honest exposition, one that may allow multiple hues of historical "fact and in this way further our understanding of the TNT cannot possible begin with the presupposition that it is a "straw man" - that is a polemic without foundation.


"The discussion is about Jinnah, his ideology of creating Pakistan. If you just say competing nationalism, almost all the rebel groups throughout the world operate in the same principle. Say from Balochistan or from NWFP"

Jinnah did not not start out wanting a seperate nation, did he?? In fact wasn't Jinnah know as the best Inbassador India ever had? and the Poet hero of the idea of Pakistan, Iqbal Lahori, did he not start out with "sare...hindustan"?? -- -- Seems to be exposition is not something you are prepared for, because you are not prepared for the fact that mr. Jinnah did not create Pakistan or for that matter india, by himself -- you can imagine that it did not take two to tango, but it is a notion not rooted in reality and not rooted in fact.

You have apparently forgotten the advice I offered you about reading history and being conscious of the presupposition with which we interpret history - Next time you want to put this to a test, devise a experiement, create a event in which 4 to 5 persons will participate and then have then write about their experience - you will note a interesting thing or two about persepective

The article you quote similarly offers convenient omissions for instance : "Pakistan was ostensibly demanded as the homeland of Muslims in India but the Muslim majority provinces, Bengal, Punjab, North-West Frontier Province and Sind voted against it" -- it is almost as if one were suggesting that the ML was dominant in these provinces and if yo research you will note that it was in fact congress that was politically dominant in these areas - further, the author fails to note the fact that in each of these areas a seperate political struggle had come to be fused with the larger struggle -- the author of the article claims that land owners and the titled nobility would be protected in Pakistan; certainly a strong conservative impusle has imformed politics in the areas that are today Pakistan, however; the author statement is a similar overreach, if Jinnah had enemies, it was the landed nobility -- in fact the whole "mohajir" myth is a development of the landed nobility to ensure thatthe peasants don't get the wrong ideas from the urbanites who migrated to Pakistan.

You have earlier said that because large numbers of persons did not or could not migrate to Pakistan, that this somehow negates TNT - well, again, this is "convenient" for polemic and most inconvenient for expose. Fact is that those who could migrate did, in fact, one of the reasons that in India today we have a relatively small muslim middle and upper class is that those who could migrate did - and of those who could not migrate, we cannot make any authoritative statment, other than they could not and did not -- Additionally your suggestion that as many Muslims and other minorites stated in India as migrated needs ot be reevaluated - consider, at it's creation and till the creation of bangladesh, united pakistan was the largest Muslim state in the world, the population of Muslims in India may now be 130 million and is a close match for the 150 present population of Pakistan, however; such close symetry obvious did not exist prior to the creatio of Bnagladesh

[Samudra]

Vision

You neednt call me sir !
Am still a young lad.

First , i am happy with the way the discussion in this thread has been going on.
It serves us as a good source of information when the discussion is objective..
Meanwhile it is more fun when we retain our agressioin

Wonder why asim is missing out .



Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:


1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

Sir , Indus Valley Age civilisations have also been found in and aroud Delhi.
There is absolutely no evidence to claim that IVC was found only in areas which is today claimed to be pak.For example , you can look about details for the discovery of ancient city of dwaraka somewhere in gujrat.And we do not know the form of government , if any existed in that era to claim it to be INDEPENDENT.


2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

AIT , is a hotly debated issue even today.But the recent discoveries and scholars seem to point out that AIT was only a theory..nothing more.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

Whole of then India consisted of such states.Each was fiercly independent and what they all had in common was the culture and way of living.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

So how does this validate the TNT ?


5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

it is wrong to call it buddhist rule , though much buddhist influences were felt.mauryan empire is the akhand bharat.nothing more.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

Please read Indian history , there were 100s of independent states prevlant in india then after the fall of Mauryas.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

Yet again ! Read my last point.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

Kushans were who my dear ? I claim them Indians

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

**** ! How many times are people going to use this independent damned word.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

Pre-Islam , it was always a part of our culture and ways of living.Plus it was the place where we and other cultures mixed up and thereby enriched our culture


11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

I wonder how Rajput-Brahmins were not Indians

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

Here come the bandits and plunderers....so the kind of glorious islamic history you claim starts exactly 4000 years later form when you claimed your lands history.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

Yeah it got washed down the gutter from here.I concur.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

[b] Yeah Yeah , the horrible acts of those muslim rulers is well known in the form of destruction of temples, cities as a whole , massacres and the famed tolerance taxes stuff.Wonder what this has to do with TNT [b/]

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

good , so no matter what you will rather be a iranian slave country , and call it not part of india.sheez.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

I thought Sikhism is a very part of our rich culture.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

Yeah what does this have to do with TNT ?

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.

Thats what is sad

__________________________________________________ _______________


Now Mohammed Ali Jinnah , based his proposal for Pakistan on the basis of minorities....so which of all those historical stuff is parallel with jinnahs idea of minorities as a seperate nation. ?

[Samudra]

Fair enuff, is Pakistan, a sovereign nation state, still around? If yes, the announcment of the failure of TNT is premature, wouldn't you agree?

tarek , all those backey-backward african nations do exist.Is existence a matter of pride ?


2.So called "islamization" is a betrayal not of TNT but Pakistan.

Pakistan was created based upon the TNT...

3. Your statement would be valid, if Islam as identity were the only criteria, however; if TNT were to be see as a articulation of competing nationalism, it would be difficult to categorically say that TNT was/is a failure.

I wonder , if a country is seperated from another country , where the mother country has a multi-religious society and the child country contains a religion as a vast imposing majority and the government of the country calls itself the "islamic republic" , would still have not the religion as its criteria but something else totally alien to history and facts on ground.


Afterall, has not TNT provided a cohesion and justification to the "Indian", especially Hindu, society?

No tarek , so far as i see , i do not see it.Any justifications for your claims ?

[Samudra]

I'll bet a $ to your Dime, that your sources will be hostile to TNT - anyway, - on the contrary, the creation of Bangladesh is a affirmation of competing nationalism - Bengali nationalism in United Pakistan gained it's own unique voice and if we look at TNT as a articulation of competing nationalism, we can with a measure of assurance assert that TNT is validated within this particular definition or interpretation of it.

Tarek , i know when i speak of Baloch nationalism you wont feel good about it.
Afterall the TNT validates their claim too.

I wonder if TNT eliminates any chance for a multicultural mutlireligious society to exist.Going by your logic of bengali nationalism asserting itself based on TNT ,why not Baloch ? You see the hypocrsy ?

[Samudra]

Originally Posted by tarek

Chandra
You lay no foundation for your claims - and you do not even acknowledge that history is a "selection" of some of the facts, not all of the facts, and that history, becuase of the "selection" remains a pictgure that is a captive of the "lens" with which we "filter" the light that illuminates it.

brother
i acknowledge that history is but a selection of facts...else would we have a discussion going hot here ?

And sir , mohammed of ghor and ghazni are seen as mere uncivilised brutal bandits in India..esp among people who love their motherland.