PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan ,Two Nation Theory and a few lies



Samudra
28 Sep 04,, 04:09
:)
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
28 Sep 04,, 19:06
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
28 Sep 04,, 19:07
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
28 Sep 04,, 19:14
:)
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
28 Sep 04,, 19:25
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
28 Sep 04,, 19:52
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
28 Sep 04,, 20:04
"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
28 Sep 04,, 21:01
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
28 Sep 04,, 22:27
"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
28 Sep 04,, 22:58
"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?layout=2&cat1=6&cat2=44&newsid=120562&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/person.asp?perid=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/India97/pakistan/nation.builder/

tarek
28 Sep 04,, 23:35
"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
29 Sep 04,, 03:52
Vision

You neednt call me sir ! :biggrin:
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 . :confused:



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.

Shit ! 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 :biggrin:

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.

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.

[b]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 :frown:

__________________________________________________ _______________


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
29 Sep 04,, 04:01
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... :confused:

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
29 Sep 04,, 04:08
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
29 Sep 04,, 04:11
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 ? :biggrin:

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

visioninthedark
29 Sep 04,, 10:06
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.

Most Civilisations have CENTERS OF GRAVITY by which they are Identified ... The Nile civilisation's CofG was the Nile .... Indus Valley's was the Indus ...

It is true that all civilisations out-grow their CofG ... and extend tentacles of influence ...

BUT

the ORIGIN of the CIVILISATION IS KNOWN BY WHERE IT ORIGINATED AND WHERE ITS COFG WAS .... the civilisation is not defined by its periphery but by its CENTER ...




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.

It has NOT been disproved either


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.

The other states were seperate .... those that existed within the boundries of present Pakistan were FURTHER SEPERATED from the states in India BY THE FACT THAT THEY WERE "SATRAPIES" UNDER THE UNIFIED RULE OF PERSIA which gave them a further SEPERATE IDENTITY and CULTURAL INFLUENCE


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 ?

Seperate EXISTENCE .... NOT ONE UNITED NATION WITH INDIA



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.

It can in no way what-so-ever be called Hindu ... even if you wish not to call it buddhist .... even if ... for arguments sake I accept your theory "Akhand Bharat" .... note it existed for ONLY 100 years .... out of 7000 thousand


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.

and so .... this only shows that it was NOT part of any centralised INDIAN ... "akhand bharat" nation


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.

Please read my last post too ... while India at that time consisted of seperate independent states that were at times hostile to one another .... those on this side of the border were unified under saka-parthian rule and culture and were a coherent centrally administered state ... seperate from the other states in 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.

Kushans were who my dear ? I claim them Indians :)

It does not matter what you claim ... just read up as to where their CENTER AND CAPITAL WERE BASED ... who they themselves were ....

The were NOT BASED in what is known as India ... they were NOT Indian ...


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

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

Please read my post above - and .... lets keep it polite and civil ... shall we?


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


Do you know who the white Huns were .... do you know where they settled ... they NEVER EVER crossed the present boundaries of Pakistan into what is today known as India ... their influence and control was limited to their region and the dealt with the states further to the east as FOREIGN states ...


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 :biggrin:

More than you can imagine ... nearly all Kashmiris .... muslims are converts who were bhramin .... many Punjabis were converts who were Rajput


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.

Strange .... this whole timeline shows our HISTORY starting from 3000BC .... what makes you think that I would claim that our history startes in 1010 ...

They were no different than all the other peoples of their times in their behaviour and attitude ...

they did not run away .... but settled within what is today Pakistan ...


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.

Please read above


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.

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

Please read answer to point 12 above ... point is that they were INDEPENDENT OF INDIA ....


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.

Please read answer to point 12 above ... Iranians share CULTURE ... RACE and RELIGION WITH US ...

Apart from that .... even our Physical appearance is more Persian than Indian ...

Point here is .... INDEPENDENT FROM 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.

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

Please read history of sikhism and why and how it came about


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 ?

One of the rare periods when we were FORCIBLY ADMINISTERED BY A FOREIGN CCUPYING FORCE AS A UNITED STATE WITH INDIA ...

prior to this it was always TWO NATIONS ...


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

Thats what is sad :frown:

Just like arabs should learn to accept Israel .... people like you should learn to accept Pakistan


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. ?

Well ... I could say that Jinnah took all of you for a ride ... :biggrin: ... if he were actually talking about Islam ... why did all the Mullahs of United British India oppose him tooth and nail ....

only you (plural) believed him ... and a few indian who migrated .... while all the while he wanted to reenact the same old nation that had existed INDEPENDENT FROM INDIA for 7000 years ...

ofcourse .... using Islam meant that maybe we could grab csome more space ... :biggrin:

Samudra
29 Sep 04,, 11:16
vision

i always love to keep discussion civil , unlike one of forums you moderate.anyways.

1.Center of Gravity ?
Sheez dude civilisation existed throughout India then.Saraswati river was source of civilisation,so was ganga and yamuna.

Anyways what i intend to say is , you are not going to use Indus Valley Civilisation as a justification for an indentity for you country.Its common to both of us.

2.Sure its not gone yet.But then it looks like it will.But how does AIT provide an independent image to your country today ? I mean its common for both of us....going by AIT whole of north india was aryanised.

3.Pray tell sir , has this cultural influence not been felt in north india ?
Please visit us vid..its an invitation.This is a country, which has many surprises for you. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have enough cultural differences , as in case of Pakistanis and neighbouring states of india today....

4.whole of india was split into so many kingdoms...each were independent.and each had its own cultural influence and sort of stuff you would like to talk.

5.Re-read history....though ashoka claims much affinity towards buddhism , it did not mean the mauryan empire was a buddhist state.it actually was a SECULAR state.he patronised all religions.....the kind of dhamma he talks about in the edicts are identical to dharma...infact both are kind of similar.

ashoka is a far greater personality.I would not hesitate to call him the greatest monarch the world has ever seen.

6.Kushans , experienced a lot of influence from then bharat.Infact if you did not know , Mathura in north india was one of the capitals of Kanishka..He was a kushan.Heard of the last kushan emperor ? Vasudeva (around 200 ad) ...does the name sound anything hindu ? :biggrin: .

Fact is Kushans were absored into the indian culture.
List of Kushan kings.

Heraios (1-30 AD)
Kujula Kadphises (30-80 AD) First Kushan emperor
Vima Kadphises (90-100 AD)
Kanishka I (100-126 AD)
Huvishka (126-164 AD)
Vasudeva I (164-200 AD) Last of the great Kushan emperors
Kanishka II (200-222 AD)
Vashishka (232- 246 AD)
Vasudeva II (246- 256 AD)
Kanishka III (256- AD)
Shaka I

7.Could you prove your point about that so called unity among those states, the saka parthians ?

8.Teach me history ? Please do. I know they did not originate from India...heck human race originated from Africa...The very names of Kushan rulers should teach you about our embracing culture.By "our" i mean ours(yours and mine).Fact is you deny that.

9.Kushans were very much part of our hindu culture....and were ruling over north india....they did not destroy the local civilisation , nor did they plunder.they were absorbed into our culture.I am damn proud about that.If you deny it , there aint a thing that can help you in this world.You are such a learned man, you must learn to see this truth.Kushan were a INTEGRAL part of our india.

10.Yeah ? They never crossed our present international boundries huh ? Grow Up !..Teach me about huns vid , teach me.

The huns suceeded in entering todays gangetic plains....they created much trouble for the gupta empire...finally they were embraced into our way of living....they even altered our caste laws.First Hun king toramana RULED north india....including Kashmir...his son Mihirakula(buddhist sound name huh ? ) died in kashmir , exactly in 542 AD.
As time passed they too entered the main stream Indian culture. !

11.Rajputs werent part of Indian mainstream of culture huh ? Sati , which was prevelant from north to south (Sundara Cholas wife burnt herself on his funeral)
should ring a bell about the influences.

12.Huns,Kushans did not destroy cities and convert people.Mohammeds did.I once again extend my invitation to you , please visit our country.

Travel to the far south.Ask them about Ghaur and Ghazni, if they call them something else than bandits and brutes , let me know i shall not make one post more !

13.Hence todays Pakistanis are none but settled invaders from Afghan and Persia...why claim the indus valley then dude ? :)

14.Yeah , for a period they did remain independent...just like south india under cholas was independent and kicked the arabian pirates out of the oceans around here . :biggrin:

Shall we declare a new nation "Cholam" tomorrow then ?

15.Persia oh Persia....what have you done .? With all those invasions you think you will remain the same ? Shall i show you enough number of different looking people from India ? Heck Malayalees look different from Tamils, so do people of NE from central indians...this defies logic vision.

Looks arise from factors like climate,diet and stuff.
Or may be there ought to be many nations , Blonde-istan , Brown-Hair-istan. :biggrin:

16.I confess.I know not more about Sikhism.But this much i know that Sikhism and Sikhs are not ashamed to belong to our diverse culture...no i am not talking about religion here , but the CULTURE and the invisible thread.I cant talk of glorious hinduism and like because i am aware it never was like we think it was.Buddhism , Jainism were all part of our lifes...no one denies them to be alien to our motherland and no they certainly do not claim a new nation for them.

17.Heck whole of india was united only three or four times.
Mauryan , Gupta empire,Moghuls and British....yawn...
So does it mean all other who have a unique identity claim new nations for them ? How about a tibet nation ! Take the case of Russia , see how many kind of people it has....

18. We are only discussing the rationale behind creation of pakistan.

Yeah brother.Jinnah took us for a ride.
His idea of Pakistan has failed.His envisioned Pakistan has split into two nations.
I wonder when you so gleefully claim independence from india for your present pakistan , you always keep forgetting about Bangladesh and its history.

19. At its inception Pakistan was a nation for muslims , created by Jinnah for Muslims , just because he wanted it to be so.The two nation theory was a excuse.
East Bengal defies that theory *totally*.I wonder why you keep mum about east pakistan.they were with you in 1947 and heck you betray them totally by being silent about them.....i mean werent they seperated from india on the basis of two nation theory ?
As you said , it gave you more space.You lied about TNT, the lie came to haunt you in 1971.

Anyways , as a disclaimer all point above are merely for dicussional purposes and not meant as a offence against any religion,person or anything like how others would like to imagine and cry foul about. :)

So dont worry.

Samudra
29 Sep 04,, 11:24
Whooo !
That post took a long time.
To be honest , i am happy to have a discussion like this.
Infact some of visions points are an education to me , opens many windows for me to learn through..
But then , did you type all those 16 points yourself vision ? Did you ?
I thought it was a cut , copy and paste stuff.Which i hate to discuss about.

visioninthedark
29 Sep 04,, 12:45
I suggest you try and get a hold of the book I mentioned above in my first post ...

it answers all your questions ABSOLUTELY.

1. as far as civilisations are concerned ... you are wrong ....

Civilisations do have a Center of Gravity and an ORIGIN .... they do spread their influences far and wide ....

BUT


the PERIPHERY cannot claim to represent the source and center of the civilisation ...


IVC is SOLELY our heritage .... u were on the periphery ... you were influenced by it .... you were not part of it ...

2. some parts of NOrth India were Aryanized .... but the were a small percentage .... the base and center of Aryan civilisation was loosely within the boundaries of present day Pakistan .... SEPERATE IDENTITY FROM THOSE FURTHER EAST ...

3. You talk about cultural influences ... I am a Kashmiri and I find more similarities between my culture and Persians and Afghans than North Indians ... same goes for most Pakistanis .... Punjabis included ...

5. Ashoka was not "hindu" ... and even if he was .... this is not about religion .... its about a seperate existence ...

6. Again .... u seem obssessed with religion .... the point is about a seperate IDENTITY .... these can exist within the SAMR RELIGION ...

Afterall ..... the world is full of such examples .... the most Afghans and Iranians speak Persian, are Muslim, and have a common religion ..... but are SEPERATE STATES AND NATIONS and have been for a long long time ...

7. Saka-Parthians .... all you have to do is just pick up a history book ....

8./9./10. Please read response to point 7 above ....

11. Where was the center of Rajput presence? Rajputs were originaly Saka's who came from central Asia and settled mostly in the punjab ....

sati was a Rajput tradition .... even before they came to india .... india was influenced by Rajputs .... not the other way around ....

Your claim would be valid if sati was practiced beofre the Rajputs arrived and then they adopted it ..... but what happened is the opposite .... they brought the tradition with them .... and it INFLUENCED Indian culrture and was then claimed to be "INDIAN" ... teh expression "the tail wagging the dog" comes to mind ....

12. Read answer to 11. above .... just replace the word "rajput" with "huns"

13. so you think the aryans and the huns and the sakas simply vanished into thin air?

14./15./16. ................

17. Yes agreed! but what is today branded and given the new label of "Pakistan" was more or less a united central state over 7000 years of history ...

18. If TNT was wrong .... Bangladesh would have melted into the original state India ....

B'desh doesn't disprove the TNT because it exists SEPERATE from India ... if anything, it proves that there is a "more than one nation" theory ....

"n"-nation theory is proved by B'desh .... there never was ONE INDIAN NATION ....

19. The subcontinent is now living with two states that are SEPERATE from India ... Pakistan and B'desh ....

B'desh did not want to continue within Pakistan ..... but you cannot use it as an example of failure of TNT because for that to happen ..... once it seperated from Pakistan .... IF IT HAD REUNITED WITH INDIA .... then your claim would be valid ...

visioninthedark
29 Sep 04,, 12:54
The Kushan summer capital was Kapisa .... Bagram at present and winter capital was PURUSHAPURA ... present day Peshawar ...

Their state included Afghanistan to the west .... and most of what is Pakistan today ...

They were staunchly buddhist ...

The center of their arts and culture were Gandahara .... Kandahar at present ....

and here is a quote from a renowned source;


"Architecture, with its subsidiary art of sculpture, enjoyed the liberal patronage of Kanishka. The tower at Peshawar built over the relics of Buddha and chiefly constructed of timber stood 400 feet high. The Sirsukh section of Taxila hides the ruins of the city built by Kanishka. A town in Kashmir, still represented by a village bore the King's name" (Oxford History of India, by V.A. Smith).

Kanishka was the greatest Kushan King .... and I suggest you check out on a map where the cities mentiond are located ...

Please also read the following;


A unique feature of Kanishka's empire was that with the capital at Peshawar its frontiers touched the borders of all the great civilizations of the time, while its Central Asian provinces lay astride the Roman Middle East-Chinese trade routes. Roman Empire during the days of Trajan and Hadrian (98-138 A.D.) had expanded furthest East almost touching Pakistan's Kushan Empire. Similarly, Kanishka's conquests had brought Khotan,Yarkand and Kashgar within Pakistan's jurisdiction effecting direct contact with China. This was one of the most important factors in providing impetus to art and architecture, science and learning in Pakistan. The best specimen of Graeco-Roman art discovered in and around Peshawar, Swat and Taxila belong to this period, mostly executed during the 2nd century A.D. in the reigns of Kanishka and his son Huvishka. The Kushans exchanged embassies with the Chinese as well as the Romans. Mark Antony had sent ambassadors, and the Kushans sent a return embassy to the court of Augustus "In the middle of the first century of our era, one of the Tokhari princes belonging to the Kushans, Kujula Kadphises, unified the dispersed Tokhari principalities. As he grew stronger, the leader of the Kushans extended his suzerainship to the lands south of the Hindu Kush, in the Kabul Basin and on the Upper Indus. Kujula Kadphises's successors, the most prominent of whom was Kanishka (circa A.D. 78-120) kept on the expansive policy of his subcontinent (Kashmir, the Punjab and Sind). The rulers of Gujrat, Rajasthan and the states lying in the Ganges-Jumna doab were the vassals of the Kushan kings. The Kushan kings also held control of the territory of the present day Afghanistan, Kashgar, Khotan, Yarkand and the southern areas of Middle Asia. Gandhara i.e., the territory lying in the valleys of the Kabul and the Middle Indus, became the centre of a vast empire. The city of Purushapura (the present-day Peshawar) is known to have been the capital of Kanishka.


I hope this clears your confusion about the Kushans ... even the most wildest imagination cannot claim them to be "indian" ....

for more on kushan history, please visit the following site ...

http://www.kushan.org/contents.htm

if not .... all you have to do is pick up ANY ANCIENT HISTORY BOOK ...

Jay
29 Sep 04,, 15:53
I suggest you try and get a hold of the book I mentioned above in my first post ...it answers all your questions ABSOLUTELY.
And thats not a nice arguement to convince somebody!


1. as far as civilisations are concerned ... you are wrong ....
Civilisations do have a Center of Gravity and an ORIGIN .... they do spread their influences far and wide ....BUT the PERIPHERY cannot claim to represent the source and center of the civilisation ...
IVC is SOLELY our heritage .... u were on the periphery ... you were influenced by it .... you were not part of it ...
Wrong, wrong and wrong. IVC is not concentrated in a single area. For instance it extended through out Present day Pakistan, and much of north India incld Ganges. Saraswati civilization was also one of the biggest civilization center that formed IVC. Heck the term Indus valley came in to picture bcoz it was first excavated. The correct term would be Saraswati-Sindhu civilization. Read more about the discovery of present day Saraswati river in Rajasthan. Saraswati has been repeatedly mentioned in vedas and vedas are the only books through which you can understand so called Vedic or IVC.


2. some parts of NOrth India were Aryanized .... but the were a small percentage .... the base and center of Aryan civilisation was loosely within the boundaries of present day Pakistan .... SEPERATE IDENTITY FROM THOSE FURTHER EAST ...
You are seriously flamming. We've been through this already in the images forum. Even if a part of North India is Aryanized (which is false by the way), the population would be pretty much equal to Pakistan's total population. Remember Pakistan is not made up of 100% Aryans aither.


3. You talk about cultural influences ... I am a Kashmiri and I find more similarities between my culture and Persians and Afghans than North Indians ... same goes for most Pakistanis .... Punjabis included ...
Punjab and Rajasthan are in North India.


5. Ashoka was not "hindu" ... and even if he was .... this is not about religion .... its about a seperate existence ...
Ashoka was a born hindu, after a war Kalinga converted to Buddhism. Go read a history book.
I dont know why you harp about seperate existance. Your family exists seperately from the rest, so as mine. Heck even your uncles family is different from yours. Does that mean you are not related or you dont have a common thread to bind you??


6. Again .... u seem obssessed with religion .... the point is about a seperate IDENTITY .... these can exist within the SAMR RELIGION ...
Yeah tell that to the Punjabis in India, or may be the millions of hindus and sikhs who emigrated from Lahore.


Afterall ..... the world is full of such examples .... the most Afghans and Iranians speak Persian, are Muslim, and have a common religion ..... but are SEPERATE STATES AND NATIONS and have been for a long long time ...
Most afghans speak Persian?? But the same Afghans do speak Pashtu, Uzbek, tuk, Balochi and what not. So they dont have any similar culture even if they have seperate identities??

Revealing the ancient Pallava Dynasty of Dravidia to be of the Iranic race, and as constituting a branch of the Pahlavas, Parthavas or Parthians of Persia. Uncovering the consequent Iranic foundations of Classical Dravidian architecture. Describing A Short History of the Pallavas of Tamil Nadu, including the cataclysmic 100-Years' Maratha-Tamil War. The modern descendants of Pallavas discovered amongst the Chola Vellalas of northern Tamil Nadu and Reddis of Andhra
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/india_parthian_colony1.php
want some crow soup??


7. Saka-Parthians .... all you have to do is just pick up a history book ....
2nd century B.C. Greco-Bactrian forces cross North India under Menander (r. 160–130 B.C.). Greek-derived kingdoms continue until the Shaka (Scythian) invasion around 80 B.C. The Shakas rule in North India until about 400 A.D. (in present-day Gujarat and Sindh), but are supplanted in many places to the west by the Indo-Parthians and the Kushans.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/04/ssa/ht04ssa.htm

Mathura was Kanishka's capital along with Peshawar, and Mathura is in Gujarat.
http://www.ahmedabad.com/travel/pastpres.htm


11. Where was the center of Rajput presence? Rajputs were originaly Saka's who came from central Asia and settled mostly in the punjab ....

(räj´´ptä´n) (KEY) , historic region, NW India; roughly coextensive with the modern Indian state of Rajasthan. The name means “land of the Rajputs.” Rajput tribal power rose here between the 7th and 13th cent., and the princes resisted the early Muslim incursions, which began in the 11th cent. Rajput power reached its peak in the early 16th cent., but the area fell to the Mughals when Akbar captured the fort of Chitor in 1568.

(räj´pts) (KEY) [Sanskrit,=son of a king], dominant people of Rajputana, an historic region now almost coextensive with the state of Rajasthan, NW India. The Rajputs are mainly Hindus (although there are some Muslim Rajputs) of the warrior caste; traditionally they have put great value on etiquette and the military virtues and take great pride in their ancestry. Of these exogamous clans, the major ones were Rathor, Kachchwaha, Chauhan, and Sisodiya.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ra/Rajputs.html


sati was a Rajput tradition .... even before they came to india .... india was influenced by Rajputs .... not the other way around ....
Your claim would be valid if sati was practiced beofre the Rajputs arrived and then they adopted it ..... but what happened is the opposite .... they brought the tradition with them .... and it INFLUENCED Indian culrture and was then claimed to be "INDIAN" ... teh expression "the tail wagging the dog" comes to mind ....
Your analogy is right, but its not going to fit here. Rajputs assimilated with the local culture and while doing so some of their culture propogated to the rest. Rajputs are hindus (religion is the biggest part of a culture), they follow the same marriage traditions and stuff, their music and food and what not. It go assimilated. Your timeline which suggests that Pakistan was independent from India is very much absurd.


12. Read answer to 11. above .... just replace the word "rajput" with "huns"
Yep do it again and let me know.


13. so you think the aryans and the huns and the sakas simply vanished into thin air?

Do you think India and Indians came from thin air??


17. Yes agreed! but what is today branded and given the new label of "Pakistan" was more or less a united central state over 7000 years of history ...
Actually if I go by that, then Spencer Wells proved that 40,000 years ago, there were people in South India who walked all the way along the middle easten coastline to Australia.Present day Pakistan was along he way, so can we claim Pakistan even before 40,000 years was similar to South India??


18. If TNT was wrong .... Bangladesh would have melted into the original state India
Well it wont. TNT may or may not be wrong. But he reasons quoted by Jinnah to demand a seperate Pakistan is not valid.


B'desh doesn't disprove the TNT because it exists SEPERATE from India ... if anything, it proves that there is a "more than one nation" theory ....
BD disproves Jinnah's vision becoz Pakistan is not the sole nation for Sub-continent minorities (Muslims).


"n"-nation theory is proved by B'desh .... there never was ONE INDIAN NATION
There wasnt a seperate BD or Pakistan before too. Atleast the Mauryans and Mughals and British ruled the whole area including Pakistan from Pataliputra (Bihar, in India) and Delhi (India), except South India.


19. The subcontinent is now living with two states that are SEPERATE from India ... Pakistan and B'desh
<sarcasm>Really? Thanks for the history and geography, I thot India is the only country.</sarcasm>


B'desh did not want to continue within Pakistan ..... but you cannot use it as an example of failure of TNT because for that to happen ..... once it seperated from Pakistan .... IF IT HAD REUNITED WITH INDIA .... then your claim would be valid ...
You are going in circles. Jinnahs' plan and vision and reasoning was wrong. period.

Jay
29 Sep 04,, 16:01
The Kushan summer capital was Kapisa .... Bagram at present and winter capital was PURUSHAPURA ... present day Peshawar ...
and here is a quote from a renowned source;
Kanishka was the greatest Kushan King .... and I suggest you check out on a map where the cities mentiond are located ...
Please also read the following;
...

The rule of Kanishka I, the third Kushan emperor, who flourished from the late 1st to the early/mid-2nd century AD, was administered from two capitals: Purushapura (now Peshawar Peshāwar (known as Purushapura in the old days of Indian history) is a city in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (pop. ca. 570,000) at the eastern end of the Khyber Pass and Mathura, in northern India (Mathura is to the south of Delhi.During the ancient period this was an economic hub located at the junction of some relatively important caravan routes.)

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Kushan%20Empire

I hink, you do know where Mathura is.

ajaybhutani
29 Sep 04,, 16:40
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);









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!



Sorry guys i m a bit late in repying in replying.. i surely have missed a lot of things...

Vision u said paksitan in its present boundares and its present people.....

1. Can u care to explain what u meant by ..by its present people.. ... seems u missed the fate of 20% hindu population out of paksitan.. or do u mean to say that they never deserved to live there????

2. how is it related to two nation theory.. pakistan's formation was to get a nation for the minorities wasnt it .??
3. Wasnt bangladesh apart of paksitan at the time of independence...again ur point cannot support the inclusion of just half of bengal..

Jay
29 Sep 04,, 18:16
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.
Mahatma was killed becoz Godse felt that Gandhi is partial to Hindus by supporting Jinnah's claims. He even asked Jinnah to be the PM of United India.


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.
TNT is not a straw man, as I said competing naionalism exists everywhere.So there is no presupposition on the concept. But the reasons given by Jinnah is farce, hence TNT in Indo-Pak context is invalid.


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.
If you read the history of Muslim League, who founded it, how was it strengthned may be then the so called exposition will expose itself. Yes, Jinnah did talked about hindu-muslim unity and he was active in both Congress and Muslim League. But Jinnah was scared that congress (hindu majority) will crush the other minority (Muslims and others) and the hindus will just replace the Englishmen. This line of thinking is proved to be wrong. Even millions and millions of muslim people in India, who stayed back, proved him wrong. But the nation that was created for all, based on his vision, faltered and the sole responsibility lay on Jinnah and his faulty vision that the minorities need an independent nation.


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 :)
Perspectives are different. But you do have logic and reasoning dont you?? If one of the person answers 1+1 = 4, would you readily accept it and say that its based on his perspective?? Some things in history can be changed/obscured like Visions timelines but some cannot. You can talk about perspectives, but with a litle hue of objectivesness, logic, reasoning and proof most of the perspective will remain so and some will be classified as facts.


The article you quote similarly offers convenient omissions for instance 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 -
So doesnt it mean that the people of these areas (Present day Pakistan) didnt believe in Jinnah's (Muslim League) story that Congress is gonna discriminate them ?? Isnt that a blow to his grand vision that the muslims need a seperate country ?? The whole of present Pakistan rejected Jinnah's idea.


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,
Ofcourse, one can see that in PML, PPP and other Balochi, NWFP parties.


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.
who formulated Muslim League? Who financed Msulim League?



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.
Ok. If you say so.


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 -
Wrong. The recent spurt in the Hindus PPP was becoz of the educaion they go. Its not the peasents who got rich, its the educated class.


and of those who could not migrate, we cannot make any authoritative statment, other than they could not and did not --
I can say with certainity that almost all the muslims in South India stayed there, they had the chance to move, but they didnt, regardless of rich or poor. Also didnt Jinnah's daughter herself moved out of Pakistan to India after marrying a Parsee??Fatima Jinnah's paternal family also didnt emigrate to Pakistan from Bombay, were they poor and destitute?


Additionally your suggestion that as many Muslims and other minorites stated in India as migrated needs ot be reevaluated
Ok lets say then Pakistan's population was 70 million (random number), India's minority poulation (Muslims, Christians,Sikhs,Parsis, Buddhists, Jews) was very close to the stated number. Evenif its 50 million, thats a substantial number fo people who rejected the idea. So the chest thummping of "SOLE" nation created for the sub-continen minorities is an absurd lie.

visioninthedark
29 Sep 04,, 18:35
Guys ... I have stated my views based on historic fact ...

I don't think its me going in circles here .... but those who repeatedly use the word "no" ...

I leave it to the impartial reader to read our posts and make his own decisions ...

They can even check what I have written from any Historical source ...

Naturally ... I don't expect Indian gentlemen to agree with me ... but that is only natural ... it is expected ...

Jay
29 Sep 04,, 18:58
What ever!! As if our sources are quoted by men from Mars! We will agree to your arguements, if it has a tiny bit of logic and truth.

ajaybhutani
29 Sep 04,, 19:18
Guys ... I have stated my views based on historic fact ...

I don't think its me going in circles here .... but those who repeatedly use the word "no" ...

I leave it to the impartial reader to read our posts and make his own decisions ...

They can even check what I have written from any Historical source ...

Naturally ... I don't expect Indian gentlemen to agree with me ... but that is only natural ... it is expected ...




Well then u have already taken out one sixth of the possible readers.. LOL...

About ur claim about existence of pakistan around 7000 years of history...Well the If u are gonna say that history says a saperate pakistan from india from the last 7000 years or so ...u should also think about what happened to the people living there after independence why were 20% of them denied their right of life at the place their generations lived....
(Frankly the creation of israel never led to thrwoing out of muslims..if they had thrwodn mulsims out israel wouldnt be facing terrorism today..)
or why was bangladesha part of pakistan..ur statement has no way any relevence with the right of fomation of pakistan as asaperate state..(note here i m not talking about the right of existance .. since it has been created and no indian would want a merger ... so it better remains there but with a bit more of democracy, secularism,, and less of terrorism.. LOL....)

Please not that we are talknig about the exitence of paksitan in todays form but the right of its creation(wether it was a mistake ) when it was created in by the two nation theory....


We are not complaining the truth of ur argument but its use in this context..

Teh same way u can say that for last 7000 years of its hitory. most of the time(except for the small duration of ashokas empire.. the deccan region remained as saperate state/gourp of states and thus cannot be taken as india.. ???....

ajaybhutani
29 Sep 04,, 19:30
Guys why dont we first write out in points what the two nation theory says .. and tehn dsicuss on it..

Frankly that can make our discussions more precise .. does anyone have a clear cut text by some expert or some good link describing the two nation theory..i couldnt find anythin good on google yet..


regards
ajay

ajaybhutani
29 Sep 04,, 19:33
I think we have two questions here that can be broadly saperated out ..
1. Was the two nation theory right at the time when it was created and teh way it was implemented.
2. Is it right after the 50 years of its implementation.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 04:19
1.Oh really ? Did you read about books that claim the IVT to be dravidian too ?
Read about the ancient city of dwaraka , which belonged to the same age of IVC
Heard of Mahabharatha and krsna ? Read about Saraswati river from the vedas ?
Read John Keay or any reputed author for that matter on Indian history.
Nobody denies us the IVC.Well you will believe only if you wanted to.

2.According to AIT honkos,AryaVarta consited from IVC to north east india, from himalayas to vindhyas.HEARD ABOUT AGASTHYA ? he lived far down south.
But then the above AIT is still debatable.ManuSmriti talks about AryaVarta and Bharatha Varhsa which includes the whole of todays pakistan and todays India.
Ill get you its date tomorrow.The book is at home.Dont mend facts for your use.if aryanisation happened it happened down right to south india , where it took another form.


3. Shall i show you cultural influences between people from south india and malayasia ? Heard of Pandits in Kashmir ? Heard of Buddhists in Kashmir ?
Heard of Karakorum silk route ? Heard about inscriptions on rocks from the times of Harshavardhana ?Why care for pandits and Buddhist kafirs huh ?

5.There was no "hindu" identity then.His country was secular as is India today.
Dharma existed even then.


6. But then i am talking about common factors amongst then areas of india and pakistan.

11.Rajputs were Indian and will today proudly lay claim to the fact that they are a part and parcel of this great indian civilsation.As of today Rajputs claim themselves as Hindu only.They dont claim a seperate identity for coming in over a few centuries back.


13. They became a integral part of us.We embraced them into us.Today you dont see them seperate , because we dont believe in a "pure" race and a "pure" place



17. UNITED CENTRAL STATE :biggrin: :biggrin:
I cant stop laughing....show me the records.UNITED CENTRAL STATE..
ha ha ha . Atleast India had Maurya,Gupta...

18. Come what may , your intention is to disintegrate India and then send in your army to claim annexation.

19. pakistan disintegrated into two.India did not.
A beggar exists.Does it matter to the world about his existence.
Such is your logic of existence.

YOU NAMED IT TWO NATION THEORY. Now claim its N-nation theory.
Anyways whatever, Pakistan based on TNT has failed.You lied about TNT , the lie came back to haunt you in 1971.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 04:29
More on IVC


In fact, there seems to have been another large river which parallel and west of the Indus in the third and fourth millenium B.C. This was the ancient Ghaggra-Hakra River or Sarasvati of the Rig Veda. Its lost banks are slowly being laid out by researchers. Along its bed, a whole new set of ancient towns and cities have been discovered.



Is the Hariyupiyah mentioned in this Hymn from the Rig Veda (XXVII, 5) the Harappa of the Indus Valley? The Vedas contain the oldest recorded history of the subcontinent. The gap between the demise of Harappa and Vedic history has been traditionally estimated at 1,000 years. Yet new work suggests that the Vedas could be much older.

this from harappa.com

Vision
Your claim that IVC is not at all a part of Indian Civilisation is utter BS and , no reputable history scholar would accept that.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 04:33
224 AD, Ardashir the first becomes the first king of the Sasanid empire.
240 AD, Shapur the first becomes Sasanian emperor.
c.213, Kanishka II (Kanishka III?) becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura.
c.232, Vasishka II becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura.
c.246, Vasudeva II becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura.
c.256, Kanishka III (Kanishka IV?) becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura

From your very own link www.kushan.org
See the word "Mathura" ... They ruled from india too.
They came , they ruled us for some time and they have become a part of our culture today.I dont see any Kushan , going around claiming a Kusanistan today.

You claim for a seperate identity under the banner of Kushans is totally unaccpetable because in course of time , Kushans became a part of us indians and patronised buddhism which is undeniably a indian religion.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 04:52
What vision says about peshawar and another pakistani city being the capital of kushans , was fabricated by a , you guessed it , a Pakistani.
His paper is availble here (http://www.kushan.org/general/other/part1.htm) . The very same website provided by vision.The brave soul does not want to display his own name.

" A point of considerable significance to be noted here is that though the Gupta Empire is considered one of the most glorious in the annals of Hindu history covering a vast area of this sub-continent, yet it could not bring Pakistan under its tutelage"

Obviously the agenda behind the article is well known thus.What a fool he is.

Some unbiased history about kushans is here (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Kushan)
The map betrays how both good parts of india and pakistan were under kushans.Also a google on Kushan turns out that Mathura was one of the capitals of Kushans contrary to the propaganda ridden articles vision provides links to.

Perhaps the above link is a propaganda agaisnt pakistan and its 70000 years of glorious history.Hence we look for more links like this (http://www.med.unc.edu/~nupam/kushan1.html)
which also betrays that mathura was one of the capital of Kushan.

Yet another link from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan) also says that his empire extended into the gangetic plains , which is contrary to what you have said vision.Gosh according to the maps , most of gangetic plains is under kushans.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 05:37
Guys ... I have stated my views based on historic fact ...

I don't think its me going in circles here .... but those who repeatedly use the word "no" ...

I leave it to the impartial reader to read our posts and make his own decisions ...

They can even check what I have written from any Historical source ...

Naturally ... I don't expect Indian gentlemen to agree with me ... but that is only natural ... it is expected ...


Vision
Be a brave person . Dont try to run away from the arguments.
For example you claimed something on Kushans , i have given you enough facts to prove that Kushans were part of India as much as they were part of Pakistan.

Do you have the courage to accept it ? Tell me , once we finish up on Kushans , lets go towards the Parthians ,Shakas , Indo-Parthians(who ran away into afghan) and all.

If i was wrong somewhere i am brave enough to accept the wrong.
You know it takes courage to accept the wrong on your shoulders.

But you seem inclined to whine about our replies and run away from the argument.

Did i provide some non-factual , un-historic fact ?
Or did you take the endeavor to prove what i said as wrong by provinding quotes/links/sources anywhere ?

BTW if i had some flaming stuff in the previous post , ignore them please.

roshan
30 Sep 04,, 06:04
BTW, the latest news about the Kushans is that Kushan ruins depicting the buddha have been found in central nepal.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 06:12
hey R
I wonder where you have been...
id expect a bit more from you than a news tidbit.(intresting news although)

Hari_Om
30 Sep 04,, 10:57
At the level of symbolism, perhaps the greatest manifestation of the failure of the “two nation” theory is that :

A. The descendents of the Mughal’s, the greatest Muslim dynasty of the Indian sub-continent, opted to remain in India :

http://www.the-south-asian.com/May2004/last_mughals_of_india_in_hyderabad.htm (The Lost Mughals Of DelhiI - Living In Hyderabad.)

B. The descendents of M.A. Jinnah opted not to live in Pakistan or have anything to do with it. I am referring to Jinnah’s only child, his daughter, Dina?, who lives in New York and her only son Nusli Wadia who is firmly ensconced in India as the head of a large business empire.

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 11:26
Chandragupta ... judging from the number of repeated responses you made in sequence .... you seem very disturbed at my last reply ...

about the Kushans ... please read history ....

identifying them as "indian" is totally unfair ....

and their capitals can be found in any history book ...

Peshawar (winter) and Bagram (summer) capital ...

sure ... their influence spread far ....

BUT AS I ALWAYS SAID ... they PERIPHERY CAN'T CLAIM TO REPRESENT THE CENTER ...


there have been many many nations .... "India" as it is know within its present boundaries was through out the overwhelming part of its history made up of competing nations .... and states .... only exceptionally did it come under one rule .... two or three time ONLY within the past 10000 years ... and that only for relatively short periods of time ...

now .... if you look at the states and peoples that existed in what is today known as Pakistan .... you cannot fail to notice that throughout most of its history it was either a centrally controlled unit with its capital based within present boundaries or it was a more or less cohesive unit under influence of empires to the west ....

it was never part of the states to the east ....

religion does divide us ....

but what divides us even more is HISTORY .... 7000 years of it ....

and chandra .... if your claim that Kushans are indian despite the fact that their capital was nowhere near present day India and the limits of their state EXCLUDED 99% of India ... if you claim is based ONLY on their religion .... thats absurd ... Nepal is hindu yest a SEPERATE state ... always has been .... there are many BUDDHIST states in asia .... there are many muslim states in asia ....

we can't use religion to claim that someone from another state is one of us ....

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 11:40
VISION

PLEASE GOOGLE SOMETHING ON KANISKA , VISIT MY THE LINKS I GOT YOU , INCLUDING THE ONE FROM THE WEBSITE YOU REFERRED , AND IF YOU DONT FIND MATHURA TO BE ONE OF KUSHAN CAPITALS , I WILL QUIT POSTING HERE.

SWEAR ON ALLAH IF YOU ARE A TRUE MUSLIM YOU DID NOT FIND MATHURA TO BE KUSHAN CAPITAL.

others : i know i am shouting , but i never knew dumb people could so balantly refuse the facts even when i could prove links and un-biased sources/links of information.I do not want to be talking to a deaf dumb.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 12:14
To Others who can hear , see and understand facts which are unbiased.

The last kushan emperor vasudeva , was a hindu.But we know that there wasnt a seperate religion called hindu then.But how come he called himself vasudeva ?
Because the indian culture and then religion had embraced the kushans and they had become a part and parcel of indian history,culture and everything indian.
Also Mathura was also capital to the Kushans.There are enough links , which i have posted above .People , as i said , who can hear,see and understand facts can easily click (i.e left click with your mouse button ) on the link and find out if what i claim is true or not.

as i have promised to some people to whom i had to shout , i will quit posting if anyone can prove me wrong.( i.e. mathura was not one of the capitals of kushans )


The rule of Kanishka I, the third Kushan emperor, who flourished from the late 1st to the early/mid-2nd century AD, was administered from two capitals: Purushapura (now Peshawar in northern Pakistan) and MATHURA , in northern India.

The above statement is from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan)


Kanishka and his inscriptions (c.110?): Kanishka, the greatest Kushan emperor, is also the most INDIANISED. Like others of his dynasty (*asianart*), he is a patron of sculpture. In this image, a Sanskritic inscription on his robe reads: "King of kings (maharajadhiraja), great king (maharaja), son of god (devaputra), Kanishka." His two capital cities are MATHURA and Peshawar; this statue is from a temple near Mathura. In one inscription he refers to his language, Bactrian (*N. Sims-Williams*), as "an Aryan language."

The above statement is from a columbia university website (?) (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routes/0100_0199/index_0100_0199.html)

Obviously people who are not dumb can understand that MATHURA was the capital of Kaniska...

Those who claimed that Kushans never crossed into present day india , what do you wanna do ?


your claim that Kushans are indian despite the fact that their capital was nowhere near present day India and the limits of their state EXCLUDED 99% of India ...
- by vision


The were NOT BASED in what is known as India ... they were NOT Indian ...
- again by vision

More pearls of visidom from vision like north india was not aryanised and stuff...
People who know history will understand.Yea they shouldnt be dumb too.

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 12:26
VISION

PLEASE GOOGLE SOMETHING ON KANISKA , VISIT MY THE LINKS I GOT YOU , INCLUDING THE ONE FROM THE WEBSITE YOU REFERRED , AND IF YOU DONT FIND MATHURA TO BE ONE OF KUSHAN CAPITALS , I WILL QUIT POSTING HERE.

SWEAR ON ALLAH IF YOU ARE A TRUE MUSLIM YOU DID NOT FIND MATHURA TO BE KUSHAN CAPITAL.



Mathura was an administrative center for that part of the extended sphere of Influence ...

IT WAS NOT THE SEAT OF THE THRONE ....

check it out yourself ....

by the way .....

the center of this empire was based in PAKISTAN .... it ruled portions of India and it spread its INFLUENCE even further ...

it can therefore be said to be a PAKISTAN-BASED EMPIRE that ruled parts of India ...

let me give you an example .... The center of the Roman Empire was Rome .... and although the ruled over the whole of Europe nearly and their influence was global .... YET NO ONE IN FRANCE CAN CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS FRENCH ....

do you get what I'm saying .... and EMPIRE IS KNOWN BY ITS CENTER AND CANNOT BE CLAIMED BY ITS PERIPHERY ....

http://www.kushan.org/about/mapofextent.gif
Geographically it encompasses the north of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Western China (in particular the Tarim Basin).

Note that the sphere of Influence was far greated than where the CENTER AND CAPITALS OF THE EMPIRE WERE ...

If I use your logic ...... than the Chinese can Claim the Kushans to be Chinese .... since a part of China came within their empire .... just like only a part of India was within the empire ....

about Vasudeva ....

HE WAS THE ONE AND ONLY KING WHO ALONE AMONG THE WHOLE LONG DYNASTY ADOPTED A "HINDU" NAME ....

YOU ARE USING ONE PERSON AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THE WHOLE KUSHANS???

Hari_Om
30 Sep 04,, 12:39
Chandragupta,

That Mathura was a capital of Kanishka of the Kushan Dynasty, is as you have said, a correct statement.

That the Kanshika ruled parts of what is today Northern India including portion of the Gangetic plains is as you have said, also a correct statement.

From the Met Museum : (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/kush/hd_kush.htm)



The rule of Kanishka, the third Kushan emperor who flourished from the late first to the early/mid-second century A.D., was administered from two capitals: Purushapura (now Peshawar) near the Khyber Pass, and Mathura in northern India. Under Kanishka's rule, at the height of the dynasty, Kushan controlled a large territory ranging from the Aral Sea through areas that include present-day Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan into northern India as far east as Benares and as far south as Sanchi.

There is also a map on the link posted.

Trust this will contribute in a small way to demonstrate the correctness of your case to Visioninthedark who will cease claiming that the Kushan's had no connections with what is present day India.

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 12:45
Hari OM .... your link isn't working ....

guys .... check this out ...

Chronology of Kushan History

c.209BCMao-tun kills his father and gains control of the Hsiung-nu
c.320 BC, Alexander conquers the Persian empire but dies shortly afterwards leaving his empire to his generals (the Diadochi).
304 BC, Seleucos signs a peace treaty with Chandrgaupta Maurya.
281 BC, The Greeks cede the Punjab and Afghanistan after the death of Seleucos I Nikator.
c.250 BC, Bactria secedes from the Seleucid empire and the Parthians invade Persia. 1

c.200 BC, Mao-tun defeats the Yu-Chi, possibly bringing them into alliance with the Hsiung-nu.
176 BC, The king of the Yu-Chi is killed by the yu-hsien-wang, sent by Mao-tun, who reports that "All the people who draw bows have been united into one family".
c.140 BC, The Yu-chi are attacked and defeated by the Hsiung-nu again.
c.130 BC, The Yu-Chi overrun Bactria and settle as five tribes. 2


c.120 BC, Menander, the most famous of the Indo-Greek kings is engaged in wars against opponents in the Kabul valley.
c.75 BC, Maeus begins a dynasty of Indo-Parthian Kings.
58 BC, Azes the first begins an era at the date of his ascension.

c.30BC, 'Heraios' or Sanab becomes Kushan Yabgu (Prince)
c.10AD, Kajula Kadphises becomes Kushan Yabgu
c.20 BC, The last Greek king Hermaues dies, and his tiny kingdom becomes the last of Alexanders successor states to come under foreign domination. 3
c.30 AD, Kajula Kadphises unite all the tribes of the Yu-Chi and become the first of the Kushan emperors.

c.60 AD, Wima Taktu becomes the second Kushan emperor.
c.80 AD, Wima Kadphises becomes the third Kushan emperor.
c.115 AD, Kanishka the fourth Kushan emperor ascends the throne. (For a taste of the debate on this date see the section The date of Kanishka.
c.60 AD, Vima Takto the son of Kajula becomes the second Kushan emperor.
1st Century ADThe artistic schools of Mathura and Gandhara develop the first images of the Buddha
c.68 AD, Wima Taktu using the name Soter Megas (Great Saviour) conquers northern India.
c.80 AD, Wima Kadphises the son of Vima Takto ascends the throne.
c.80 AD, Marriage alliance between Kushans and the royal family of Sogdia
84AD, An envoy from the Kushans asking for marriage to a Han princess is refused.
c.90 AD, Kushan emperors begin to encroach on the Han sphere of influence in the Western Regions.
c.115 AD, Kanishka becomes Kushan emperor.
c.116 AD, Kushans put a puppet king on the throne of Ch'en-p'an.
c.120AD, The first image of the Buddha on a coin appears on the coins of Kanishka.

c.139 AD, Vasishka becomes emperor, and rules for only a few years.
c.143 AD, Huvishka becomes Kushan emperor.
c.155 AD, Kanishka II joint ruler? usurper?
c.180 AD, Vasudeva becomes the first Kushan to take an Indian name and the last of the great Kushan emperors.
2nd Century AD, Asvagosha writes a number of important Buddhist works and fourth great Buddhist council is held.
224 AD, Ardashir the first becomes the first king of the Sasanid empire.
240 AD, Shapur the first becomes Sasanian emperor.
c.213, Kanishka II (Kanishka III?) becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura.
c.232, Vasishka II becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura.
c.246, Vasudeva II becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura.
c.256, Kanishka III (Kanishka IV?) becomes Kushan emperor at Mathura
c.213 AD, Vasudeva dies and the Kushan empire is divided into a western and eastern half.
c.224-240 AD, The Sasanians invade Bactria and Northern India.
c.270, Kushan control of the Gangetic plain is lost.
277-286 AD, Hormizd I Kushanshah launches a rebellion against Bahram II of Iran.

307-379 AD Shapur II, Sasanid Emperor.
359 AD, A Kidarite Kushan fights alongside Shapur, against Rome, at Amida.
c.360 AD, The last Kushanshah Varahran II is overwhelmed by the Kidarites.













as u can see ..... northern India was conquered by the Kushans based in what is Pakistan .... it was a conquered land ...

as I said .... Rome conquered France .... but can the French claim that the roman empire was French???

No ....

a conquered peripheral land cannot claim to be the originators of an empire ....

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 12:49
By the way ..... in my opinion if the Brits had been fair in doing the partition .... Dehli which was adjoining Punjab .... and surrounding lands would have been within Pakistan ....

Pakistan today is not what it should have looked like .... we were robbed of many areas that should have rightfully been ours ...

even this claim about Mathura .... only reinforces our claim .... if partition had been fair .... all these Pakistani lands would have been within the boundaries of Pakistan ... but was stolen from us ...

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 12:58
vision in the darkest

get rid of me will you ?
i dont want to be talking to an ignorant fool who will make statements which are self contradictory and apparently so foolish who would even want the whole of india for pakistan and kill the hindu kafirs one by one.

get rid of me will you ?
i would want to talk to humans who are not racists.... on that score asim is far better.

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 13:00
By the way ..... in my opinion if the Brits had been fair in doing the partition .... Dehli which was adjoining Punjab .... and surrounding lands would have been within Pakistan ....



THIS PERSON DOES NOT DESERVE MY REPLY.
BYE BYE VISION..
YOU DONT DESERVE IT.

PLEASE GO TO YOUR FORUM WHICH YOU MODERATE AND MAKE THESE CLAIMS. :mad: :mad: :mad:

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 13:00
vision in the darkest

get rid of me will you ?
i dont want to be talking to an ignorant fool who will make statements which are self contradictory and apparently so foolish who would even want the whole of india for pakistan and kill the hindu kafirs one by one.

get rid of me will you ?
i would want to talk to humans who are not racists.... on that score asim is far better.

calm down man ..... chill ...

you're hyperventilating .... take a deep breath ....

I'm not RACIST ... and I DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF YOU .... where in heaven's name did u get that from??

or was it a cunning attempt to change the topic?? :biggrin:

Lets talk about the Kushans .... I see you have nothing further to add ... :)

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 13:05
THIS PERSON DOES NOT DESERVE MY REPLY.
BYE BYE VISION..
YOU DONT DESERVE IT.

PLEASE GO TO YOUR FORUM WHICH YOU MODERATE AND MAKE THESE CLAIMS. :mad: :mad: :mad:

You claimed the Pakistan's existence was based on a FALSE THOERY .... you don't even recognize our right to EXIST ...

no big deal .... because I know many in India have that attitude .... they keep imagining that they will retake Pakistan .... like the looser arabs imagine they will retake Israel ...



all I said .... was that our borders were not fair ..... Punjab should never have been divided .....

Punjab should all have been within Pakistan as it was always part of our history for 7000 years ....


why is it that you get offended when I talk about unfair borders? while you expect me to take crap from you questioning the VERY EXISTENCE AND RIGHT TO EXIST OF MY NATION?

are u someone special ... fragile .... who has to be treated with care .... while I should take any crap from you ....

Lets level the field .... you questioned our EXISTENCE .... which is much more vile and criminal than me saying that our Present borders do not reflect our 7000 years history ....

I didn't question your right to exist .... you questioned mine ...

now QUIT PLAYING VICTIM AND STICK TO THE TOPIC .... :biggrin:

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 13:10
vision in the darkest

Thank u for the compliment ... I'm the only one who can see the TRUTH even in the "darkest" of situations ...

you just gave me a promotion ....

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 14:46
Hari OM .... your link isn't working ....
May be Pakistan is blocking all the websites that portrays original history?
The link is working fine, it always is. I posted another article from the met museum yesterday. The follwing articles and image is also from the MetMuseum.


If I use your logic ...... than the Chinese can Claim the Kushans to be Chinese .... since a part of China came within their empire .... just like only a part of India was within the empire ....

Pfff, they can very well be called as Chinese. You just proved that you dont have any knowledge on the subject in discussion. I'll re-quote yoour favourite phrase, Kushans didnt jump out from thin air. They did rule North India and Pakistan and Afghanistan. None of the sources claim othewise, except your weird logic and timelines. And now you just invented another word, administrative capital, I dont know where you pulled that one from!!


The name Kushan derives from the Chinese term Guishang, used in historical writings to describe one branch of the Yuezhi—a loose confederation of Indo-European people who had been living in northwestern China until they were driven west by another group, the Xiongnu, in 176–160 B.C. The Yuezhi reached Bactria (northwest Afghanistan and Tajikistan) around 135 B.C. Kujula Kadphises united the disparate tribes in the first century B.C. Gradually wresting control of the area from the Scytho-Parthians, the Yuezhi moved south into the northwest Indian region traditionally known as Gandhara (now parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan) and established a capital near Kabul. They had learned to use a form of the Greek alphabet, and Kujula's son was the first Indian ruler to strike gold coins in imitation of the Roman aureus exchanged along the caravan routes.

The rule of Kanishka, the third Kushan emperor who flourished from the late first to the early/mid-second century A.D., was administered from two capitals: Purushapura (now Peshawar) near the Khyber Pass, and Mathura in northern India.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/kush/hg_d_kush_d1map.jpg

Claiming them invaders just as Pakistanis is just plain absurd. Kushans ruled the whole of Northwest India (incld Pakistan and Afghanistan). What is with you guys?? Claiming a common history (to the sub-continent) as your's just shows your insecurity. Is it becoz you feel inferior wrt India, that you need Kushans to boost your sagging complex and morale?? Do you even need a new identity?? Will you feel better that if I say you are direct descendant to Kanishka-I ? Say so, I'll just do it, but don masqurade history with your racist and biased mind. Enuff already with your Aryan crap and now Kushans.


Chronology of Kushan History
as u can see ..... northern India was conquered by the Kushans based in what is Pakistan .... it was a conquered land ...
If I go by your logic, Kushans from China conquered Pakistan and Afghanistan. They conquered Pakistan before North India, thats the difference. Pakistan is an invaded land for Kushans, Bactrians, Ghaznavi, Ghori, Moghuls and every one of the Sub-continen rulers.


as I said .... Rome conquered France .... but can the French claim that the roman empire was French???
Poor analogy. Read above.


a conquered peripheral land cannot claim to be the originators of an empire ....
If true, then the Kushans, Mauryans, Mughals and the British (combined togeher, they ruled Pakistan for around 800 years) ruled Pakistan from Mathura, Pataliputra and Delhi. Pakistan was just in the periphery.

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 14:56
By the way ..... in my opinion if the Brits had been fair in doing the partition .... Dehli which was adjoining Punjab .... and surrounding lands would have been within Pakistan ....
British were unfair, they shouldve handed over all the areas under a United India which would be ruled by rulers from Delhi or Calcutta.


Pakistan today is not what it should have looked like .... we were robbed of many areas that should have rightfully been ours ...
If I go by your rightful theory, Pakistan should not have existed, oh well, we cannot change history.


even this claim about Mathura .... only reinforces our claim .... if partition had been fair .... all these Pakistani lands would have been within the boundaries of Pakistan ... but was stolen from us ...
Yep and Pakistan should be a state in India, in the periphery, as always, ruled from Delhi or may be Calcutta.

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 14:57
Lets talk about the Kushans .... I see you have nothing further to add ...
As if you had some logic in your postings other than those timelines written by some inferior feeling Pakistani. do you have anything else??

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 15:05
You claimed the Pakistan's existence was based on a FALSE THOERY .... you don't even recognize our right to EXIST ...
Pakistan came in to being becoz of Jinnah's vision, which I and the rest here claim as faulty reasons. He was scared that the martial Pakistani people will be subdjucated and persecuted by Hindus. We are not here to discuss about your right to exist now, we are discussing about the origins of a nation, your nation, Pakistan.


no big deal .... because I know many in India have that attitude .... they keep imagining that they will retake Pakistan .... like the looser arabs imagine they will retake Israel ...
The next thing we would want is another 54 million poor people banging the doors of the federal govt for food.


all I said .... was that our borders were not fair ..... Punjab should never have been divided .....
True, Pakistan as a whole should just be a state in India. Well, we cannot change history, can we??


Punjab should all have been within Pakistan as it was always part of our history for 7000 years ....
7000? I thot its 70,000. Anyway, enough of your wet dreams already.


why is it that you get offended when I talk about unfair borders? while you expect me to take crap from you questioning the VERY EXISTENCE AND RIGHT TO EXIST OF MY NATION?
Oh, talk all you want, you want Delhi, Kolkatta, Mumbai?? Just annexe Pakistan with India, then everything will be in a single nation.


Lets level the field .... you questioned our EXISTENCE .... which is much more vile and criminal than me saying that our Present borders do not reflect our 7000 years history ....
I dont know why you keep on harping about your glorious 7000 years of existance. I need to type the same answer again and again and again.


I didn't question your right to exist .... you questioned mine ...
now QUIT PLAYING VICTIM AND STICK TO THE TOPIC .... :biggrin:

If you are idiotic enough to think that proving Jinnah's vision as faulty will be questioning Pakistan's (or shall I say, your) existance, then well, what can I say. Yep, we are victims of partition, it was so unfair.....ROFLMAO!!

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 15:43
If you idiotic enough to think that proving Jinnah's vision as faulty will be questioning Pakistan's (or shall I say, your) existance, then well, what can I say. Yep, we are victims of partiion, it was so unfair.....ROFLMAO!!

Just look at your own posts above ...... just count how many times have you yourself said Pakistan should NEVER have existed ... !!!


By the Way ..... u're attitude does not refute history .... The Kushans MOVED to Pakistan and from there ..... conquered other lands .... while their Capital and major cities were within Pakistan ...

they did NOT rule from a Capital in China ...

You are against the very existence of Pakistan .... I simply say that our borders DID NOT REFLECT A NOTION THAT HAS EXISTED FOR 7000 years ...

facts are for all to see ....

our borders should have included All of Punjab ... and Dehli and most of Rajastan ...

infact .... if there ever was any nation that has a somewhat unified history and existence in the subcontinent .... it was the land that was labeled "Pakistan" in 1947 ....

The land that was labeled "India" nearly always (with the exception of two or three times in history) NEVER EXISTED AS A UNIFIED STATE ...

It was the British who CREATED a political entity our of states and named then "India" ... Pakistan on the other hand was a new label to a people and nation that has existen for 7000 years ...

look at your own map that you provided ...

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/kush/hg_d_kush_d1map.jpg

just superimpose a map of Pakistan on this map and you'll see what I mean ...

look at where the central cities of the Kushans were ....

they were NEVER "Indian" ....

Infact even the name "India" is a misnomer .... its an attempt to associate today's political India to an ancient land that actually NEVER refered to what is today "India" ...

Its an attempt to USURP an identity that was not your's and a name that didn't refer to what is today known as "India" ...

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 15:50
By the way .... the link provided y Hari Om is working now ...

Its of an ART MUSEUM ... not a ver authentic source when talking about History ....

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 16:01
Just look at your own posts above ...... just count how many times have you yourself said Pakistan should NEVER have existed ... !!!
Yeah, I guess you can read it in the context, like for instance,



Pakistan today is not what it should have looked like .... we were robbed of many areas that should have rightfully been ours ...

>>If I go by your rightful theory, Pakistan should not have existed, oh well, we cannot change history.




By the Way ..... u're attitude does not refute history .... The Kushans MOVED to Pakistan and from there ..... conquered other lands .... while their Capital and major cities were within Pakistan ...
they did NOT rule from a Capital in China ...
Yeah their capital was in Mathura and it is in India, North India to be precise.


You are against the very existence of Pakistan .... I simply say that our borders DID NOT REFLECT A NOTION THAT HAS EXISTED FOR 7000 years

I just dont give a damn abou what you claim, the crux of this discussion was Jinnah's faulty vision and his implementation of TNT. Again, I just dont give a shit for what ahppened 70000 years ago. For christ sake Pakistan is not the same nation (or should I say nation with the same borders) as it were in 1947. Now you want to compare 70000 years, err, 7000 years of glorious nation??


facts are for all to see ....
You can too, if you can only read and analyse it logically.


our borders should have included All of Punjab ... and Dehli and most of Rajastan ...
Ah, not again, let me say that for one last time, annexe Pakistan with India, your borders will be from Iran to Burma.


infact .... if there ever was any nation that has a somewhat unified history and existence in the subcontinent .... it was the land that was labeled "Pakistan" in 1947
Are you talking about the 300 years of British rule, and 600 years of Mughal rule and may be 100 years of Kushan rule and 78 years of Mauryan rule ?? Yes, Pakistan should be annexed with India and then ruled from Delhi or may be Calcutta.


The land that was labeled "India" nearly always (with the exception of two or three times in history) NEVER EXISTED AS A UNIFIED STATE
And may be the whole world is wrong in calling us India then. Who got freedom in 14 august 1947 and labelled them as Pakistan, land of pure, land of the aryan, martial race, 6 ft tall, fair, straight nosed nation?? We didnt. May be is Jinnah's fault.


It was the British who CREATED a political entity our of states and named then "India" ... Pakistan on the other hand was a new label to a people and nation that has existen for 7000 years ...
Yep, go whine to Mountbatten and Jinnah and switch the names. Again its 70,000 years, not 7000.


look at your own map that you provided ...
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/kush/hg_d_kush_d1map.jpg
just superimpose a map of Pakistan on this map and you'll see what I mean ...

I see Pakistan and North India being ruled by Kushans.


look at where the central cities of the Kushans were .... they were NEVER "Indian" ....
You mean geographically central cities? Purushpura is centre. But then Gandhara is Afghanistan. Mathura is as Indian as Dina Wadia (Jinnah).


Infact even the name "India" is a misnomer .... its an attempt to associate today's political India to an ancient land that actually NEVER refered to what is today "India" ...
Well, go talk to all the publishers and then remove the name and association of Modern India with that of the ancient one.
Till then give us a break from your 7000 years, err 70,000 years of glorious, unified existance.
Also, meanwhile cmpare the borders of nation Pakistan from 1947 and 2004.

Its an attempt to USURP an identity that was not your's and a name that didn't refer to what is today known as "India" ...
Err, talk about inferiority complex!!

:biggrin:

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 16:04
By the way .... the link provided y Hari Om is working now ...
Its of an ART MUSEUM ... not a ver authentic source when talking about History ....
So which one is authentic?? Free Encylopedia? Brittanica?? Wikipedia??
Or its just your very own book that some Pakistani wrote, where you copied hese timelines from and forwarded by one other very knowledgable Pakistani ?? :tongue: eh??

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 16:16
By the way .... the link provided y Hari Om is working now ...Its of an ART MUSEUM ... not a ver authentic source when talking about History

Since you claim MetMuseum is not a "very auhentic" source, (I dont know what is authentic anymore), let me post some facts from MetMuseum.


What is the Metropolitan's average annual attendance?
Over the past several years, attendance at the Museum (including the Main Building and The Cloisters) has averaged more than five million.
Yep, 5 million idiots like to see lies from not a very authentic source every year.


What are the oldest works of art in the Museum's collection?
Archeulian flints from Deir El Bahri in Egypt, dating to the Lower Paleolithic period (ca. 300,000–75,000 B.C.), are the oldest objects in the Museum's collection. The Museum is constantly rotating its work on display, so ask for the location of these flints at the Information Desk in the Great Hall. For further information about the Museum's collection of ancient Egyptian art, see the Egyptian Art section of the online Collection.
See, 75,000 BC, so its almost before 70,000 years. I think that glory rightfully belong to Pakistanis who existed as a single unified naion for 70,000 years.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1998.488.2.jpg
Section from a frieze with a seated Buddha and attendants, Kushan period, ca. 2nd–3rd century
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India
Red sandstone; H. 7 15/16 in. (19.8 cm), L. 31 5/8 in. (80.2 cm)
Gift of Jeffrey B. Soref, in honor of Martin Lerner, 1998 (1998.488.2)

This is a lie too. They got this from Pakistan.


Who owns the building?
The City of New York owns the Museum building and the property on which it is located.
Yo, big apple, you guys are one big fat liars.


The mission of The Metropolitan Museum of Art is to collect, preserve, study, exhibit, and stimulate appreciation for and advance knowledge of works of art that collectively represent the broadest spectrum of human achievement at the highest level of quality, all in the service of the public and in accordance with the highest professional standards
This is their mission statement. And whatta bunch of liars!

http://www.metmuseum.org/visitor/faq_hist.htm

Write to them Vision, Ye shall give them Vision in this deceitful world!

visioninthedark
30 Sep 04,, 16:26
Jay ....

your bantering adds nothing to this thread ...

The capitals of the Kushans were Bagram and Peshawar .... and much much later Mathura which was on the fringe of the empire and was an administrative center ...

The site I quoted is run by professors from OXFORD UNIVERSITY ...

the site you quote is an ART MUSEUM ....

since when is an ART MUSEUM considered an authentic source on HISTORY ... I really don't know ....

you are grabbing at very weak straws here .... they won't stop your theory from drowning ....

about the inferiority/superiority complex .... I won't comment on that ....

all I say is for an impartial reader of this thread to do some research as to whether in ancient texts the words "India" refered to what is TODAY known as India or not ....

and also to see for how long in the past 7000 years has "India" existed as a united state .... and do a comparative study with those areas that are today known as "Pakistan" .... and see which existed as a cohesive nation for the past 7000 years ....

I suggest you adopt a scholarly mentality and attitude and quite these female attributes of innuendos and indirect insults ....

and do some research yourself .... don't use Indian or Pakistani Historical sources .... use independent historical sources so that you can come to an independent conclusion ....

I doubt you have the ability to takeup this type of impartial and independent research .... since you are blinded by what has been fed to you in your biased Indian history books ...

ajaybhutani
30 Sep 04,, 16:53
Friends can any one of u just answer a simple question of mine??
i am even giving answers.just care to agree or disagree with some justification...

When & how was pakistan formed??
1947.... under the concept of two nation theory..
How were the areas selected for partition ??
the states where muslim league got majority were declared as the new paksitan of 1947.
What did jinnah want pakistan to be .. ??
1. if a secular state for minorities then
a. clearly paksitanis threw everyone except muslims out .. clearly not even close to .......secularism for the minoritites except rights for the muslims.and defies the declaration of 1940..
b. Why were only the muslim dominated areas selected... theres not even a reference of Muslim League /Jinnah asking for any areas rich in other minorities.. say kerala etc.. ??...
c. Theres no historical reference of Jinnah /Mislim League calling the Other minorities to join pakistan as their nation..(remember they wanted pakistan for all minorities.. ) Can anyone give me just one reference where they actually wanted it..
Frankly if anyone can oppose one of these points i think we can accept for the formation of pakistan as is accordance with the declaration of 1940 and the two nation theory that created it Otherwise clearly it defies teh 1940 declaration..Frankly they didnt even tryto comply with it.. .Theres no reference that they even tried to help non muslims...
2. if a secular state for muslims... this sounds absurd..if there are just muslims then whats the need of secualr state it just means same as an islamic republic .. since all non muslims are to be thrown out are were thrown out too..
3. if a muslim state .. waht was the declaration of 1940 for..?

Clearly u can see that the way paksitan was formed was in no way in acccordance with the 1940 decaration....So the question is why was if formed ....


1. As visioninthedark claims .. paksitan was saperate nationin the last 7000 years..without defying ur logic .. lets for a time being assume taht its true.. then think about this..
There were 20% or so hindus in the present day pakistan and the similar ratio of bengali hindus in bengladesh.At least we all agree on this ponit .So.
1. If u say that paksitan was created bec history says it like this..then why was bangladesh included..
2. history never divided thsi region on the besis of religion...did it..??.... then how can u support the creation of paksitan in accordance with the historic nations that existed before.
3. How many of these empires were muslim that u are trying to support an pure islamic country on the basis of it.???...
4. Did any of these nations asked non muslims to move out of their territory as they were unpure.. LOL...How many of them .I bet u cant name even a single ruler who did it except of course the nation of jinnah..



Frankly with all that i stated above i can claim taht creation of paksitan cannot be supported by the
1. 7000 years of saperate nationhood..
2. the decaration of 1940.


So the next option is just for a saperate home for muslims taht the muslim league watnted ..Lets explore thsi option too...
1. If this was a general feeling between the muslims al over india then why the muslims of the south didnt move.. LOL.
2. Why are there still 13.5 % muslims in india..
3. Most of the muslims who lived in north india and moved out to paksitan were forced to leave as they knew that staying here would mean death in the hands of mercenaries/looters. The fact that there still remain so many of muslims in the norhtern india shows that these people prefered to stay at there home and not move to the land of pure in spite of all the odds. Think about many who broke of and left to save their lives.. Frankly not to move to a land of pure but to save their lives..

Clearly it wasnt a commong opinion. The basis of creation of paksitan on the basis of votes gained by muslim league in these 6 states. forgets to mention a simple fact that elections were for selecting the representatives for the assemblies and not for deciding wether tehy want a saperate state of not.... At least choosing a leader dsnt mean taht the public will approve with what all he is gonna do..its dsnt give the leaders rights to decide wether they want teh region to be a saperate country.

the musllim league instead manipulated teh results of teh elections for creation of a pakistan..

the fact is taht muslim league betrayed all the residents of british india at that time even the muslims..when were teh muslims asked to give their decision about waht tehy want .. it was alwasy in teh hands of muslim league to decide.. LOL..

ajaybhutani
30 Sep 04,, 16:57
friends,(esp vision)
instead of discussing wether paksitan was a saperate region or not .At least try to figure out tat wether it matters or not.. i think it really dsnt matter adn have given the logic too..what do u all think ...if otherwise please point out where i was wrong..

Jay
30 Sep 04,, 17:13
your bantering add nothing to this thread ...
eh, if you havent noticed is so far, they make more sense than your timelines.


The capitals of the Kushans were Bagram and Peshawar .... and much much later Mathura which was on the fringe of the empire was an administrative center ...
Wrong the capitals were Peshawar, Bagram and Mathura.


The site I quotes is run by professors from OXFORD UNIVERSITY
the site you quote is an ART MUSEUM ....
since when is an ART MUSEUM considered an authentic source on HISTORY ...

And when did a site run by an Oxford University Professor witing his personal views become the basis of South Asian (Kushan) history??


you are grabbing at very weak straws here .... they won't stop your theory from drowning ....
Actually dry straws, coated with wax make excellent boats. Though we dont have 70,000 years of unified existance, with 2000 years we learnt that.


all I say is for an impartial reader of this thread to do some research as to whether in ancient texts the words "India" refered to what is TODAY known as India or not ....
Yep they can trace Ptolemy's route and Indica to Fa Hein and Hiuen Tsang.


and also to see for how long in the past 7000 years has "India" existen as a united nation .... and do a comparative study with those areas that are today known as "Pakistan" .... and see which existed as a cohesive nation for the past 7000 years ....
its 70,000 years bw. Cohesive?? LMAO!! Balochis, Bengalis and Sindhis, Shias and Sunnis and Pathans, hear this lud, you were all cohesive for 7000 years, err 70,000 years.


I suggest you adopt a scholarly mentality and attitude and quite these female attributes of innuendos and indirect insults ....
So now with your scholarly mentality, you generalized that Females are innendos and they give indirect insults?? Thought provoking!!


and do some research yourself .... don't use Indian or Pakistani Historical sources .... use independent historical sources so that you can come to an independent conclusion ....
I believe Wikipedia, Brittanica, Bertleby, Free Encylopedia, MetMuesuem are all independent resources. dont you think ??


I doubt you have the ability to takeup this type of impartial and independent research .... since you are blinded by what has been feed to you in your history books ...
FYI, I faintly remember what I studied in my 5th or 6th grade, I guess thats when we read about Kushans and Kanishka in particular. But you were the one who is posting based on a book writen by a Pakistani, so whos' blind feeded??

Samudra
30 Sep 04,, 18:42
If people do read this board carefully , they would find me stating that a stable pakistan is in the intrests of india.They would also be able to understand that , this discussion is purely historical in context.Nobody denies Pakistan the right to exist.We understand with the passage of time every nation shall die and new ones will be born out of the remains.

Now lets clear up the kushans factor.

1.Vision stated first that , kushans never crossed into India.This obviously is false.
2.Indians claim Indianisation of Kushans , which is evident if one reads the link i provided.I took pains to avoid indian and pakistani sources.
The link i proved said Mathura was one of Kushan capitals.It also stated that kanishka was indianised.Well the links SAID.

So kushans have become a part of the indian mainstream.How do you propose to deny that ? Like how you denied aryans were predominantly found only in pakistan , and had little influence on india ? is that your level of crediblity and knowledge of history and the region ? :eek:

Tell me , how you are gonna deny that kanishka empire had a vast portion in india and mathura was one of its capitals and the he was indianised that the columbian university site explicitly states ? kushan.org also states mathura was one of the capitals...

do you understand that it would take not much time to say peshawar was only a administrative capital , but it would be hard to prove that you are not a idiotic fool to argue like that without sources to back up ?

You always said mathura was not the capital, now you claim it is only an
adminstrative capital...heck which one do you want to argue with ?

gosh , but you also said kushans never really came into india (atleast never conquered significantly ! :eek: )...what a choice to make up your mind for... :eek:

give it up, since i have proved WITH LINKS and FACTS that ->

*** MATHURA was one of Kushan capitals ***
*** Kushans had significant territories in INDIA ***
*** KANISHKA was INDIANISED ***

There is no way for you deny the above because the links i have provided , (unbiased , not indian nor pakistani ) EXPLICITLY STATE the above points.
I have taken care to ensure what i type is correct...have you ?

Atleast your Aryanisation of N.India and Kushans were false....what crediblity do you come with to state facts without proof to back them.unbiased proof , like the ones i provided from columbia univ website , kushan.org ( which is the link you gave , so it is un-biased)

Your arguments in numerical order please.

Ray
30 Sep 04,, 21:54
This is what Moslems have to say of the Two Nation Theory. The article was written by a Moslem.

Fault Lines in Two-Nation Theory

by Asghar Ali Engineer

We have entered the 50th year of independence - an independence won at the cost of division of our country. Why was India divided? Who is to blame and where does the responsibility lie for partition? The popular view is that Muslims were responsible for the creation of Pakistan. A more extreme and harsher view is taken by the RSS ideologues who think that it was Muslim fanaticism which divided Akhand Bharat.

Both these, to say the least, are simplistic views. Neither Islam, nor Muslims, were responsible for the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan was the result of a very complex interplay of forces. If we can say anything with certainty it is that vested interests on both ides played a crucial role in bringing about vivisection of the country. Communalism is not the product of religion as many people think, but the product of misuse of religion by vested interests.

Modernists' Creation

Pakistan was not a creation of religious bigotry; it was a creation of the modernists among Muslims. The demand for Pakistan was raised by a highly westernised Muslim, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah did not have even an elementary knowledge of Islam and was hardly a believer or a practising Muslim. He had strongly opposed Mahatma Gandhi when he took up the Khilafat cause and vehemently resisted the entry of mullahs in politics.

It is interesting to recall that the great scholars of Islam and the highly orthodox Muslims had vehemently opposed the very idea of Pakistan. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who translated the holy Koran into Urdu, called Tarjuman al-Qur'an, was a resolute opponent of the idea of Pakistan. He had theological objections to the word, 'Pakistan' (holy land.) He believed that the whole universe has been created by Allah; how could only a small part of land then be described as holy?

Although Azad's opposition to the creation of Pakistan is well-known the opposition by the other ulema is not so well publicised. It is known only to the experts and scholars of the freedom movement. In fact, the whole organisation of Muslim divines called Jami'at-ul-'Ulema-i-Hind was a supporter of the Indian National Congress and never budged from its position even in the heyday of the clamour for Pakistan. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, one of the most eminent alim from India, was another well-known opponent of the idea of Pakistan.

As soon as the two-nation theory resolution was passed on March 23, 1940, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani undertook a whirlwind tour of India appealing to the Muslims not to be misled by the Muslim League's propaganda. The Maulana was attacked by the League hooligans who threw garbage on him.

Maulana Madam, Maulana Hifzur Rahman and other ulema fully supported the concept of muttahida qaumiyyat (composite nationalism.) Moreover, they fully justified it on religious grounds. In this they emulated the sunnah practice of the Holy Prophet. When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Madina there were various religious communities like the Jews, pagans and Muslims. Also, these religious communities were divided into various tribes and clans. These tribes had their distinctive identities and traditions. The Prophet, therefore, drew up a pact (mu'ahidah) with the representatives of the religious communities and tribes and gave them full freedom to practise their own religion.

The ulema, therefore, argued that when the Holy Prophet himself had set up a composite city state in Madina why cannot we in India along with the Hindus and others accept the concept of composite nationalism. All that the ulema wanted was an assurance from the Indian National Congress that the Muslims would be free to practise their religion in independent India and such an assurance had been readily given.

Koran Quoted

Maulana Madani, who wrote a book, Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam, persuasively argued in favour of composite nationalism by profusely quoting from the Koran. The Maulana's main argument was that qaumiyat was a territorial concept and not a religious one. It is millat which has a religious connotation. He argued that according to the Holy Koran the prophets shared the same territory with unbelievers and hence their qaumiyat was not different from those who did not believe in their message.

In the last chapter of his book Maulana Madani cites various historical examples to show that common nationality is not against the precepts of Islam. He says that when a person can perform several roles at the same time as a father, a son, a son-in-law, a teacher, a student, a ruler, why can he not combine different identities and functions as a citizen of a country, a Muslim, a speaker of a certain language, etc. In short, the Muslims of India can live as Indian nationals with other non-Muslim communities and follow their own religion, personal law, speak their language etc.

He suggests that different measures could be adopted to protect their rights in these respects, and be free to establish relations with other parts of the Islamic world, be it Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Asia Minor, Central Asia, Africa, Europe or America.

Maulana Madam wrote all this while opposing the two- nation theory. In fact, according to him the very spirit of the Koran is to encourage harmonious coexistence in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious world. The Koran says, "For every one of you we appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie one with another in virtuous deeds". (5:48)

No Justification

The ulema like Maulana Madani knew better than Jinnah did that there is no justification for the two-nation theory in the holy scripture of Islam. It is, therefore, obvious that the genesis of the two-nation theory was purely political. The movement for Pakistan came into existence not because Muslims could not live with the Hindus and others in India but because a section of modern educated Muslims felt that they would not get their due share of political and economic power in independent India, and that they would be dominated by the Hindu elite.

This is also proved by the fact that Jinnah, a modernist, did not conceive of Pakistan as a theocratic state but a modern secular state. As the late chief justice of the Lahore high court, Mr Muhammad Munir, said in his book, 'From Jinnah to Zia': "There can be no doubt that Jinnah was a secularist and against theocracy. In his speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, he had given a picture of Pakistan which was nothing short of a secular state in which Muslims and non-Muslims could live together and be its citizens, with equal rights of citizenship, and that religion would be a private affair of the individual, having nothing to do with the administration of the state".

The two-nation theory stands belied not because Bengali Muslims could not live with the Punjabi and other Muslims and that Urdu-speaking Mohajirs are finding it difficult to co-exist peacefully with Sindhis and others in Pakistan, but because more Muslims live in India than in Pakistan, coexisting with Hindus. Is this not the ultimate falsification of the two-nation theory?

http://india_resource.tripod.com/2nation.html

Ray
30 Sep 04,, 22:00
To be fair.

Let's look at a Moslem and obviously a Pakistani (I don't know) website

The ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu society to absorb it. Muslims of South Asia believe that Islam and Hinduism are not only two religions, but also two social orders that have given birth to two distinct cultures with no similarities. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were not confined to the struggle for political supremacy, but were also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than a thousand years, they continued to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dresses they wear are entirely different.


Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
The ideology of Pakistan took shape through an evolutionary process. Historical experience provided the base; with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan began the period of Muslim self-awakening; Allama Iqbal provided the philosophical explanation; Quaid-i-Azam translated it into a political reality; and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, by passing Objectives Resolution in March 1949, gave it legal sanction. It was due to the realization of Muslims of South Asia that they are different from the Hindus that they demanded separate electorates. When they realized that their future in a 'Democratic India' dominated by Hindu majority was not safe; they put forward their demand for a separate state.

The Muslims of South Asia believe that they are a nation in the modern sense of the word. The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial, racial, linguistic nor ethnic; rather they are a nation because they belong to the same faith, Islam. On this basis they consider it their fundamental right to be entitled to self-determination. They demanded that areas where they were in majority should be constituted into a sovereign state, wherein they would be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S. A. W.). They further want their state to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries.


The flag of Pakistan
As early as in the beginning of the 11th century, Al-Biruni observed that Hindus differed from the Muslims in all matters and habits. He further elaborated his argument by writing that the Hindus considered Muslims "Mlachha", or impure. And they forbid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any other bond of relationship. They even avoid sitting, eating and drinking with them, because they feel "polluted". The speech made by Quaid-i-Azam at Minto Park, Lahore on March 22, 1940 was very similar to Al-Biruni's thesis in theme and tone. In this speech, he stated that Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, with different social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor eat together, and indeed belong to two different civilizations whose very foundations are based on conflicting ideas and concepts. Their outlook on life and of life is different. He emphasized that in spite of the passage of about 1,000 years the relations between the Hindus and Muslims could not attain the level of cordiality. The only difference between the writing of Al-Biruni and the speech of Quaid-i-Azam was that Al-Biruni made calculated predictions, while Quaid-i-Azam had history behind him to support his argument.

http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A129

Ray
30 Sep 04,, 22:08
Sine folks feel Indians do Pakistan bashing, I wanted to be absolute fair and so I posted two posts; one from India, though not an Indian site (again I don't know) and one from Pakistan.

Both ahve been written by MOSLEMS! NO non Moslem involved!

I leave it for others to judge.

I will post comments later since I don;t know what has been written in either having taken then off the cuff.

Samudra
01 Oct 04,, 05:08
I just digged this up for vision.

We always tend to think of edicts and ashoka , but there were other Indian great Kings who had inscriptions all over the places.Including Kanishka the great.
It was by these Rabatak inscriptions that we know much about the kushans , just like ashokan edicts.Who claimed indian history was dark ? :)


The Rabatak Inscription
(Translation by Nicholas Sims-Williams)
SOURCE : http://www.grifterrec.com/y/cribb/ekk_cribb_01.html


In the year one it has been proclaimed unto India, unto the *whole of the realm of the *kshatriyas, that (as for) them - both the (city of) . . . and the (city of) Saketa, and the (city of) Kausambi, and the (city of) Pataliputra, as far as the (city of) Sri-Campa - whatever rulers and other *important persons (they might have) he had submitted to (his) will, and he had submitted all India to (his) will.

The mention of then india , kausambi,pataliputra and sri-campla , shoud ring a bell to whomsoever who claimed kushans never entered the present boundaries of india significantly.


Some implications derived from the findings of the Rabatak Inscriptions


His portrait sculpture is the massive stone figure of a seated king found during the excavations of the Mat sanctuary, near Mathura. It can be identified as his portrait on the basis of its inscription, which calls him Vima Tak . . . (in Brahmi). He is also the Vima of the Dasht-e Nawur inscription, where he is named Oohmo Tak... (in Bactrian).

Note the word MATHURA. , also the use of Brahmi.


POINT BLANK , - > Kushans were not Indians , but as they came into India with their all conquering power, India started to conquer them back.Culturally religiously and in their ways of life......Thats why we claim them Indian today.

More examples about how kushans were indianised can be obtained from numestatics , i.e ancient coins which sometimes contained Shiva, his son Karthikeya.

http://www.med.unc.edu/~nupam/thih3.GIF

The above coins is of Kanishka II.
It is likely that this coin was minted in Gho mint located in Mardan region of modern Pakistan. Brahmi character Ga, perhaps represents initial of Kanishka's general or a local ruler of Pri or Phari. Most of the coins minted by Kanishka II show image of seated goddess Ardochsho (Laxmi) on reverse. This coin is catalogued by R. Gobl as #635 which contains 9 subtypes(2). Interestingly, 7th subtype (#635.7, a specimen of current discussion) shows three-headed Shiva while rest display images of single-headed Shiva (2). It appears that 635.7 is the only coin of Kanishka II which depicts three-headed Shiva image. Why a three-headed Shiva coin was included in a class representing single-headed Shiva coins, is not very clear. Although, this coin does suggest that apart from Huvishka and Vasudeva I, Kanishka II also minted coins depicting multi-headed Shiva.


http://img.thefreedictionary.com/thumb/4/4d/KanishkaI.jpg

kanishkas Coin.with a Hellenistic representation of the Buddha, and the word "Boddo" in Greek script....Buddhist influence.

A quote , from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Kanishka ,


A great deal of information about the Kushana kings has been gathered from their coins. Kanishkas Coins show Hindu,BudhhistGreek, Persian and even Sumerian-Elamite images of gods

Another quote from , http://www.chennaimuseum.org/draft/gallery/04/01/coin1.htm


The coins of the Kanishka group employ only Greek characters, Kanishka introduced the Iranian title 'shaonana shao', 'King of Kings', instead of Greek' legend. On the reverse of the coins are found a series of gods and goddesses, Iranian and Indian.

visioninthedark
01 Oct 04,, 14:19
friends,(esp vision)
instead of discussing wether paksitan was a saperate region or not .At least try to figure out tat wether it matters or not.. i think it really dsnt matter adn have given the logic too..what do u all think ...if otherwise please point out where i was wrong..

you do raise a good point .... this does need thought ...



Jay;


its 7000 years (SEVEN THOUSAND) and NOT 70,000 years (SEVENTY THOUSAND) .... :biggrin:



Chandragupta;


again .... Gaul (France) did influence the Roman empire ..... but did that mean that the France can claim the Roman empire as a French Empire? ... no .... it will always be a Roman empire .... not a Gallic Empire ....

Ceasar was Roman and not French .....

Using your logic .... Ceasar can be claimed to be Egyptian since he personally was very influenced by Egyptian culture (remember Cleopatra) ....


in the same way ... Kushans wer NOT Indian .... they were Kushans .... their empire did include parts of India .... and there were social and cultural influences exchanged .... yet it would be totally wrong to claim that they were Indian ...

Even the Brits were influenced by Indian Culture ..... does that mean the the British Empire could have been called the Indian Empire ... and the Brits as Indians?

No ...

Jay
01 Oct 04,, 15:01
Jay;
its 7000 years (SEVEN THOUSAND) and NOT 70,000 years (SEVENTY THOUSAND) ....
You just quoted a random number, so did I :biggrin:


again .... Gaul (France) did influence the Roman empire ..... but did that mean that the France can claim the Roman empire as a French Empire? ... no .... it will always be a Roman empire .... not a Gallic Empire ....

Your analogy is wrong. Refer to my previou spost.


in the same way ... Kushans wer NOT Indian .... they were Kushans .... their empire did include parts of India .... and there were social and cultural influences exchanged .... yet it would be totally wrong to claim that they were Indian ...
Kushans were not Indian per se, and they definetely are not Pakistani as you claimed. The kushans merged with the existing pupulation.


Even the Brits were influenced by Indian Culture ..... does that mean the the British Empire could have been called the Indian Empire ... and the Brits as Indians?
British ruled India and when they didnt have the throne, they left to Britian back. Thas the difference between Moghuls and British, Kushans and Ghaznavi, Emperors and raiders. Do you know why they call Akbar as an Indian Emperor??

Samudra
01 Oct 04,, 19:11
Heh

Romans withdrew from France, did kushans do that ?
Did you know the name of the Air India aircraft which was bombed by Khalistani terrorists ? KANISHKA.
Does it ring a bell about what Indians think ?

going by your logic we were all AFRICANS huh ?
The last emperor was called vasudeva.
Their coins had indian gods.They became part and parcel of indians

The Columbian Univ website claims thus , Kanishka was INDIANISED.
I doubt you are a fool from a nation that can speak better english than us.
Which implies you understand -> Kanishka was INDIANISED.Fools cannot do that.


Its up to you whether you want to be a scholar or not , just like how you can decide whether you want to be a beggar or fool or a racist. I doubt you are a racist though ;)

Since you could not argue with FACTS , I know you wanted to RUN AWAY from the following.

I have proved thus -> MATHURA was one of Kushan capitals, which visionindark vehemently denied.Nowhere in any historical book/text does any author with any reputation claim that MATHURA was only an ***administrative*** capital.

People who do not claim to be racists , brainwashed fundamentalists always state things with sources/links - > proof.Did you back up your claim ?

Do you still stand by your claim that you can PROVE mathura was only a ***administrative*** capital ?

PS : I am off for a holiday and will be posting again only on Monday.

visioninthedark
01 Oct 04,, 21:23
Kushan empire broke up ito western and eastern parts after vasudeva ....

he was the ONLY Kushan king with an "indian" name ....

ONE KING ONLY ....

Kanishka was DEFINITELY NOT indian .... look at where the seat of his throne was ....

Romans didn't withdraw from france or any part of their empire .... their empire simply melted away over time as locals became stronger ... same happened with the Kushans ...

it is really not fair for you to claim that all that originated from our lan, what is today known as Pakistan, even though in past history always existed seperate from any "indian" states to the east .... still you claim it to be indian ....

why do you stop there? .... why don't u claim the persians and the afghans to be indians too??

strange logic .... everytime you were defeated in history .... to cover it up .... you claimed that the invaders were "indians" or "indianized" ....

thats a sorry way to cover your shame ...

Jay
01 Oct 04,, 21:44
Kushan empire broke up ito western and eastern parts after vasudeva ....
That doesnt disprove what we said so far. North India, Afghanistan and Pakistan were under Kushans rule. The Gupts beat Kushans again, this side.


he was the ONLY Kushan king with an "indian" name ....
ONE KING ONLY ....
And rest of them had Pakistani names...what absurdity is this !!


Kanishka was DEFINITELY NOT indian .... look at where the seat of his throne was ....
Mathura, UttarPradesh, India.


Romans didn't withdraw from france or any part of their empire .... their empire simply melted away over time as locals became stronger ... same happened with the Kushans ...
and Kushans ruled North India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.


it is really not fair for you to claim that all that originated from our lan, what is today known as Pakistan, even though in past history always existed seperate from any "indian" states to the east .... still you claim it to be indian
Kushans originated from China. They followed hindusim and buddhism (both these religions originated in India, and have a lot of stuff related to Indian culture). His official court language was Sanskrit


why do you stop there? .... why don't u claim the persians and the afghans to be indians too??
I already did. Mughals (Afghans) are Indians, Pallavas (Persians) are Indians too.


strange logic .... everytime you were defeated in history .... to cover it up .... you claimed that the invaders were "indians" or "indianized"
Invader invaded and stayed back, thats the difference.


thats a sorry way to cover your shame ...
Well, its logical and way better than claiming 70,000 years of unified history and claiming Kushans as Pakistanis.

visioninthedark
01 Oct 04,, 23:15
I already did. Mughals (Afghans) are Indians, Pallavas (Persians) are Indians too.


There goes your credibility ..... so everyone in asian was an indian???

Jay
01 Oct 04,, 23:19
There goes your credibility ..... so everyone in asian was an indian???
Everyone who came to India and stayed are Indians. If Kushans can be Pakistanis, why cant these guys be Indians?? :rolleyes:

*Searching for my credibility, damn, where did it go*

ajaybhutani
02 Oct 04,, 02:24
Friends as i posted before .. instead of spending our time first on wether the region now called paksitan had a saperate identity or not shouldnt we first go by wehter it really matters or not.. I gave my points to say that it dsnt matter. Can u all please tell me if i went wrong somewhere?? bec in case i m right i dont think theres any point discussing the same in this thread .Maybe w can create a saperate thread for it.. In case i m wrong please let me know..

Samudra
04 Oct 04,, 03:53
vision

As i told you earlier ,you know people who do not want to be called racists , fools, and hyprocrites , understand what is meant by "Kanishka was the most indianised king" from a damn credible link... :confused:

Crediblity ? what crediblity ? Do people even understand what is meant by crediblity ?

You know you can always claim North India was not aryanised at all , or well (hic)(ok) "partially" aryanised and get away without answering it in the following pages.Such acts are called shameless acts amongst educated civilised people , who do not want to be identified with bandicoots , rapists and other such glorious people as their ancestors.

I say , only a shameless person can claim crediblity after posting such stuff on a board.

Pallavas were not Indians. Come to Tamil Nadu , perhaps Chennai would be better.Pronounce this that Pallavas were non-indians , not to be claimed as indian rulers.People would not stone thrones like some of the "west" looking civilisations of 70000 years of glorious heritage but would more gently lead them to the lunatics center in Kilpakkam.

Heck , just like the aryan theory is a theory , the Pahalvas == pallavas fact is just another theory which no damn racist on this earth wants to prove by proving links and credible sources.

Look at how shameless people can be , at running away from arguments and shouting something aloud in a manner that befits a taught parrot ( or perhaps a racist mullah taught in a madrassa).

As i said earlier , i find no links in this thread in the posts except jays,mine and ray.
Kushans were Indianised irrevocably.


strange logic .... everytime you were defeated in history .... to cover it up .... you claimed that the invaders were "indians" or "indianized" ....

All famous , credible historians agree , that with the case of all civilised invaders , it was the case of "They came, They saw , INDIA conquered" , unlike the madrassa educated mullah who shall want the 72 virgins in their entirety and for which he shall kill the kafir next door.

Samudra
04 Oct 04,, 10:50
Respected Fellow Forum Member Vision

I find that , for the following statements you have not provided any links/sources to back up your claim.Sorry for the multiple number of posts . I just found time to do this.This post is NOT meant as an offence against any member or any theory , but will only stand testimony to the fact that you fail miserably when it comes to posting something credible with accurate, enough sources/links.

You have 888 posts to your name as i type , and you are my senior here , does it do justice to this(any) board to arrogantly post/state something without basing it on facts or atleast without posting the sources/links for your facts.

Maybe , we members are very much in need of an education from you , with regard to your historical knowledge of the region !


some parts of NOrth India were Aryanized .... but the were a small percentage


? Rajputs were originaly Saka's who came from central Asia and settled mostly in the punjab ....


sati was a Rajput tradition .... even before they came to india .... india was influenced by Rajputs .... not the other way around


if your claim that Kushans are indian despite the fact that their capital was nowhere near present day India and the limits of their state EXCLUDED 99% of India ..

The above point has been proven false , by other members.But we find no links from your side to prove that the kushan states EXCLUDED 99% of India.


Mathura was an administrative center for that part of the extended sphere of Influence ...


I doubt you have the ability to takeup this type of impartial and independent research .... since you are blinded by what has been fed to you in your biased Indian history books ...

Any idea what the bias in History books of ours are ? Any proof ? In the context of Kushans i.e. ?

Respected Member , once you are able to provide sources for above six ( 6 ) very important points , then we may discuss about crediblity and bias.

As i said before , i just found time to do this , so sorry with the multiple posts.Will try to avoid in future.

Ray
04 Oct 04,, 13:30
Paper no. 895

15. 01. 2004

ALLAMA IQBAL- The founder of Muslim politics in the Indian Subcontinent

by R.Upadhyay

Ever since the demise of Islamic political order in the Indian sub-continent, its Muslim population remained communally surcharged. From Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) onwards a number of Muslim thinkers like Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi (1833-77) Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (1828-1905) and Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) took up the leadership of Muslims to revive the Islamic glory. The first two who had acted as commander and Qadi (Judge) of the fighting force in Shamali rebellion in 1857 against the British -launched Deoband movement to push back the Muslims into medieval era for Shariatisation of India. The third one had launched the Aligarh movement for modern education among the Muslims and for their political domination over Hindus in British India. Sir Mohammad Iqbal (1877-1938) popularly revered as Allama (Great Scholar) Iqbal on the other hand enunciated two-nation theory and separated Muslim nationalism from Indian nationalism with the same objective and became the political ideologue for Pakistan movement. He did not continue with his intellectual worldview on Indian nationalism, which he often projected during his student days. He was the first seminal Islamist, who expanded this theory of Muslim separatism in his presidential speech of Muslim League session at Allahabad in 1930 and firmly established it in Indian Muslim mind for their political exclusivism. Later Mohammad Ali Jinnah implemented it as political ideology for accelerating Pakistan movement.

Since the consolidation of British power in India, the descendant of Mogul nobility remained in the forefront of the Muslim leadership in political social and even religious matters. They could successfully produce a middle class among converted Muslims through modern education among them along with Islamic knowledge. It was their tactical move to use them as fighters for their self-seeking political interest. Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan was the first Mogul scion, who launched Aligarh movement for modern education among his community members. "The main preoccupation of these modernists was the uplift of Muslims as a group by defending their position as former rulers" (The Muslim Almanac - Edited by Azim A. Nanji, 1996, page 66).

During British colonial rule the Muslims of Indian sub-continent were profoundly influenced by the religio -political thought of Shah Waliullah and Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan. These two leaders had attempted to update the political psyche of the Muslims as former rulers of the country and their social hegemony over the Hindus. To carry forward the legacy of these leaders Iqbal created an ideological platform for Muslim national movement and created conceptual base for creation of Pakistan. With a view to fulfill their dream the educated Muslim middle class under the influence of Iqbal's political thought joined the political movement for uplift of Muslims as an exclusive social and religious group.

Unlike Sir Sayed Ahmad , who was a Mogul scion, Iqbal was a descendant of a Kshmiri Pundit and was therefore deeply rooted to the cultural tradition of Indian sub-continent in his student days. His vibrant poetic talent and academic brilliance gave him iconic status in Indian society. But deeply influenced with Aligarh movement of Sir Sayed Ahmad, who was loyal to the British and strongly opposed to the Muslims joining Indian national Congress with a plea that it was a Hindu-dominated organisation - Iqbal also became a supporter of political Islamists in the country.

Mohammad Iqbal was widely known as poet, philosopher, lawyer, jurist and spiritual Godfather of Pakistan. He was a versatile genius but "full of inner contradictions in different periods of his life" (Studies in Oriental Culture - Edited by Hafeez Malk, Columbia University, 1971, Page iv/ Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page iv). He proved his poetic talent as a symbol of Indian nationalism during his student days in Sialkot and Lahore, when he composed the song 'Sare Jahan Se Achha Hindostan Hamaara (Our India is best in the whole world) … Mazhab Nahin Sikhata Aapas Me Bair Rakhana'Hindi hain Ham Watan hain Hindostan Hamara (Religion does not teach animosity towards each other, we are all Indians, India is our country) in 1900.

"In the first of his poetic and philosophical statements, Iqbal still took position not of Muslim but of all-Indian nationalism and did not call for the isolation of the Muslims. However, the contradiction of his world view was manifested in the fact that while fighting to overcome religious barriers, he remained overall a Muslim" (Studies in Oriental Culture - Edited by Hafeez Malk, Columbia University, 1971, Page 112). He therefore, completely negated this initial passion in him for this country, when he turned into a political Islamist and communally divided the people of the region. The turning point in his intellectual perspective therefore, prevented his poetry to become universal, as its appeal took a turn from Indian nationalism to Muslim nationalism.

Iqbal's concept of parochial nationalism was initially floated by Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) and subsequently pronounced by Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan as two-nation theory in 1880s for communal division of Indian subcontinent. Amidst much controversy, Khan said in 1883 that Hindus and Muslims constituted two separate nations (Studies in Islamic Culture by Prof. Aziz Ahmad, 2000, Page 265). But this delusive theory was formally enunciated by Iqbal in Allahabad session of All India Muslim League presided over by him in 1930 but adopted and implemented by Jinnah ( 1876 -1948) for creation of Pakistan. Iqbal persuaded Jinnah to bargain for a separate homeland exclusively for the Muslims. "In a letter to Jinnah on June 21, 1937 Iqbal stated unequivocally: a separate federation of Muslim provinces…. is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims" (Studies in Oriental Culture – Edited by Hafeez Malk, Columbia University, 1971, Page XI).

Iqbal stayed in Europe (1905-1908) for higher studies and did his Ph.D. from the University of Munich in 1907. He joined the British Committee of All India Muslim League in 1908 (The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, 1995, Vol. 2, page 222) before his return to India the same year. By the time he returned from Europe the colonial authorities were preparing for splitting the national force of Hindu-Muslim unity with a grant of separate electorates for the Muslims. But Iqbal never looked back to his initial nationalist outlook to meet the challenge of this divisive game of the British. He was found guided more by his communally biased political thought, which was contrary to his natural poetic intellect. He closely monitored the Muslim psyche and became to a Muslim activist due to his mystic Islamic background and gradually became an ardent advocate of Muslim nationalism at the cost of Indian nationalism.

By first decade of twentieth century, when Indian National Congress emerged as a political force, Iqbal also joined with political Islamists for political domination of Muslims as they were against a democratic system of governance in the Hindu-majority country. He was however, never rated as a skilful politician despite the fact that he was a political ideologue for Pakistan movement. "Iqbal was not a skilful politician but provided ideological leadership articulating the Muslims' demand for a separate Muslim state …. He must be seen as a political mentor of Jinnah in regard to the creation of Pakistan"(Ibid. Page 224).

Against strong opposition of Jinnah to Khilafat movement, Iqbal gave his poetic support to it and sympathised with Muslim clerics like Maulana Mohammad Ali, Mawlana Saukat Ali, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and others, who had strong commitment to pan-Islamic cause and the temporal power of Islam vested in Caliphate. His poem along with 'Vande Mataram' of Bankim Chandra formed part of the marching songs during Khilafat and non-cooperation movements. The collapse of Ottoman Empire stirred him to play intellectual role for Muslim politics during freedom movement. His poetic intellect however, never bothered him to react even against the abusive observation against Mahatma Gandhi by Mawlana Mohammad Ali, "who publicly held that a fallen Muslim was better than Gandhi" ( Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistani Nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, Page 236).

When Iqbal deeply understood the psyche of the Muslim community that it was not ready to live under democratic system of rule in Hindu-majority country, he entered practical politics in 1926 and was elected as a member of Punjab Legislative Council. He became a committed pan- Islamist for Muslim separatism and got national stature in Muslim politics only when Jinnah took self-political exile in London. In the absence of any Muslim leader of Jinnah's political brilliance Iqbal was elected to preside over the AIML session at Allahabad in 1930. This session of Muslim League proved to be an end of an era when Indian National Congress (INC) under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi made sincere efforts for Hindu-Muslim unity. Iqbal's on-off interpretation of nationalism set aside the Hindu-Muslim unity effort of the Indian National Congress. "Z.A.Suleri has rightly pointed out that the share of Iqbal in shaping the destiny of Indian Muslims was tremendous. As a matter of fact the entire Muslim intelligentsia who demanded Pakistan was inspired by Iqbal"( The Cambridge History of India:Vol. VI, Page 810).

In his presidential address Iqbal demanded a consolidated state exclusively for Muslims. This communal and separatist demand gave him the status of a most important Muslim political thinker of Indian sub-continent, though politics was never his cup of tea. His conversion from an Indian nationalist poet-philosopher to a narrow communal interpreter of socio-political scenario of his time permanently divided the two major religious communities of this land. It was contrary to his earlier stand in 1900, when he composed his most popular song referred to.

Muslim middle class and feudal section in the community always suffered from a fear complex of Hindu domination over them in British India. They continuously remained in search of a vent for their political frustration. The period when freedom movement under Indian National Congress got momentum Iqbal created a vent to this frustration in his presidential narrative in the Allahabad session of Muslim League by expanding the two-nation theory for its logical conclusion. Satisfying the group in the community that was more interested for sharing power than for spiritual elevation he could successfully create a mad-rage of the Muslims against the Indian National Congress that was regarded by him as an organisation fighting for 'Hindu India'.

1qbal introduced religion in politics and gave intellectual interpretation to it. "As a Muslim Iqbal could not accept separation of religion and politics. According to him the foundations of politics must be found in religion. Politics divorced from Din (Islamic faith) amounted to a Machiavelian ethical system"(Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page 109-110).

The session of the League, which he presided – gave him the status of a pioneer Muslim thinker, who aroused the Muslims against the challenge of democracy. His contribution to arouse the collective communal consciousness of Indo-Pakistani Muslims reached to such a height that the spirituality in Islam became subservient to the political concept of the faith. He prescribed the two-nation theory as the only political solution for the Muslims to get rid of the lurking majority-Hindu-rule and thereby became founder of communal politics in India. Contrary to the pluralistic character of Indian society, which is a melting pot of various cultural and ethnic groups, Iqbal's thesis made Muslim communalism a reality in India.

Giving ideological basis for Muslim State Iqbal said: "A community which is inspired by feelings of ill-will towards other communities is low and ignoble. I entertain the highest respect for the customs, laws, religious and social institutions of other communities.. Yet I love the communal group, which is the source of my life and my behaviour; and which has formed me what I am by giving me its religion, its literature, its thought, its culture, and thereby recreating its whole past as a living operative factor, in my present consciousness. I therefore demand formation of a consolidated Muslim State in best interest of India and Islam" (The Cambridge History of India: Vol. VI, Page 809). He added, "The question of Muslim poverty could be solved only by the law of Islam which is impossible to be enforced without a free Muslim State or States". "A separate federation of Muslim provinces is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims" (Ibid. Page 810.). Had Iqbal been alive he could have seen how peaceful India remained after formation of a separate Muslim State of Pakistan.

Iqbql's vision for political supremacy of Muslims not only strengthened the centuries-old movement for communal separatism launched by political Islamists in India, it actually gave political ideology to Pakistan movement. The two-nation theory could ignite the imagination of Indian Muslims only when Iqbal enunciated it in his presidential address of Muslim League session. A Pakistani writer questioned him - "Did he (Iqbal) not adopt the very nationalism (akin to tribalism), which the Prophet of Islam had come to destroy?"( Iqbal and Foundation of Pakistan:Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page iii)?

The presidential address of Iqbal in the above mentioned session of All India Muslim League not only turned the course of Indian history but permanently prevented the Indian Muslims from connecting with Indian nationalism based on cultural and religious diversity of this land. He blocked them from striving for a pluralistic Indian society with bondage of cultural Indianism. His address was the motherboard for Muslim national movement, which justified creation ,of 'Muslim India within India'.

"Unlike Jinnah, Iqbal was consistently committed to separatist tendencies and was unwilling to yield to the Congress for a greater Muslim cause" (Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page 261). During I936-37 Iqbal wrote "eight letters to Jinnah emphasising the partition of India into two states" (The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, 1995, Vol. 2, page 224) and convinced him with his communal and separatist politics that united Hindu-Muslim nation was not a reality. In one of his letters he strongly opposed atheist socialism of Nehru. When Jinnah failed to bargain for AIML as exclusive representative body of Muslims against Congress insistence on secularism, he adopted the separatist communal politics of Iqbal.

Iqbal died in 1938 but he successfully converted Jinnah, from ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity to a communal Muslim leader. Latter Jinnah adopted a resolution for Pakistan movement in Lahore session of the League in 1940 and made Hindu-Muslim divide a political ideology for Indian Muslims.

If we look back to the post-Mogul history of India we find that all the political Islamists since the downfall of Mogul Empire claimed themselves as custodian of Muslim society. Iqbal while consolidating their thinking in his presidential address of Muslim League accelerated the process of Islamic activism by making spiritual aspect of Islam as subservient to political power. The on going struggle for retention of religious identity by the Muslims is only the off shoot of the same religio-political agenda expanded by Iqbal and accepted by all in post-partition India. It remained a recurring theme of academic debate, which however visibly impaired the fundamental commitment of Indian Muslims to their cultural bondage with this country. He carried forward the cultural and social legacy of Islamic India and gave political ideology for Muslim separatism. His "most enduring legacy is not his 'reconstruction of Islamic thought' (title of a book written by him) but his idea of an autonomous homeland for Indian Muslims" (The Muslim Almanac - Edited by Azim A. Nanji, 1996, page 67).

People are born Hindus or Muslims by accident or conviction might be a debatable issue but the humanistic convictions of intellectuals are never shaded by religious obsession. Intellectual community might have wondered over the intellectual duplicity of Iqbal when his humanistic conviction that 'religion does not teach animosity' got diluted. Iqbal's separatist and communal ideology that the Hindus and the Muslims cannot live together was an intellectual irony. But is it not more ironical that hardly any Muslim criticised him to a level it deserves? Even though his two-nation theory gave ideological boost to Pakistan movement, Indian Muslims still revere him.

The main contribution of Iqbal in the political context of Islam was that he was instrumental in bringing about intellectual orientation of communal renaissance in the Muslim community of Indian sub-sub-continent. He separated nationalism from patriotism and thereby created an intellectual division between the two though both are two sides of the same coin. His concept of Muslim nationalism however, meant political unity of Muslims in Indian sub-continent under a common geographical boundary. He never thought about the Indian society as a whole with majority of non-Muslims. Contrary to the ushering of modern worldview, Iqbal also regarded the medieval social and political order as only option for the Muslims.

"Iqbal held that nationalism implies the Indian Muslims to leave aside their faith, their identity in the nationality of other Indian nations or Indianism" (Secularisation of Muslim Behaviour: Moin Shakir, 1973, Page 25). He declared that "the formation of the consolidated Muslim state is in the best interest of India" (Secularisation of Muslim Behaviour: Moin Shakir, 1973, Page 25). He was not ready to understand that Indian nationalism does not mean domination of Hinduism over other religion. "It is also wrong to characterise Indian Nationalism as an instrument of Hindu domination" (Secularisation of Muslim Behaviour: Moin Shakir, 1973, Page 25).

Iqbal was against secularism. For him "Islam is only an effort to realise the spiritual in a human organisation"(Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page -110). "Iqbal emerged from his Europeon stay as a champion of Islam. His early Indian nationalism seemed to have given way to his newly found Islamic universalism"(Iqbal And Foundation of Pakistan nationalism: Manzoor H.Khatana, 1992, Lahore, page -119).

Even with his western education Iqbal's political outlook remained completely modeled with Islamic concept of governance. Like Sir Sayed Ahmad, Iqbal also created a wedge between Hindus and Muslims. In fact Sir Sayed preached no politics to the Muslims and vehemently opposed their joining Indian National Congress, Iqbal mesmerised them to jump in communal politics against majority community.

The history of Muslim politics in post-colonial India as we see today is deeply rooted to the political philosophy of Iqbal formulated in Allahabad session of All India Muslim League. Even though Islam failed to unify the Arab world, the birthplace of this religion, Iqbal mesmerised the Muslim mass through political interpretation of Islam, which hardly had any spiritual base. The political deprivation of Muslims as they feel today is the legacy of Iqbal they have been going on even after partition of the country.

The political frustration and mistrust of Muslims a against the ruling group has not allowed the community to be the part of the national mainstream. Sharp decline in their share of government job from over 60 percent in the pre-British era to 34 percent in the British period and further decline in it in post-colonial India (India and Pakistan – Unending Conflict by Prakash Chander, 2003, Page 37) might have been the cause of concern to the community. The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education. If they want to compete with non-Muslims, they must transform the curriculum of madrasas befitting to the modern world order.

(The Views expressed are that of the author).

Email:ramashray60@rediffmail.com)

Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group
All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.

tarek
04 Oct 04,, 16:09
Ray

Thanks for the interesting, if obviously partial read. Pre-suppositons are terribly, terribly important, in fact, as a great and benevolent scholar has pointed out, ideology reflects itself in the "selection" of "facts" and the author of the piece makes little effort to temper his ideology and present a deeper picture.

Many Muslims, particularly, Indian and Pakistani Muslims seem to have forgotten the work of Shah Valliollah Dehlvi, one can hope that they will soon "rediscover" him in his work, "Hojjatallah al-Balagheh".

Of Igbal and of Muslims, the author is convinced : "the contradiction of his world view was manifested in the fact that while fighting to overcome religious barriers, he remained overall a Muslim" (Studies in Oriental Culture - Edited by Hafeez Malk, Columbia University, 1971, Page 112). He therefore, completely negated this initial passion in him for this country, when he turned into a political Islamist and communally divided the people of the region."

Incredibly, the author finds persuasive the conclusion that "being" a Muslim and "overcoming religious barriers" is incompatible - One can understand the experience and logic of some indian authors and thinkers given the barbaric displays of a particular religiosity that has found expression in the streets and politics of India, but the author is persuaded that readers will remain innocent of his bias, both against muslims, and against religion itself.

the author charts the progress of Iqbal from nationalist to separatist, and it fails to ground this evolution in the political and social context of India - how did iqbal go from a Indian nationalist to a seperatist? The author's answer is unidimensional - it's Islam itself that is incompatible with the notion of a just India -- such a conclusion, while music to some ears, is incredibly dangerous if allowed to go unchallenged in a country that today has a Muslim population of 125 million and will within a generation come close, even surpass, doublke that number -- because if the author is right, there are but two options, drop Islam or drop Indian Muslims - like I said , music to the ears of some and dangerous to thinking Indians.

Upadhyay writes of Iqbal: "He was found guided more by his communally biased political thought, which was contrary to his natural poetic intellect. He closely monitored the Muslim psyche and became to a Muslim activist due to his mystic Islamic background and gradually became an ardent advocate of Muslim nationalism at the cost of Indian nationalism"

How did this come about?? What was the context of this development, afterall, if the answer is just Islam, why did not many other Muslims such as maulana Azad not also find a similar route?? If Iqbal turn to "communal" politics, did he do so in a larger, national, political vacuum?? Is there really any such thing as a one handed clapping -- but answering such questions is deepingly disturbing for a variety of Indian intellectuals, because it opens for them doors, they wish to keep closed, those doors lead to an examination of the responsibilty of non-Muslim actors in events and the responses of individuaLS AND the IDEAS they animated.

"When Iqbal deeply understood the psyche of the Muslim community that it was not ready to live under democratic system of rule in Hindu-majority country" -- Music to some ears - and yet some thinking Indians remain innocent or least give the impression of not realising the import of this statement, this IDEA, to the eventual creation of Pakistan - and of the massacres that followed babri and the massacres initiated in the Gujjrat.

"Contrary to the pluralistic character of Indian society, which is a melting pot of various cultural and ethnic groups, Iqbal's thesis made Muslim communalism a reality in India"

More music to some ears, it's Muslims who are into communalism - the rest of the religions and cultures of india are restful and pliant??? Apparently in India, majoritarianism and pluralism mean the same thing, if this author is to be convincing...and if further evidence of the deep seated bias that this intellectual displays without, seemingly, realizing of the dangerous ideas he "selects" to float in the guise of history.

"Iqbal was against secularism" -- incredible, this author "SELECTS" from a number of other authors he is persuaded by and this is his privelage, yet readers may want to know why the author does not quote Iqbal himslef about his ideas, especially with regard to Islam and it's understanding (as is the difference between object and subject, there in reflecting the work and influence of Shah Valliollah Dehlvi) -- from Iqbal's greatest work " The RECONSTRUCTION of Religious Thought" .

"People are born Hindus or Muslims by accident or conviction might be a debatable issue but the humanistic convictions of intellectuals are never shaded by religious obsession. Intellectual community might have wondered over the intellectual duplicity of Iqbal when his humanistic conviction that 'religion does not teach animosity' got diluted. "

Here the author reveals his own and in India, a strong "religious" sentiment that has a unique meaning, namely the confusing of "secularism" as being in service of the notion that religion may not occupy any space in the culture or the conscience of a polity (particularly if that religion is not under the rubric or collection that is today Hindu-ism) -- That the method of religion is humanism, is lost to the author and he..he would have the gall to raise the issue of intellectual duplicity???

In the long run, it is for Indians to decide what they recognize as "truth", and the meanings they infuse in that "truth", they must bear their fair share of responsibility for -- but they ought to be cognizant, that they are not alone in the effort to "select" facts and "create" history and it's meanings.

Jay
04 Oct 04,, 16:20
the author charts the progress of Iqbal from nationalist to separatist, and it fails to ground this evolution in the political and social context of India - how did iqbal go from a Indian nationalist to a seperatist? The author's answer is unidimensional
In another article (I dont remember where I read, so I cannot vouch for its authenticity), Iqbal was motivated for a seperate muslim cause, knowing that Hindu India will just over run the Islamic minority. He was convinced (again not my pre-supposition) with an example in his won life, Iqbal was one of the best poet of his times, but the sudden ascent of Rabinndranath Tagore and his nobel prize convinced that muslims will defnitely be overrun by hindus.

I'll try to find the link for this article.

tarek
04 Oct 04,, 16:44
jay

Thanks for that response -- so, it was professional jealousy that motivated Iqbal?? -- Do such things make sense ot you??

"knowing that Hindu India will just over run the Islamic minority" -- He "knew" this? and has he been proved wrong??

"Sharp decline in their share of government job from over 60 percent in the pre-British era to 34 percent in the British period and further decline in it in post-colonial India (India and Pakistan – Unending Conflict by Prakash Chander, 2003, Page 37) might have been the cause of concern to the community. The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education."

So, shouldn't readers conclude that Iqbal was right, as you acknowledge, that the indian state pre-supposes the "religious obsession" of the Muslim toward secular education? And didn't Iqbal also have a secular education??

Look, point fingers at whoever you want, like i said, in the end it's your truth, just don't imagine that you can escape taking responsibility for your share in the events and ideas that created India and Pakistan . One hears from some Indians that the muslims (muusli'ims) "broke" OUR country, as if the Indian muslim was in India by your leave, as if they were never a part of the "OUR" - this is music to the ears of some, in your effort to escape responsibility, you make even more clear the justification of that with you began with such passion to "prove", a failure -- failure, a orphan?? TNT is more like a product of many fathers, some are brought into the light, so that others may remain obscure. This is other than true???

Ray
04 Oct 04,, 19:17
jay

"knowing that Hindu India will just over run the Islamic minority" -- He "knew" this? and has he been proved wrong??

"Sharp decline in their share of government job from over 60 percent in the pre-British era to 34 percent in the British period and further decline in it in post-colonial India (India and Pakistan – Unending Conflict by Prakash Chander, 2003, Page 37) might have been the cause of concern to the community. The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education.The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education.The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education."

So, shouldn't readers conclude that Iqbal was right, as you acknowledge, that the indian state pre-supposes the "religious obsession" of the Muslim toward secular education? And didn't Iqbal also have a secular education??

Look, point fingers at whoever you want, like i said, in the end it's your truth, just don't imagine that you can escape taking responsibility for your share in the events and ideas that created India and Pakistan . One hears from some Indians that the muslims (muusli'ims) "broke" OUR country, as if the Indian muslim was in India by your leave, as if they were never a part of the "OUR" - this is music to the ears of some, in your effort to escape responsibility, you make even more clear the justification of that with you began with such passion to "prove", a failure -- failure, a orphan?? TNT is more like a product of many fathers, some are brought into the light, so that others may remain obscure. This is other than true???

[QUOTE]The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education.


That is true. In so far as Iqbal is concerned, none is surprised with what he wants. Even the sane and educated gets converted with radical views. He wrote the beautiful poem, 'Sara jahan se achha, Hindustan hamara" (Hindustan (India) of ours is the most beautiful (best) country in the world!), which is still as important to us as the National Anthem. It is sung at most national events too. The Indian Army Marches to this tune with pride.

I refuse to believe that the multitude of fundamentalist holding this world at ransom are all illiterates and stupid. There are many educated people too. That is what astounds me and also makes me grudingly admire the power of Islam! What a powerful motivator in the religious opium to sedate common sense and intelligence! Better than LSD, I presume.

Take a count of those who are fighting for Islam, rightly or wrongly. They are a vast multitudes. And they have great support, morally and financially (or else the weaponry would not be there!). Therefore, they are scary!

For all we know, one may show a pacifist face, here and elsewhere, to lull us; but then secretly fund the jihad and supply weapons! Who knows? History is replete with under-hand deals of Moslems. I am no expert on that and since I have Moslem friends I rather not delve in that. I leave it to experts like Major Armstrong.

Indian Moslems are of course Indians. But some are too steeped in their religious bigotry.

Do not think they are for Pakistan. Pakistan is peanuts for them.

It is Arabia. That is their homeland. They want the desert to swamp India.

Pakistan? Who cares. It is big deal to them. Their eyes are set on greater kingdom that the Islamic theory of Ummah (one Moslem Nation) ordains!

Imagine doing 'waju' (cleaning the hand and feet etc before prayer) with a handful of water from a tap that is overflowing and left to do so and waste water . Why so? Because that is what is ordained because Arabia runs low on water!

So India is Arabia!

If that is what you bite, then its OK with me.

But it makes no sense.

Jay
04 Oct 04,, 19:20
That is true. In so far as Iqbal is concerned, none are surprised with what he wants, even the sane and educated gets converted with radical views.He wrote the beautiful pwom, 'Hindustan hamara" (Hindustan is ours) which is still as important to us as the National Anthem.
Sir,
Is it Sareh Jahan Se Acha, Hindustan Hamara??

Ray
04 Oct 04,, 19:26
Sir,
Is it Sareh Jahan Se Acha, Hindustan Hamara??

Sure. It is a great song.

I have marched to this tune with great pride!

tarek
04 Oct 04,, 20:52
Ray

Thank you for that illuminating example of pre-suppositions and the role they play , you say:

"History is replete with under-hand deals of Moslems. I am no expert on that and since I have Moslem friends I rather not delve in that."

On one hand you assert that history is replete with Moslem under-handedness and on the other you say you are no expert, then again you say these same underhanded moslems are among your friends - You are too coy if your understanding of history and moslem underhandedness does not entitle you to being a expert, further proof of your expertise is that these underhanded are among your firends - but with friends like... :eek: Indian speaks with forked tongue?? One may recall a "yatra" by the Advani and one may also recall the massacres of Gujjrat, one may recall the case of the Dalis or "untouchables", and if we were to recall these, could we charcaterize the "religious obsession" of the Hindu towards communal violence?? Could we not point to the fact that for thousands of years Hidnu psyche moulded as it is by it's "religious obsession" remains unable to break past "religious barriers" created by Hindu teachings?? and then would we not offer the "clear minded" these "evidences" of their psyche and behaviour of the Hindu through out history - how "replete that history may be in comparison with those of others, is for all to judge :)

You may yet offer that you understand Iqbal and you may do this by familiarizing yourself with "Reconstruction of religious Thought" -- Perhaps the name of the book may serve as a clue.

There is a dissonance among Indian intellectuals and lay persons when it comes ot the ideas and events of the partition, and we can understand this, after all, it was painful, traumatic - however; unless the courage is mustered to accept the proposition that non-Muslim Indians shared then, and share today, responsibility, for their experience.

If today, as the intellectual, Upadhyay laments the curricullum of the madaress and the "religious obsession" of the Muslim, then this intellectual is remiss and misleads readers that the Indian state bears no responsibility for this development -- in fact, Iqbal stands justified, the interests of the muslims of India reflect neglect and abandonment by both the leadership with the Muslim community, of every stripe, and by the Indian state, that has found it all too convenient to outsouce it's responsibility to "religious" leaders within the Indian muslim community - If you were somewhat more familiar with Iqbal, you would know exactly what he thought of these "religious leaders"....by the way the one group that was against partition was these same "religious leaders", who referred to the the "Quaid e Azam" as "Kafir e azam" -- for Iqbal's love of liquor and women, "Kafir" was not enuff.

Jay
04 Oct 04,, 20:53
Thanks for that response -- so, it was professional jealousy that motivated Iqbal?? -- Do such things make sense ot you??
Well, it may or may not. I want to be apologetic here, I dont know much about Iqbal, sure I read about him, but mostly from Indian sources and so far I havent seen any sources from the Pakistani side that decries what I read.


"knowing that Hindu India will just over run the Islamic minority" -- He "knew" this? and has he been proved wrong??
Just for the face value, he has been proved wrong. India prides itself being a secular democracy and still remains so. We have positive discrimination for muslims in almost all aspect of life.


"Sharp decline in their share of government job from over 60 percent in the pre-British era to 34 percent in the British period and further decline in it in post-colonial India (India and Pakistan – Unending Conflict by Prakash Chander, 2003, Page 37) might have been the cause of concern to the community. The decline is not due to any anti-Muslim policy of the government but it is all due to religious obsession of the larger section of the community towards government sponsored secular education."


So, shouldn't readers conclude that Iqbal was right, as you acknowledge, that the indian state pre-supposes the "religious obsession" of the Muslim toward secular education? And didn't Iqbal also have a secular education??
So are you attributing that the reduction of muslims in govt jobs validates Iqbal's thot??
I dont know what kind of education Iqbal got, but it doesnt really matter, coz he advocated for a nation based on religion.


Look, point fingers at whoever you want, like i said, in the end it's your truth, just don't imagine that you can escape taking responsibility for your share in the events and ideas that created India and Pakistan.
Actually, I (not litreally I, but Indians) do take responsibility that the Congress couldnt bust Jinnah's/Iqbal's aspiration - a nation for muslims , whether right or wrong, even though Congress had overwhelming support in the areas of Present day Pakistan and even when people rejected Jinnah's call for a seperate muslim nation.


One hears from some Indians that the muslims (muusli'ims) "broke" OUR country, as if the Indian muslim was in India by your leave, as if they were never a part of the "OUR" -
Atleast I'm not one of those "some". Muslims never broke India, an overzealous nationalistic person did. Any muslims who stayed in India, believed in the concept of India, they are our citizens, our equals and we embrace them.


this is music to the ears of some, in your effort to escape responsibility, you make even more clear the justification of that with you began with such passion to "prove", a failure -- failure, a orphan?? TNT is more like a product of many fathers, some are brought into the light, so that others may remain obscure. This is other than true???
Well, I dont know how many fathers were present for TNT. But I set to prove that Jinnah's notion of having Pakistan for the muslims is based on wrong reasons. Well, it just means I still disagree/not convinced with your views after all these meaningless arguements about Kushans :)

tarek
04 Oct 04,, 21:28
jay

The more "secular" India points towards the religion of it's political leadership, the more doubt it casts on it's claim to secular orientation -- lets events speak for themselves -- see, it's a muddled picture, claiming secular credentials, while so extraordinarily concerned by with pointing out the religon of political leaders is a net negative (like trying too hard), similarly the fact massacres of Muslims and those officials who lent the support oif the state to this catastrophy also sends a mixed signal -- recall, by "secular" we mean that that state is neutral in the matters of religion - the state being a active participant by commission or by omission, again sends mixed signals. you say: "We have positive discrimination for muslims" - Does that sound neutral to you??

"...I set to prove that Jinnah's notion of having Pakistan for the muslims is based on wrong reasons" -- - Just read this statement over a couple of times -- read it for pre-suppositons :
I know what the "RIGHT" reasons for the creation of Pakistan were or ought to have been.
You even concede that there are reasons for the creation of Pakistan, it's just that Jinnah was articulating the wrong ones."

You are entirely too ambitious, see theories rarely die at once, recall they are THEORIES, not "the truth" - being theories, they are Provisional, as in bound by particularities -- now if you argued that one leg of TNT, religious that defines itself primarily in opposition to the other, as national glue, failed in just mission in Pakistan, you would have a formidable position, instead of deconstructing TNT's relevance and appeal segment by segment, today, you go for the jugular, the quick kill and the thing is not ammenable to the quick kill. Now if you also argued that in Pakistan, among large segments , the relevence ofthe TNT is being questioned, now that would be a genuinely thought provoking position.

"I dont know what kind of education Iqbal got, but it doesnt really matter, coz he advocated for a nation based on religion."

Rubbish - do some research, you will know exactly what kinds of education he recieved -- once again, the positon that he advocated a nation based on religion is simplistic over-reach - lets not forget that Gandhi was a practicng Hindu, that he sought a ethical Hindu who by his example of the force of his ethics made obvious that he was free and self determing, does not mean that Gandhi wanted a nation based on his religious beliefs -- did gandhi's ethics come from his religious convictions? you bet, does that mean the state was then, Hindu?? No , it does not, simplistc over-reach will not serve us.

BTW, I have a couple of pages of Iqbal's intor to the "Reconstruction..." I will post it if you like - actually I willl post it because it's important for you guys to better understand that while iqbal is the poet/hero of the idea of Pakistan, this does not mean that Pride in his genius and accomplishment need remain s exclusively Pakistani.

Jay
04 Oct 04,, 21:34
I'll reply to your post in a while.
I'm reading this,
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/index.html?id=759&page=1

tarek
04 Oct 04,, 23:18
Jay

Below are the first two pages from the Intro to "Reconstruction of Religious Thought" - Note parag settings are off



"Religion in its more advanced forms, rises higher than poetry. It moves from individual to society. In its attitude toward ultimate Reality it is opposed to the limitations of man; it enlarges his claims and hold out the prospect of nothing less than direct vision of Reality.

Is it then possible to apply the purely rational method of philosophy to Religion? The spirit of philosophy is one of free inquiry. It suspects all authority. Its function is to trace the uncritical assumptions of human thought to their hiding place, And in this pursuit it may finally end in denial or a frank admission of the incapacity of pure reason to reach ultimate Reality.

The essence of religion, on the other hand, is faith; and faith, like the bird, sees its “trackless way” unattended by intellect which in the words of the great mystic poet of Islam “only waylays the living heart of man and robs it of the invisible wealth of life that lies within”. Yet it cannot be denied that faith is more than feeling. It has something like a cognitive content, and the existence of rival parties-scholastics and mystics- in the history of religion shows that idea is a vital element in religion.

Apart from this, Religion on its doctrinal side, as defined by Professor Whitehead, is a “system of general truths, which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended”.

Now, since the transformation and guidance of man’s inner and outer life is the essential aim of religion, it is obvious that the general truths which it embodies must not remain unsettled. No one would hazard action based on the basis of a doubtful principle of conduct. Indeed, in view of its function, religion stands in greater need of a rational foundation of its ultimate principles than even the dogmas of science. Science may ignore a rational metaphysics; indeed, it has ignored it so far. Religion can hardly afford to ignore the search for a reconciliation of the oppositions of experience and a justification of the environment in which humanity finds itself. That is why Professor Whitehead has acutely remarked that “ the ages of faith are the ages of rationalism.”

But to rationalize faith is not to admit the superiority of philosophy over religion. Philosophy, no doubt, has jurisdiction to judge religion, but what is to be judged is of such a nature that it will not submit to the jurisdiction of philosophy except on its own terms. While sitting in judgement on religion, philosophy cannot give religion an inferior place in its data. Religion is not a departmental affair; it is neither mere thought, nor mere feeling, nor mere action; it the expression of the whole man. Thus, in the evaluation of religion, philosophy must recognize the central position of religion and has no other alternative but to admit it as something focal in the process of reflective synthesis. Nor is there any reason to suppose that thought and intuition are essentially opposed to each other. They spring up from the same root and complement each other. The one grasps reality piecemeal, and the other grasps it in its wholeness. The one fixes it gaze on the eternal, the other on the temporal aspect of Reality. The one is present enjoyment of the whole of Reality; the other aims at traversing the whole by slowly specifying and closing up the various regions of the whole for exclusive observation. Both are in need of each other for mutual rejuvenation. Both seek visions of the same reality which reveals itself to them in accordance with their function in life. In fact, intuition, as Bergson rightly says, is only a higher kind of intellect."

Samudra
05 Oct 04,, 08:18
I found three articles on Rediff.com about Mohammed Iqbal.
I believe they are relevant to what Jay,Ray and Tarek are talking about in here.

Part One (http://www.rediff.com/freedom/iqbal.htm) Part Two (http://www.rediff.com/freedom/iqbal1.htm) Part Three (http://www.rediff.com/freedom/iqbal2.htm)


"In view of the visible and invisible points of contact between the various communities of India I do believe in the possibility of constructing a harmonious whole, whose unity cannot be disturbed by the rich diversity which it must carry within its bosom. The problem of ancient Indian thought was how the One became many without sacrificing its oneness. Today the problem has come down from its heights to the grosser plane of our political life, and we have to solve it in its inverse form, i e how the many can become One without sacrificing its plural character..."

Tarek

in fact, Iqbal stands justified, the interests of the muslims of India reflect neglect and abandonment by both the leadership with the Muslim community, of every stripe, and by the Indian state, that has found it all too convenient to outsouce it's responsibility to "religious" leaders within the Indian muslim community

What results from the religious obsessions of muslims , tarek , i believe we have discussed them in other forums.Make this point clear that the curriculums among most madrassas are something to lament about.Pervez Musharaff afterall is trying to battle these things too ,i hear.Iqbal will not be happy ? Do we conclude then Pakistan has abandoned the musilms ?

Samudra
05 Oct 04,, 08:39
jay
The more "secular" India points towards the religion of it's political leadership, the more doubt it casts on it's claim to secular orientation -- lets events speak for themselves

Do we include Ghodra massacre too ? And Perhaps the Coimbatore bombings too , to which i am here as a live witness ?


once again, the positon that he advocated a nation based on religion is simplistic over-reach

May be the following words of Iqbal themselves will be better understood


Personally I would go even further. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, and the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims at least of North-West India...


India is the greatest Muslim country in the world. The Life of Islam as a cultural force in this living country very largely depends on its centralisation in a specified territory

LIFE OF ISLAM.He means the way of life by islamic ideals i believe.
Atleast when he says , "muslims" he means a "religion" perhaps ? :rolleyes:


for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its laws, its education, its culture and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times..."

For Islam ? ..Hence i do not believe it is a simplistic over-reach to claim Iqbal advocated a nation in the name of islam and musilms. :)

lemontree
05 Oct 04,, 09:15
Hi guys I'm new out here.
Just a few comments for those who say that present day Pakistan was never really under Indian rule, and was always independent. What is this Indian rule that they are talking about. The subcontinent was never under any single rule as such, with the exception of a few eras. With numerous kingdoms and fiefdoms existing separately there was never any unity as such. It was the british raj which actually unity the subcontinent and which gave rise to nationalism that we know of today.

The TNT was a british policy which was used with good effect in most of the places that they ruled and then left. Why? even the Arab-Israeli is a "gift" of the british.

Why blame Jinnah for creation of a state that was instigated by the british to break the unity of the Indian National Congress.

lemontree
05 Oct 04,, 09:17
Its a different thing that politically and as a nation Pakistan's progress is poor.

Samudra
05 Oct 04,, 09:43
lemontree
It is not correct to state that the Indian nationalism was born after the British Raj or due to the British Raj . Afterall when you hear the word ,. "Bharath" , it must ring a bell.

You know a hundred years back , we did not know about ashoka or the glorious guptas.But today we know.Perhaps in another fifty years we might know about a few more dynasties equally strong and famous.Centuries of invasions have made it hard for witnesses of history to survive.

Request you to wake up to the fact that ,in the course of time Nations fall , nations rise but its the dharma , the values by which we live that never falls , never should.

It might not be "nationalism" as we know today , it might not be the same "india" as we know today , but the very essence of our nation has its roots deep in time.
Much maligned,plundered,invaded for the centuries , and efforts still being put in to disgrace the history,people,religions and customs , the Indian country fights on like no other.

Please note i said "religions" not religion.We do not want to be based upon a religion , the indian country since the ancient times has been secular and it would be wrong to identify it with any religion.Heck hinduism is afterall a collection of several sects like vaishanivism,saivism,and much more.We have had jews , xtians here before europeans had.We would not want to lower our esteem by claiming that we have a singular identity in the name of religion

lemontree
05 Oct 04,, 11:16
chandraguta

In a way you are right. I stand corrected.

visioninthedark
05 Oct 04,, 16:36
Respected Fellow Forum Member Vision

I find that , for the following statements you have not provided any links/sources to back up your claim.Sorry for the multiple number of posts . I just found time to do this.This post is NOT meant as an offence against any member or any theory , but will only stand testimony to the fact that you fail miserably when it comes to posting something credible with accurate, enough sources/links.

You have 888 posts to your name as i type , and you are my senior here , does it do justice to this(any) board to arrogantly post/state something without basing it on facts or atleast without posting the sources/links for your facts.

Maybe , we members are very much in need of an education from you , with regard to your historical knowledge of the region !









The above point has been proven false , by other members.But we find no links from your side to prove that the kushan states EXCLUDED 99% of India.





Any idea what the bias in History books of ours are ? Any proof ? In the context of Kushans i.e. ?

Respected Member , once you are able to provide sources for above six ( 6 ) very important points , then we may discuss about crediblity and bias.

As i said before , i just found time to do this , so sorry with the multiple posts.Will try to avoid in future.

Chandragupta ....

honestly .... I am tired of this escapist attitude .... whenever I post something .... instead of doing the little effort of finding information .... you simply ask for links ...

I can't spoon-feed all the time ...

besides ..... all knowledge is not yet on the internet .... there still are libraries ....

much of what a person writes is based on what he has read in books which and still important sources of information (even though the fresh Computer Science Grads are inclined to believe that all knowledge in the universe has a hyperlink attached to it) ....

so please quit playing this "link" game with me and do some independent research ....

thats all I ask .... u'll come to the same conslusions that I have come too ....

Look ... I'm not in the mood of a point scoring game here ....

I made my point and I am not looking for a ong drawn out argument ....

all I want is for you to go forth and pick up some reputed history books and do your own independent research ...

and ....

before you tell me that I should do the same ....


let me tell you .... I have ...

tarek
05 Oct 04,, 16:38
CG

You are confusing yourself -

"Do we include Ghodra massacre too ? And Perhaps the Coimbatore bombings too , to which i am here as a live witness ?"

By all means, it lends more credence to the point that the picture is muddled and the making of claims that these events serve to negate.

Now with regard to the quote of iqbal, wherein, following Shah Valliollah Delhvi's work, Iqbal seeks to higlight that Islam is, for him and Indian Muslims who chooseto be persuaded by the positon, not the culture of 6th century Arabia, that it is important to rid the "culture" of islam in India of the manifestations of a "cultural imperialism" -- see Delhvi's position was to warn Indian muslims that like yourself, they confuse issues, that they imagine islam to be the culture of a particluar tribe, in a patiicular time, in a particular geography - in other words, to reintroduce ethics and reason in islam and to shun ritual and a religiosity of outward appearance.

Your positon like the intellectual, Ray introduced to us, is to suggest that the fact that Iqbal was a person of religious faith not of the majority makes him suspect - it's almost as if we were to argue that Gandhi's attempt to reintroduce ethics as meaning in the experience of BEING a hindu, makes him suspect -- see what you are ending up saying is that a "good" society is a society in which religion does not occupy any space in culture and in conscience (think about it) - The same thing that the intellectual ends up saying (Marxism, The Opiate of the Intellectual)

See, I don't think you understand the implication of your position - If Muslim and Indian are contradictions, then....

Look, just because Gandhi was influenced by his understanding of ethics, an understanding derived from his experience of BEING a Hindu, that this understanding of ethics informed his politics, does not make him suspect, so why does it make Iqbal suspect ? If the arguement is that in the case of Iqbal, he is not of the religious majority and that this makes him suspect, then we must evaluate in a deeper manner, the political and social context in which TNT gained relevance. UNLESS OFCOURSE, you wish to craft an argument that Gandhi is not suspect beacuse he was irreligious, non-religious, unethical, did not derive and did not position his etrhics in Hinduism, and did not position his politics in ethics. and that for this reason his politics had nothing to do with Hinduism and Iqbal on the other hand...

See, the crux of the issue is to understand why TNT - now in the Indian Pantheon of villans and (replete in annals of villany) Jinnah, Iqbal, Muslims, etc may figure prominently, but with out honest critical inquiry we don't have a chance to understand WHY TNT -- TNT, believe it or not, was offered as a SOLUTION, was it not??? To what problem?? The more you look into TNT and the political, social and economic context, the more you MAY conclude that TNT had many fathers and that responsibility for it was/is widely diffused. But ofcourse for trainiing school children it is not necessary to inquire very deeply, just point out the official bad guys and what a tragedy in the case of Iqbal, that he should be so villified in a country for which he penned "Sare..." perhaps all ingrates are not Pakistani.

Samudra
06 Oct 04,, 04:10
Chandragupta ....

honestly .... I am tired of this escapist attitude .... whenever I post something .... instead of doing the little effort of finding information .... you simply ask for links ...

Sorry dude , i cannot find any book which will state that north india was not aryanised,and then change stance to "a little araynised"...pardon me , i am not upto your level of intellect.May be , i ought to be a racist like you to understand things that are totally read out of context like the word "Jihad" ,"kafir".Reading things out of context are totally alien for us , unlike our neighbours who read words "jihad","kafir" into killing people and make it into a Bloodsport.


besides ..... all knowledge is not yet on the internet .... there still are libraries ....

I say ,show me one library which will have a book that will go on to state North India was not aryanised...I am not in favour of AIT , but AIT states that North India was aryanised.Perhaps you read it somewhere in a madrassa ? :eek: . Sorry although our country has enough muslims , we Indians do not believe in a 70000 year glory but are content to state what the truth is , and we wish to stand by it.Satya Meva Jayate.



much of what a person writes is based on what he has read in books which and still important sources of information (even though the fresh Computer Science Grads are inclined to believe that all knowledge in the universe has a hyperlink attached to it) ....

one need not be a garduate to understand what "kanishka was indianised " means.I can imagine that ,if a person who is educated in european countries , having acquired a number of degrees by whatsoever means , does not understand what "kanishka was indianised" ,he sure must have been educated in a mullah headed madrassa.


so please quit playing this "link" game with me and do some independent research ....

Perhaps in the forum which you moderate , thats the norm .All over the web , if a person posts something new , he is expected to prove his point and he would be termed a fool to have avoided doing hyperlinking.You decide what you want to be.


Look ... I'm not in the mood of a point scoring game here ....

Yeah Yeah cant prove anything...so call it quits..wait till i point you how Shakas were Indianised , how they faught Satavahanas of Deccan , how Gautamiputra defeated them ,how they reconquered the areas lost and how they performed ashvamedha yagna and all other examples, to hit you where it hurts.
Shakas were Indianised too.


I made my point and I am not looking for a ong drawn out argument ....

Yeah Yeah , you just proved your intellect level...You could have always show how mathura was not the capital of kanishka , by pointing out a book and its author which state so.But then you quit.
Loser.


all I want is for you to go forth and pick up some reputed history books and do your own independent research ...

Do John Keay , K.A.Nilakanta Shastry, Mazmudar sound any reputed....?

John Keay , an authority on Indian history.Some of his books "The Honorouble Company" , "India : A History" are unparalled.

K.A.Nilakanta Shastry , his text books on South Indian History is being used for decades since it has been written all over India and places wherever South Indian history is being read.He is undisputed.

Mazmudar , ditto.His books on ancient india are famous world over.

I need not go to library to read these, i love my history i have them at home unlike people who shall make the phrase , "kanishka was the most indianised king" look something very alien to the english language despite being from a country which claims a 70000 years of history and better english speaking people than the eastern kafir neighbours , who they are waiting to pounce upon and massacre.

If you did not know i am talking here only after i read those books written by those authors.I post links here , because i really imagined that to be fair way to educate you rather than tell you the names of books which i read because i believe those books might be banned,unavailable in the country of 70000 years of history , because obviously they are written by Hindu and Xtian kafirs.

tarek
Let me reply to your post , after i think a little more about it.It needs a introspection into the society which i live in...however that is not to state that the Indians(hindu!) were not the prime responsblity for the partition.

Ray
06 Oct 04,, 19:33
Tarek,

Do forgive me. I haven't much idea about Hindu mythology or religious scriptures and so don't address those issues with me.

It is like barking up the wrong tree! :tongue:

Just as an example:

Remember Aurangzeb? Imprisoning this father for the throne?

Dara Shikoh (1615-58), the eldest son. Therefore, the rightful person to ascent the throne. What happened to him?

Dara's forces were defeated by Aurangzeb, who occupied the imperial capital of Agra; and Aurangzeb took his own father prisoner.

Dara was condemned to death, and the sentence was carried out on the night of 30 August 1659, one year after Aurangzeb took over the Fort at Agra and assumed the throne. Aurangzeb delivered the head of his brother to their father.

Now, if that is above board and the way things should happen, then Christ, you are right! :eek:

But then, my good friend Aryan baccha would claim I don't know history. :biggrin: :tongue:

Imagine me doing that to my brotehr who is younger to me. I rather abdicate my property rights than have hise head delivered even on a golden plate if you wish.

What a philosophy that govern these guys! Apparently, there appears to be some screw up in the genes!

Ray
06 Oct 04,, 20:06
Tarek,

There IS a contradiction between being a Moslem and an Indian in India.

Imagine a prominent Moslem politician, Syed Sabuudin, stroke a controversy as to where India Moslems were 'Moslem India' or 'Indian Molsem'. This is the level of intellect! The next stupidity was the campagin to say 'Allah Hafiz' and not 'Khuda Hafiz'. This the the level of Moslem intellect in India.

Using of Condoms by Moslem is by relgious diktat not Islamic! Yet, other Moslem Nations use it. Am I to understand India is the last bastion of Islam? If so, shame on you for having a different country under the Two nation theory. The Pak guys live in India! :) ;)

Jinnah is decried in India as being anti Pakistan by the Mullahs. Why? He was a pork eating, wine drinking, Moslem who defiled Islam by marrying a Parsi! Imagine Jinnah anti Pakistan! How much more stupid should the Mullahs be? They are so deprived of education that they don't know that Jinnah is the Father of Pakistan even if he ate prok and drank himself silly!

Omar Khayyam drank, The Moghyl Emperors drank. No. They (the Mullahmen) would claim theya re near bred. Why? Because they ruled India. All love to claim descendancy of Power. Hypocrites.

However, I would add, it is mostly with the vast majority who are illiterate and madrassa educated and very marginally with the educated lot. I don't blame them, for they are madrassa educated. If one has five to six children without any worthwhile means of income, then education is not easy. The best form of education then is the madrassa. Sadly, it hammers religion as the core issue.

They also don't go to the free schools of the govt. I don't know why?

The Mullahs brainwash them that they have originated from the Arabs (as if they are pureline thoroughbred Arab horses!). That is bunkum, but it brings solace since most are convertees are from Hindusim which has the reprehensible caste system (than Heavens this is fading like a bad dream). Obviously, those who were the deprived in the caste heirarchy and rather low down the order, preferred to converted.

Thus, it is human and natural to disown the roots and delude imaginary grandeur.

Of course, other reasons were there for conversion. The jezia tax imposed on the non Moslem or the wonderful and quick fix form to convert - The Shining Sword of Justice and Truth of the Supernatural and all Compassionate!

Yet, those who may be of the Arab stock and intermarried with the Indian stock or those who converted because of to avoid the Jezia tax or not have their heads hacked, don't concern themselves with such petty granduer of being Arabs for obvious reasons. They don' have to shy away from their origins!

Further, those who have eduacted themselves (beyond the enlightenment of the madrassa) have liberated themselves of any such misgivings.

Unfortuantely, the last two categories are at a permium amongst the Moslem community of India.

There lies the identity crisis.

Ray
06 Oct 04,, 20:26
CG,

You have to buy Night Vision Goggles to understand this Dark Avenger! :biggrin:

I keep buying these NVDs, but I remain Vision denied in the Dark! :tongue:

But I take solace in Milton.

'They also serve, who stands and wait'.

WHEN I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days, in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present 5
My true account, lest He returning chide,—
Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?
I fondly ask:—But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: God doth not need
Either man's work, or His own gifts, who best 10
Bear His mild yoke, they serve Him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at His bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:—
They also serve who only stand and wait.

Samudra
07 Oct 04,, 03:50
Ray
That must be "Paradise Regained"....they taught us in 10 grade..
Pray tell , where in the web world these are found.

I believe Dark Avenger , will not find this Paradise ,as such said by John Miltonm amusing..No 72 virgins...evil Kaffir poet, will rot in hell.

tarek
07 Oct 04,, 14:28
"Paradise regained" :rolleyes: "OUR" country :frown:

Gandhi and a murder sans mystery
J Sri Raman


Who killed Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? Or the Mahatma (Great Soul) as India’s millions still call him?

That may sound a somewhat inappropriate first question to ask on the birth anniversary (October 2) of the tallest leader of India’s anti-colonial freedom struggle. We must ask it, because others have just raised again questions about the martyrdom of the great man.

It is no subject, really, for a whodunit. The Mahatma fell to bullets fired by a fellow-Indian at the venue of a mass prayer meeting in New Delhi. The fitting end to a non-violent fighter’s life came on January 30, 1948. It came within six months of India’s independence that he had striven for and of the Partition of the subcontinent (into India and Pakistan) that he had striven against.

The assassin, Nathuram Godse, proudly confessed the crime. No mystery shrouded the motive, either.

Gandhi had enraged Godse and other Hindu-chauvinist activists by pleading for India’s good relations with Pakistan, now that it had come into being. By calling upon the rulers of independent India to make the magnanimous gesture of offering a compensation of Rs 550 million to Pakistan for losses suffered during the violent Partition. By walking into riot-torn areas and bringing peace back though his mere presence or fasts-unto-death that made the rioters drop arms. By continuing to work for Hindu-Muslim unity, as he had always done.

Gandhi had enraged a political and ideological camp: one that had paved the way for the Partition by identifying the nation with the religious majority, that had undertaken minority-bashing as a sacred mission, a far-right camp that was to turn fascist in power or in proximity to it.

Godse’s political camp was no closed secret. Until a while before the assassination, he belonged to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), misleadingly meaning National Volunteers’ Association. Many see no mystery, too, about the motive behind Godse’s formal exit from the RSS on the eve of the assassination, with which it had been denying any association.

It did so again recently, when Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh said, in a public speech, that the “greatest achievement” of the RSS was the murder of the Mahatma. The RSS sprang to self-defence at the sarcastic observation. It threatened to sue Singh for defamation. This drew from him the clarification that the atmosphere of hate, an RSS creation, led to the assassination.

No journalist in his or her right mind rushes to endorse a minister. But Singh was right, in this instance. It was a fascist ideology that moved the finger that, in turn, pulled the trigger. It was fascist violence that felled a frail giant.

The ideology lives. So does the RSS, the patriarch of what India’s far right calls its parivar (family). They have continued to kill the Mahatma or what he stood for. The most outrageous of these assassinations took place in 2002 in Gandhi’s home state of Gujarat. The RSS and its entourage, including the infamous Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), have been defending the state-aided pogrom, which claimed about 3,000 Muslim lives. The RSS even pulled up former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, ever a loyal member of the parivar, for daring to suggest that the massacre might have had something to do with the far right’s defeat in the last general election.

The defeated Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has now declared its resolve to return to its “roots”, without the restraints imposed by office. This amounts to a warning that the Mahatma may die many a death again in the land he sought to deliver.

The writer is a journalist and peace activist based in Chennai, India

Ray
07 Oct 04,, 20:07
Ray
That must be "Paradise Regained"....they taught us in 10 grade..
Pray tell , where in the web world these are found.

I believe Dark Avenger , will not find this Paradise ,as such said by John Miltonm amusing..No 72 virgins...evil Kaffir poet, will rot in hell.

It is from 'On his Blindness'.

http://www.sonnets.org/milton.htm

Just as a joke about Virgins in heaven since you raised it.

No offence meant. It is only about Osama.


Osama's trip to Heaven

After his death, Osama bin Laden went to heaven.There he was greeted by
George Washington, who proceeded to slap him across the face and yell at
him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached and punched Osama in the nose and shouted," You
wanted to end our liberties but you failed."

James Madison entered, kicked Osama in the groin and said," This is why I
allowed our government to provide for the common Defense!"

Thomas Jefferson came in and proceeded to beat Osama many times with a
long cane and said, "It was evil men like you that provided me the
inspiration to pen the Declaration of Independence!"

These beatings and thrashings continued as John Rudolph, James Monroe,
Robert E. Lee and 66 other early Americans came in and unleashed their !
anger on the Muslim terrorist leader.

As Osama lay bleeding and writhing in unbearable pain an Angel appeared. Bin
Laden wept in pain and said to the Angel, "This is not what you promised
me." The Angel replied, [B]"I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in heaven.

Ray
07 Oct 04,, 23:07
Imagine this and the Two nation hooh hah:

Two Ahmadis held for writing Aslam-o-Alaikum

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The police has registered a case against 15 people from the Jamaat-e-Ahmadia for printing Aslam-o-Alaikum and Inshallah on wedding cards, Geo TV reported on Wednesday. Among those who are charged include three brides and three grooms. Abdul Wahid, a local chief of Almi Majlis-e-Khatm Nabuat in Kinry Town of Mirpur Khas, registered a case against an Ahmadi family which got these words printed on wedding cards, the TV channel quoted a report by BBC Urdu Service. Wahid said Ahmadis were non-Muslims and therefore they should not be allowed to write words representing Muslim culture. The police has arrested two men, the TV channel reported

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-10-2004_pg7_28

Samudra
08 Oct 04,, 04:46
Sir

I have been making attempts to find out where the source of the dark avenger lies for his claims of 70000 years of unraped , unslaughtered so called glorious history.I was (not) so surprised to find , that while this whole forum does not accord any crediblity to propaganda ridden sites hosted on free servers , he being in the dark does not find it so.The glorious timeline has been taken from this site (http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/periods.html).It was again not so surprising to see him not provide the link over there in the first page.So similar to paint imports , the avenger has done all the colouring and formatting of the text by himself.Hard working person you know.Talk about indigenous history !

I must request aspiring jehadis and mujahideens to memorise the website.Words like Brahministic Hindu Imperialism,myth of bharath may well sound sweet to you and will , in the end help you find the 72 virgins ...no ..virginians, while trying to enter one of the paradises on earth which is gaurded by fences and sensors. . :biggrin:

No surprise , the dark avenger must have started his journey by now.

Samudra
18 Oct 04,, 06:55
11. Where was the center of Rajput presence? Rajputs were originaly Saka's who came from central Asia and settled mostly in the punjab ....

I was just reading about the Rajputs , in a history BOOK written by a western author...John Keay and he quotes Al-Masudi , a tenth century writer..

The write(Al-Masudi) talks of a king called "Bauura , King of Kanauj". ... Historians have traced this king to the dynasty of Prathiharas.They are said to have originated from "Rajasthan"....And this prathiharas are the people to whom Rajputs trace back their lineage to.

This is just one of the theories.Rajputs also claim to be of the Sun/moon dynasty, another theories goes to say that they were "shatriyanised" at Mt.Abu with a vedic yagna , which is very hindu and not your western something abrakababra.

For all what i have typed , these are the "possible" lineages of the Rajputs.None ever talk about your West Origins or Shaka origins.

So visionindark , please think and then "talk".... Wait a couple of days , i am a lil busy with other works..i wrote up something detailing the coming of shakas , their fights with Satvahanasa and then their "indianisation"...i have it in notes , got to dig it up...lost it with my other book on South Indias history.... :frown:

tarek
22 Oct 04,, 02:32
http://ghazali.net/book1/body_chapter_1.htm

Ray
22 Oct 04,, 06:27
Tarek,

While Jinnah was not an Islamist in the sense of the term now. Unfortunately, the Islamists now seems to be running a riot and what Jinnah may hae desired is not coming true. This situation was not so until General Zia came to power.

However, I wonder if it would be correct to judge the contemporary times with the times and the political environment of the time of the Partition.

Zia, to my mind was more of a poltical animal than a military General. He possibly wanted to Pakistan to be the crown jewel of Islamic world. The isue of Afghanistan was God sent for him. If he could assist the US in chucking the Russian Bear out of Afghanistan, it would be welcomed by the US with its positive fallouts as also would propel Pakistan to the pinnacle in the Islamic World.

The mujahideens and then the Taleban and the Islamic fundamentalist elements fired the nascent dreams of the hoary past where Islam ruled a large part the world; after all, where the US had not been able to rock the USSR, these Soldiers of God had.

I presume this reality was religious fodder to the Mullahs and they fanned it further amongst the Believers and Faithful. While the educated and more rational accepted it for what it is worth, the illiterate and men of the street (who lived a life of wants and needs and on only dreams of a better future) found it most appealing. They became the sword arm of fundamentalist Islam or so it appears.

Hence, the two Nation Theory has moved too far in time and has become so disparate in the structure both in India and Pakistan, that it is difficult to imagine the commonality that could have been there before Partition.

Jinnah's and Gandhi's vision nonetheless could still remain a beacon and a reminder of the times when the countries were finding its feet.

I might add, that the RSS elements have been rejected by the Indian population since their influence on the BJP has ensured the rejection of the BJP led Govt in the last General Election as also in the recently concluded State election in Maharastra (the second largest State in the national share of sending MPs to Parliament).

I am sure that in Pakistan, soon the MMA would also be on the decline oncer the economy of Pakistan gets even better than what it has become as of late.

tarek
22 Oct 04,, 22:37
Ray

Please look into the motions by MP Bhandara -- you may be, I hope you are, shocked that the Qaid e Azaam's speechs were/are actually being censored - children are being presented with the speechs devoid of the secular, and humanistic ideas that animated the Qaid life work and his achievement - I could not agree with you more that islamists are running riot, indeed, if you will review the papers, you will find a article regarding a seminar abot the kinds of liberties that have been taken with historicals facts and the deliberate attempt to demonize Hindus in the minds of the impressionable.

"the two Nation Theory has moved too far in time and has become so disparate in the structure both in India and Pakistan, that it is difficult to imagine the commonality that could have been there before Partition"

I don't have a problem with this - commonality has been keeping us uncivil towards each other, we might do better were we also to become aware of our differences and learn to move past them - because really that's what is required (nature and vacuum), humpty dumpty is broken and that's that, lets move on or else we will remain partners in indignity and a poverty of mind and spirit -- our inablity to actually learn to move on, to move past, to accept our differences, is in my opinion, really, unique

MMA on the decline? Lets not kid each other or ourselves, RSS and Bajrang Dal were never about "cleansing" the universe, nor had they ever dared to think that they may have a population, a nuclear state, to exercise themselves upon, and to justify that exercise by means of elaborate ideology in which the call is not from any man or state but by the Creator of the universes -- The RE-education required in project Pakistan is emmense - How does one project the reality of plurialism and therefore of tolerance, if religious knowledge should remain opposed to these ideas with and outside of the realm of religion?? Do you see what I'm getting at?? Should we be focusing on Re-educating, re-training, those who today create rabid, enemy seekers and enemy makers?? And that, ray, I challenege you show me to the contrary, is not now happening, nor is it on the near horizon.

It's project Islam, not just Project pakistan

tarek
22 Oct 04,, 23:29
An endangered species
Farrukh Saleem

Who is going to save the moderate Pakistanis?

Enlightened moderates are out, Madrassahs are in. In 1947, Pakistan had some 20 dozen madrassahs The half of Pakistan left now, according to interior ministry's rather conservative estimate, has 20,000 with 3 million students and they churn out 40,000 graduates every year.

Pakistan's primary schools are not far behind. The Economic Survey 2003-04 says 17.4 million Pakistani children are attending primary schools (according to UNICEF, an additional 13 million school-age Pakistanis will never see the inside of a classroom). Here is a sample of what the fortunate 17.4 million primary school Pakistani children are being taught: The official Curriculum Document, Primary Education, Class K-V specifically prescribes "simple stories to urge jihad ." Under 'Activity 4', the specific prescription for three- and eight-year-old Pakistanis is: "To make speeches on jihad and shahadat ."

The Ministry of Education, The National Curriculum, Social Studies for Classes I-V, Curriculum Wing formally endorses the following 'Learning Outcome': "Recognize the importance of jihad in every sphere of life." The officially certified direction for five- and ten-year-old Pakistanis is: "To make speeches on Jihad ." Under 'Evaluation', the officially certified direction to teachers and textbook writers is: "To judge their spirits while making speeches on jihad, Muslim History and Culture." The "Affective Objective" for Classes I-V is: "Concepts of Ideology of Pakistan, Muslim Ummah and Jihad."

Of the 17.4 million primary schoolers only 4 million enter the Middle School (the rest drop out). The lucky 4 million are given further tutoring in jihad. Pakistani textbook writers are obliged under explicit instructions from the Ministry of Education, the National Bureau of Curriculum and Textbooks, to "create a feeling among students that they are the members of a Muslim nation. Therefore, in accordance with the Islamic tradition, they have to be truthful, honest, patriotic and life-sacrificing mujahids ."

The National Bureau of Curriculum and Textbooks, Social Studies Curriculum for Classes VI-VIII under the National Curriculum Committee, has similar recommendations for jihad , Tableegh [proselytize], Shahdat , sacrifice and the rest.

Of the 4 million middle schoolers only 1.6 million enter the High School. The lucky 1.6 million then receive advance jihad tutoring. Urdu Curriculum (Compulsory, optional and Easy course), Classes IX and X, National Bureau of Curriculum and Textbooks, Ministry of Education sanctions the following 'Learning Outcome': "Must be aware of the blessings of jihad ."

The Curriculum Wing of the Ministry of Education, more often than not, equates jihad with guerilla warfare. Our primary, middle and high school curricula continue to equate Pakistan, Islam and Jihad . Our education ministry continues to 'inspire' our children to become guerrilla fighters. Punjab Textbook Board continues to make our children "aware of the blessings of jihad " to "make speeches on jihad " to "create a yearning for jihad " to "love and aspire for jihad ."

As a consequence of it all, our madrasas manage to add 40,000 real jihadis every year to our existing reservoir of jihadis. Then there are 1.6 million wanna-be jihadis who graduate from our 16,059 high schools every year.

Does our education ministry know that right after the Battle of Khyber our Holy Prophet (PBUH) had stated that jihad-e-asghar (smaller jihad) is over and that jihad-e-akbar (greater jihad) had begun? Doesn't that mean the end of armed jihad (jihad-e-asghar) and the beginning of jihad against poverty and illiteracy?

To be certain, we are going to need all the jihadis we can produce and then some more. At least four major jihads are coming up. Make no mistake: the first jihad is against all the 'enlightened moderate Pakistanis'; the second is against the 293 million inhabitants of the 'Great Satan'; the third, against the more than 6 million residents of Medinat Yisra'el ; and then there are a billion Hindus to be taken care of.

To be sure, Pakistan is producing 'enlightened moderate Pakistanis' no more. An 'enlightened moderate Pakistani' is now an endangered species. While the WWF is overly busy saving sperm whales, pandas, Iberian ibexes, Monk seals, Blue-fin tuna, one-horned rhinoceroses, seahorses and Lady's Slipper orchids there is no one to save enlightened moderate Pakistanis.

Friday Times

tarek
23 Oct 04,, 01:37
And then there is also this:


EDITORIAL: Can the King’s League be the Quaid’s League?

Mr Minoo Bhandara, a minority National Assembly member from the King’s League has done a laudable deed. Last Tuesday, he stood up and asked the house to adopt a resolution to include the Quaid-e-Azam’s famous speech of August 11, 1947, in the academic curricula of the country. At the time Mr Bhandara spoke on the issue, the opposition, including the six-party religious alliance, the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal, was absent from the house, having earlier boycotted the session. While Mr Bhandara’s passionate speech did not evoke much emotion in the house, mercifully the League members decided to go along with him and the resolution was carried. The resolution is not binding on the government but to the extent that a parliamentary reference has been made to the Quaid’s speech for once is in itself very refreshing. As Mr Bhandara noted, the state, over the past thirty years, has even sought to censor the Quaid’s speech.

But even as we hail this development, it brings back painful memories of the time the League, then under prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan, chose to pass an Objectives Resolution that opened up the constitution to the mischief later carried out by General Zia ul Haq. Even today, we have as our minister for religious affairs General Zia’s son who has chosen repeatedly to create confusion and cast doubts on the intentions of the government to carry out the necessary reforms.

The irony is that in making the August 11 speech and setting down the principle of confining religion to the personal sphere, the Quaid was in fact putting forth the ‘objectives’ of the new state of Pakistan. Even at the time of debating the Objectives Resolution, it was the minority members of the assembly who objected to the conception of the new state on the basis of religion. Reading their speeches today one can see how prescient they were. Again, it has taken a non-Muslim Pakistani to point to the absolute necessity of redirecting this state. The King’s League lays claim to being the true Quaid League. We would expect it to prove to this country that it can carry forward that enlightened legacy.

Alas. There is more disappointment in store for us. Mr Bhandara has formally complained of a breach of his privilege and that of the house because PTV blacked out news of the resolution in its major news bulletins of the day. The Khabarnama of October 19, he claims, did not telecast this enormous decision of the Assembly, nor deemed it fit to make any mention at all. He has therefore moved the secretary of the National Assembly to take up his privilege motion on October 22 or 23.

General Pervez Musharraf spares no moment to talk about an “enlightened, moderate” Pakistan. There can be no better document for him to get legitimacy from for this sensible and belated enterprise than the Quaid’s speech. We also have an enlightened prime minister in the saddle now. It would be only appropriate for this government to immediately act on the resolution and insert the speech in school syllabi. Our students, raised on heavy doses of distorted history, need to know the truth.

Yet, we are sceptical because we are not sure whether the actions of this government will ever be able to match its rhetoric. Certainly, if PTV’s atrocious outlook on the issue is a pointer, we are far from getting there. It would be interesting to know who took the decision to censor the news and why such a person is still entrusted to watch over the interests of enlightened moderation

Ray
23 Oct 04,, 01:43
Ray

Should we be focusing on Re-educating, re-training, those who today create rabid, enemy seekers and enemy makers?? And that, ray, I challenege you show me to the contrary, is not now happening, nor is it on the near horizon.

It's project Islam, not just Project pakistan

One could focus on anything. However, what is your Plan that would achieve what you are saying?

tarek
23 Oct 04,, 02:34
What I'm saying is that it's unrealistic to imagine that the islamist rot can be prevented or halted (it can be pushed under the rug for a while, a sort of 400 lb gorilla no one want to acknowledge) because to ceate a effective change, what is required is the re-training of those who provide training (education) to the kids -- and this means the development of new ideology, a new expression of islam -- But this is not what Mr. Musharraf has signed up for at all.

You may recall a certain maulana Fazlur Rahman during the Ayoob Khan days (or if you don't recall himm, researching him would be rewarding) - Ayub khan realized that this project required a ideological grounding of modernity within Islam and the way forward was the openning up of Ijtihad - maulana was charged to develop a new cirriculae -- his effort earned him the hatred of the traditionalist ulema, he was hounded out of pakistan and lived out his last days teaching in Chicago.

There is now a considerable body of islmaic knowledge grounded in and at ease with modernity (actually it's post modern), however; it simply has no space to exist in pakistan -- Blood is the answer in pakistan, the mad mullahs will not suffer anything less and for my money they ought to be obliged -- but ofcourse this is not about to happen, the MMA was bribed to play by giving them 2 provinces - they have now gotten fatter and richer and now threaten to bring the house down unless Musharraf submits -- and he will, in time.

Now if blood is not politically palatable, like saying that a patient with a cancer has refused to have the cancer cut out, the prognosis for such a patient, is well, not optimistic.

Samudra
24 Oct 04,, 14:03
Tarek
You are a pessimist or a realist ?
I sincerely hope you are the former , for the second option sends bad omens for India too.

Ray
24 Oct 04,, 15:53
Tarek,

I appreciate what you are saying, but is there any more 'progressive' leader tahn Musharraf?

I reckon there is no other option.

tarek
24 Oct 04,, 16:16
Ray

Not that I am aware of - but I suggest to you that your question is not the way forward -- The problem is ideological - but more fundamentally, it is a problem of METHOD -- It does not matter who the President is, what matters is that the State use it's resources to challenege the Asharite foundation and to replace it with Mutazalite or method of science.

You see liberal, progressive, etc., will have zero effect, because the trainers (educators) of society will continue to create the exact kinds of persons these liberal, progressive, etc., do not agree the nation nation needs.

The Pakistani state wishes to avoid becoming a Algeria, but a insurrgency leading to a general civil war is already in it's early stages - if the Islamist parties do not push the issues, they will suffer in the 2007 general elections - the army and the PML-Q will make the case that the Islamists got a chance to administer two provinces and they did not measure up tot the people's expectations -- but the Islamists in politics is is not the real danger, after all Turkiye has a Islamist govt, what matters is the substance of the ideology of the Islamists, it's foundation, it's METHOD - and here, Pakistan, SA and Egypt will continue to create monsters, unless ofcourse they are stopped from doing so, from iside or if those responsible inside refuse to do what the world needs, then from the outside.

CG

FOr Indians, Pakistan ought not to be the major concern, bigger populations are, from my experience of meeting with Indian Muslims and seeing their insistence of the public display of religiosity, what Indians should be focusing on -- Again, like in Pakistan, it is at the level of METHOD that this problem needs to be attacked - cuz if you apply repression, they may object and change the outward display, but the real place to initiate the change in the METHOD, to differentiate what is and is not Islam, what is ISlam and what is the foundation of Islamic Knowledge TODAY --

The Islamists continue to argue (it does not matter where they are from) that secularism, the ideology is "Ladeeniyat" that is to say about no God or Godlessness, about actually, the basis of secularism, it's METHOD, is about the replacement of the MEthod of religion, with the method of science.

At one time Islamic knowledge had the same basis, however; Imam Ghaalli's attack on reason and the ascendency of the Asharite ideology has had a impact we reel from to this day.

Samudra
27 Oct 04,, 05:31
Coming back to a little history.
Megasthenes has answered the question of what constituted India , 2000 years before.


Many writers, however, do not give the river Indus as the western boundary of India, but include within it four satrapies,--the Gedrosi, Arachotae, Arii, Paropamisadae, making the river Cophes its furthest limit; though others prefer to consider all these as belonging to the Arii.

So people who still believe in a seperate independent entity have one more point to counter.

Shoaib_Sham
05 Aug 07,, 11:39
One of the arguments that are used against TNT is the separation of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh. Well so for all those my naive Indian, they could now easily find out the reason why India used this opportunity like a pure opportunist state, intervened and attack East Pakistan. They wanted to distort the TNT and that’s what they partially did. You must be ashamed when Indians claim 1971 a victory. You must be ashamed of intervening in the internal matters of another sovereign country. Taking benefit from the adversary of other country is victory for you. Well to an extend Indians were right in doing this cause they knew that fighting face to face against Pakistan will not take them any where other than ending up at U.N. This is what 65 taught them. In fact, India turned this political turmoil into a war. Every one knows how good the Indians are in keeping the promises. So this feel of not accepting the TNT, made them to revert from the promise they made to give the right of Self Determinations Kashmir. Indians knew accepting the right of Determination of Kashmir’s will directly and indirectly endorse the TNT. Talking against TNT wont led you to your concept of Akhand Bharat. You need to come out from your shell.

Think Big …… TNT has worked and two sovereign Muslim nations Pakistan and Bangladesh to your utmost dislike do exist.

Above all you argument of Bangladesh creation would have been much stronger if you had been able to rejoin East Pakistan with India this was the initial thought in 70, but didn’t materialized for Indians.


Well when I was graduating from U.S. Our University had lots of Indian. Infact two of them were mine very good friends. One thing that I kept on realizing thought out my university life was the fact that Indian’s don’t accept Pakistan. I and most of Pakistanis like me don’t mind when you say India Zindabad (Long Live India) and why should we mind. But this Zindabad when prefixed with Pakistan gets bit heavier on the hearts of Indians. At times I feel, may be its not Indians who are on fault it has more to do with how they are brought up. How they are taught, how they are feed up by media.


Warm Regards

joey
05 Aug 07,, 16:20
tsk tsk I missed such a wonderful thread :redface: , wish I was around 2004 You got all the fun samudra. :biggrin:

Summation for all : Two nation theory today is a reality, live and let live. :cool:

Vinod2070
09 Dec 07,, 12:31
Samudra you rock! Your knowledge of history is phenomenal and so was the presentation. :) A gem of a thread if only one sided in logical arguements.

One thing never ceases to amaze me, how all the Pakistanis (indeed almost all Muslims) use exactly the same arguments using the same words for almost any topic. High on rhetoric, low on substance!

And the extreme amount of insecurity and the need to validate the existence of Pakistan almost on a daily basis! One would think it is not required after all these years. Whether the TNT was flawed or not doesn't matter now. No one in India or Pakistan wants to unite now.

Indians are losing interest in Pakistan and won't care for it were it not the terror central, the same as the rest of the world indeed.

Vinod2070
09 Dec 07,, 14:14
The Indian chromosome

Sunday, December 09, 2007
Dr Farrukh Saleem

Twenty-five thousand years ago, haplogroup R2 characterized by genetic marker M124 arose in southern Central Asia. Then began a major wave of human migration whereby members migrated southward to present-day India and Pakistan (Genographic Project by the National Geographic Society; http://www.nationalgeographic.com/). Indians and Pakistanis have the same ancestry and share the same DNA sequence. Here's what is happening in India:

The two Ambani brothers can buy 100 percent of every company listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) and would still be left with $30 billion to spare. The four richest Indians can buy up all goods and services produced over a year by 169 million Pakistanis and still be left with $60 billion to spare. The four richest Indians are now richer than the forty richest Chinese.

In November, Bombay Stock Exchange's benchmark Sensex flirted with 20,000 points. As a consequence, Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries became a $100 billion company (the entire KSE is capitalized at $65 billion). Mukesh owns 48 percent of Reliance.

In November, comes Neeta's birthday. Neeta turned forty-four three weeks ago. Look what she got from her husband as her birthday present: A sixty-million dollar jet with a custom fitted master bedroom, bathroom with mood lighting, a sky bar, entertainment cabins, satellite television, wireless communication and a separate cabin with game consoles. Neeta is Mukesh Ambani's wife, and Mukesh is not India's richest but the second richest.

Mukesh is now building his new home, Residence Antillia (after a mythical, phantom island somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean). At a cost of $1 billion this would be the most expensive home on the face of the planet. At 173 meters tall Mukesh's new family residence, for a family of six, will be the equivalent of a 60-storeyed building. The first six floors are reserved for parking. The seventh floor is for car servicing and maintenance. The eighth floor houses a mini-theatre. Then there's a health club, a gym and a swimming pool. Two floors are reserved for Ambani family's guests. Four floors above the guest floors are family floors all with a superb view of the Arabian Sea. On top of everything are three helipads. A staff of 600 is expected to care for the family and their family home.

In 2004, India became the 3rd most attractive foreign direct investment destination. Pakistan wasn't even in the top 25 countries. In 2004, the United Nations, the representative body of 192 sovereign member states, had requested the Election Commission of India to assist the UN in the holding of elections in Al Jumhuriyah al Iraqiyah and Dowlat-e Eslami-ye Afghanestan. Why the Election Commission of India and not the Election Commission of Pakistan? After all, Islamabad is closer to Kabul than is Delhi.

Imagine, 12 percent of all American scientists are of Indian origin; 38 percent of doctors in America are Indian; 36 percent of NASA scientists are Indians; 34 percent of Microsoft employees are Indians; and 28 percent of IBM employees are Indians.

For the record: Sabeer Bhatia created and founded Hotmail. Sun Microsystems was founded by Vinod Khosla. The Intel Pentium processor, that runs 90 percent of all computers, was fathered by Vinod Dham. Rajiv Gupta co-invented Hewlett Packard's E-speak project. Four out of ten Silicon Valley start-ups are run by Indians. Bollywood produces 800 movies per year and six Indian ladies have won Miss Universe/Miss World titles over the past 10 years.

For the record: Azim Premji, the richest Muslim entrepreneur on the face of the planet, was born in Bombay and now lives in Bangalore. India now has more than three dozen billionaires; Pakistan has none (not a single dollar billionaire).

The other amazing aspect is the rapid pace at which India is creating wealth. In 2002, Dhirubhai Ambani, Mukesh and Anil Ambani's father, left his two sons a fortune worth $2.8 billion. In 2007, their combined wealth stood at $94 billion. On 29 October 2007, as a result of the stock market rally and the appreciation of the Indian rupee, Mukesh became the richest person in the world, with net worth climbing to US$63.2 billion (Bill Gates, the richest American, stands at around $56 billion).

Indians and Pakistanis have the same Y-chromosome haplogroup. We have the same genetic sequence and the same genetic marker (namely: M124). We have the same DNA molecule, the same DNA sequence. Our culture, our traditions and our cuisine are all the same. We watch the same movies and sing the same songs. What is it that Indians do and we don't: Indians elect their leaders.

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

Link: Capital suggestion (http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=85171)

One of my favourite Pakistani writers because he talks logically and with facts and numbers. Unlike most of them who rant and rave incoherently blaming all and sundry, sometimes getting so carried away that they contradict themselves multiple times withing the same piece.

How do those Pakistanis who think they are Arabians or Central Aseans or Persians or some exotic strain of humanity (credit: Ray sir) react to this scientific discovery? :))

Or is it another Hindu/Jewish conspiracy? ;)

Vinod2070
09 Dec 07,, 14:35
And BTW, does anyone know what this study says about the difference in genetics within India? This whole Aryan/Dravidian thing?

Tronic
09 Dec 07,, 17:34
And BTW, does anyone know what this study says about the difference in genetics within India? This whole Aryan/Dravidian thing?

It is only a racial theory created by the British; one of their divide and rule tactics; to turn South Indians against North Indians. :rolleyes:

Adux
09 Dec 07,, 19:46
And BTW, does anyone know what this study says about the difference in genetics within India? This whole Aryan/Dravidian thing?

Oh, I am creating a mix, My girlfriend is sindi/ so called aryan mix(lol) and I am dravidian. New Race. I was damn close to making a new viking/scotish-Dravidian Race...lol, I wonder how that would have turn out.


Adu

Tronic
09 Dec 07,, 21:45
Oh, I am creating a mix, My girlfriend is sindi/ so called aryan mix(lol) and I am dravidian. New Race. I was damn close to making a new viking/scotish-Dravidian Race...lol, I wonder how that would have turn out.


Adu
How many "races" do you plan to make? :P

Adux
10 Dec 07,, 04:03
How many "races" do you plan to make? :P

The world is my little lab.

Vinod2070
10 Dec 07,, 04:24
It is only a racial theory created by the British; one of their divide and rule tactics; to turn South Indians against North Indians. :rolleyes:

As was the AIT as we believe in India. ;)

But any idea what this study specifically says about the migration pattrens of the different Indian people? Does it say for example that the Dravidians (sic) came to India before the Aryans (sic)?

Jay
10 Dec 07,, 16:33
Yes, read about Spencer Wells's "Journey of the man" expedition. I'm not sure of the Aryan/Dravidian classification, but the migration did happen in waves.

Vinod2070
10 Dec 07,, 16:47
Great. Any idea when did this whole Aryan/Dravidian thing really start? As Tronic said, is it something that came into being after the British came here or South Indians considered themselves separate from the North Indians (in race terms) before the British came?

Of course I am aware that South India had for the most part its own empires which were mostly independent of their northern counterparts but there were always a lot of commonalities in culture.

In other words, was this concept of a separate race something that is very recent in origin inspired by the good British or it was part of our consciousness before they came?

Vinod2070
10 Dec 07,, 17:36
Just came across the following:


60,000 years ago the world was in the grip of an ice age. So a lot of land mass was uncovered which is now buried in the sea and that is how I believe our ancestors travelled. This was the first migration wave. I believe that the ancestors of Australian aborigines come from here. The second wave took place 45,000 years ago. Southern Indians trace their ancestors from here. What is remarkable is that they survived although temperatures could reach minus 100 degrees.

Link: Indiantelevision dot com's Tete-a-tete with geneticist Dr Spencer Wells (http://www.indiantelevision.com/special/y2k2/ncg-t.htm)

veera8
11 Jan 08,, 09:16
the Human race originated from Africa and in that context all the countries only has settled population ....no country gives any foot abt this ,except INDIA ......