Thread: Pakistan ,Two Nation Theory and a few lies

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 ? .

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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 ...

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/a...an_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.

Originally Posted by visioninthedark

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.thefreedictionar...ushan%20Empire

I hink, you do know where Mathura is.

Originally Posted by visioninthedark

Well Sir,

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

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









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..

Originally Posted by tarek

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.

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 ...

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.

Originally Posted by visioninthedark

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.. ???....

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

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.

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
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.