Pakistan ,Two Nation Theory and a few lies

[ajaybhutani]

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]

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]

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 ?

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 ! )...what a choice to make up your mind for...

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]

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]

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/artic...asp?artid=A129

[Ray]

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]

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.



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.




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/g...4/01/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]

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) ....



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]

Jay;
its 7000 years (SEVEN THOUSAND) and NOT 70,000 years (SEVENTY THOUSAND) ....

You just quoted a random number, so did I

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]

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]

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]

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]

I already did. Mughals (Afghans) are Indians, Pallavas (Persians) are Indians too.

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

[Jay]

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??

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

[ajaybhutani]

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..