Pakistans Stolen History

First of all Pakistan has less than 60 years of history, thats a known fact. If Pakistan could learn to respect their neighbors maybe Ved Pratap would be in Pakistan talking about Panini being a Pakistani?

Again, I was not referring to the land that Pakistan was founded on today (which is 100s of millions of years old), but the established nation of Qaad e Azam's Pakistan.

Ahmad Shah Durrani's empire was not based in Punjab, but in Kandahar.   He may have been born in Multan, but as you know, there are many Pashtuns in Multan, and at that time, it was under the rule of the Afsharids, the most notable commander of which was Ahmad Shah Sadozai, who's father also served the Turco-Persians before him.

Like the Taj Mahal, real historians can tell you that civilization was not made by one society alone, but many working together. The Taj Mahal was built by workers from what is today Iran, Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan. I don't even think it would be a stretch to believe that under all those major masons and artisans there were also numerous Hindu laborers as well.    

Edited by Afghanan - 26-Dec-2006 at 15:17

Spartan I agree that the history belongs to the people of Pakistan and yes India also is only as old as when Britain gave them control. Just remember locally we don't know India as India, but Hindustan, and they can call the Delhi Sultanate "Indian" but we all know the Sultan was Turk, and/or Afghan, and more importantly Muslim, not Hindu. In fact, just like Afghanistan is ethnically a misnomer for Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, Hindustan is a misnomer for the Muslim population that ruled the Hindus as Kings for hundreds of years.

Pakistanis and Indian citizens themselves are a diverse nation made up of many different ethnicities fused with others.

The Punjabis are a mix of the original Dravidian population mixed with the Aryans, the Sakas, the Parthians, the Huns, the Persians, the Turks. The Sindhis also have a vast genetic and ethnic history. As are the Afghans who are vast tribe of Pashto speakers of many different backgrounds some Bactrian, Scythian, Tocharian, Aryan, Hun, Turkic (Qezelbash, Timuri, Khalaj,Uzbek), Tajik, Nuristani, etc.

If they want to call all the Delhi Sultans as "Indian" by all means go ahead, but the history behind that will show that (for example) Ibrahim Khan Lodhi was Afghan, and he created a dynasty in Hindustan. It has nothing to do with India or Pakistan today, and yet both are free to honor or keep that history as their own.
    

Edited by Afghanan - 26-Dec-2006 at 19:39

I think you're giving wikipedia way too much credit. Anybody can go on there and change the facts.

it is wrong to put either indian or pakistani tag to indus valley civilisation. it was the first urban civilisation of the subcontinent(perhaps we can stop calling it the indian subcontinent) with its heart in the indus valley and its influence streching far far east and south.afganisthan, india and pakistan need to study indus valley civilisation together to understand this shared ancient heritage. i will severly criticize any indian who says that IVC is solely an indian heritage.

Originally posted by DocStaph This post is absurd. Pakistan has no history. More correct statement would be Pakistan without a history. Pakistan a country born of british imperliast, now its a threat to the sourrounding nations. Rather then to work together and build a unity with other nations, its constantly causing havoc.

In India, we have historical fora like Indian History Congress etc., where history has been "secularized". All big-big historians like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Bipan Chandra etc., would come there. In fact most of them are members.

 

Do Palistanis have such fora and "historical studies" have been "secularized" or otherwise?

 

In such process, all the Mohammedan / Moghul rulers are considered "Indian" only.

Afghanan
The word India has existed for less than 200 years, and the word wasnt used to refer to a country, but a subcontinent. Like say, Europe.

Persians, Arabs, Chinese. Nobody called it India, and they didnt group everyone in south Asia together either.

@M. Nachiappan

Actually Pakistan does. And thats not the only thing. The Americans refer to the IVC and Pakistan related history as "Pakistan Studies"

But I have just provided sources for Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. Surely thats gotta mean something to people.

The word wasnt India. Thats British.

But they did use a word similar to group everyone in South Asia, just like they used a word similar to Libya to group everyone in Africa.

The Greek Geography is as bad as it comes. It cant be used for anything practical.

The region of South Asia has always been there. But United? Not before the Brits.

And why do we you insist on using Greek Geography? They didnt prove to be any scholars did they?
Why not use the fact that the people of South Asia were never united as 1 nation, and therefore cannot be grouped together to give the impression that they were of one nation?

The current situation makes no sense, and by using Greek Geography, it makes even more No sense.

South Asia has had 100s of dynasties in its time.

In the mid 1800s Brits Invade and group everyone in South Asia together.

In 1947, TWO successor states emerge, however, despite objections, one of them seem to be under the impression that they are the only successor state.
And even though this united South Asia is less than 250 years old and existed less than 200 years, they claim the 5000 year old history of a region, which is not even IN the so called "superior" successor state of British Raj which existed less than 250 years ago.

Get it???