during the Hindu period it was the people of the Indus Valley in the West and the Padma-Meghna Delta in the East that mostly emerged triumphant. Both the wings remained independent of Gangetic Valley and in fact Pakistan-based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than India has ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ------ cultural, commercial as well as political ---- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that these two wings became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by the two wings. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the sub-continent took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. I shall quote a few passages from history to substantiate my statement.
"At the close of Samudragupta’s triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith).
"Harsha’s subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid)
"The Gurjara empire of Bhoja may be defined as, on the north, the foot of the mountains; on the northwest, the Sutlej; on the west the Hakra or the ‘lost-river’ forming the boundary of Sind." (Ibid).
"The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is extremely obscure. At some time, not recorded, a powerful kingdom had been formed, which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra of lost-river, so that it comprised a large part of the Punjab, as well as probably northern Sind." (Ibid)
"Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown)
The above quotations amply prove that none of the periods of its greatest expansion did India succeed in occupying Pakistan. The only exception is the Maurya period in the 3rd century BC when Asoka’s empire is said to have extended up to the Hindu Kush, north of Kabul. Even in this isolated case of the Mauryas, historians are aware that Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who hailed from Pakistan (Punjab), did not get Pakistan by conquest but by diplomacy from the Greek rulers who had succeeded Alexander.
As pointed out by more than one writer, the five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that its independence had been a rule while its subservience to or attachment with India an exception. "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer’s nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee)
During its five thousand-year known history, Pakistan has been subservient to Central Indian governments only during the Maurya, the Turko-Afghan and British periods who were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian respectively. While the Mauryan (300-200 BC) and British (1848-1947) periods lasted barely a hundred years each, the turko-Afghan period was the longest covering a span of 500 years.
Here we come across an important ideological point. All the three religions i.e. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which succeeded in uniting the sub-continent under the Maurya, Turko-Afghan and British rulers stood for universal brotherhood and were spread all over the world. In the context of ideology, the implications are obvious i.e., only people believing in universal brotherhood could unite and hold this sub-continent together. Otherwise Pakistan’s independence could never be challenged nor its people subdued by India’s Hindu Governments.
This message has been edited by cygnus151 on May 7, 2004 2:22 AM
You possibly cannot believe the total bull**** in that article, you have always been India, you are on land known as India. Government being one on the land or several doesn't make any difference.
The original center of Indian civilization was around River Sindhu (Indus), and then, it shifted to River Ganga. Even then, you are part of India, you are a center of Indian civilization, you are the first India.
As for when India was under 1 government, the rest of the country has the same story. Then I can say, that Bengal was never part of India except Mauryas, Guptas and Mughals, then I can say that Bihar was never part of India except Mauryas, Guptas and Mughals.
Also, the concept of Pakistan takes into account that India is the one landmass, and that there are two Indias, a Hindu one, and a Muslim one.
The creation of Pakistan wasn't a secession of Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis and Baluchis from the landmass, but it was a religion-fueled secession. Sorry thing for the concept of Pakistan, is that only 5% of the modern Pakistan consists of Mojadirs, meaning the idea was rejected by the rest.
Therefore, Pakistan accepts that BharatVarsha is one land, and that Pakistan is one of the two nations in there. I dunno where you land up with this bull****, I got this from encarta.com, do an India search, read the first paragraph.
India’s history begins not with independence in 1947, but more than 4,500 years earlier, when the name India referred to the entire subcontinent, including present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. The earliest of India’s known civilizations, the Indus Valley civilization (about 2500 to 1700 bc), was known for its highly specialized artifacts and stretched throughout northern India. Another early culture—the Vedic culture—dates from approximately 1500 bc and is considered one of the sources for India’s predominantly Hindu culture and for the foundation of several important philosophical traditions. India has been subject to influxes of peoples throughout its history, some coming under arms to loot and conquer, others moving in to trade and settle. India was able to absorb the impact of these intrusions because it was able to assimilate or tolerate foreign ideas and people. Outsiders who came to India during the course of its history include the Greeks under Alexander the Great, the Kushânas from Central Asia, the Mongols under Genghis Khan, Muslim traders and invaders from the Middle East and Central Asia, and finally the British and other Europeans. India also disseminated its civilization outward to Sri Lanka and much of Southeast Asia. Buddhism, which originated in India, spread even farther.
Central to Indian history are the people of India who established complex political systems, whether local kingdoms or mighty empires, in which learning and religion flourished. Until the modern industrial era, India was a land famed for its economic as well as cultural wealth. Europeans visited the country to trade for the finest cotton textiles as well as spices. Eventually, the British colonized the region. Their exploitation of India’s economic wealth and the subsequent destruction of its indigenous industry provoked and then fueled a nationalist movement, eventually forcing the British to grant India (partitioned into India and Pakistan) its independence in 1947. Since that time India has developed into a vibrant democracy, making slow but steady progress in development.
Sad thing about the state of Pakistan, is that it was founded, exists and is fueled on paranoia.
Reason for Pakistan getting acceptance amongst that 5%, was that paranoia. The Muslims feared that in an independent India, the Hindus would rule, and it would become a Hindu India.
Look at this article posted by my dear friend Cygnus, talks of how a "Hindu" India cannot unite the sub-continent, first of all, where is this Hindu India?
This is extremely strange, the nation was founded by feeding paranoia into the people. Historically, there have been no examples of Hindu repression on Muslims, and always, the exact opposite, starting from Mahmud of Ghauri, to Tamerlane, to Aurangzeb. Therefore, I don't see how the leaders can say, "If you stay with India, beware, our grandparents had lived through the Hindu Rajya of Maharana X. (no such example in history) who used to pick up our women, tear their purdah and rape them in front of their eyes."
Rather, it will have to be the opposite.
Therefore, where does this paranoia rise out of?
And the sad thing is, the leaders of Pakistan cannot accept the failure of its ideology where it sees more Muslims in India, living equally, freely and better off.
They don't want young men like Cygnus here, to question the legitimacy of Pakistan's sovereignty. Therefore, they live in the disillusionment that after Partition, the land over the border is a Hindu Rajya, and they brainwash young men like Cygnus here, in believing that, because other than fears of a Hindu Raj, Pakistan can stand nowhere.
Now, that even the brainwashing doesn't work, they are saying they are totally different from the rest of the landmass.
You know who really has a right to think they are different? The ones in the north-east.
Define to me, how an Indian looks.
I'll tell you how an Indian looks. Anyone born within the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean, in the land of Bharat, the historical land known as Bharat, the term used to describe the sub-continent, is what an Indian looks like. There is no right or wrong here, everyone is Indian.
How is this on Persian territory? The only part that is Persia in there, is called Persian Core Territory in the map.
If you think that the entire green place is Persia, you have issues, there is a difference between nation and empire. Does Turkey fall under Persia? Better yet, does Persia fall under Arabia? Does Persia fall under Mongolia? Hahaha!!
And this is India (this empire goes faaaaaaar beyond Indus and tributaries, this is in Persian core territory, is this India?
Historical border, Shindhu River
LOL, this is the Mughal Empire, they don't even bother to show the western ending, lol, imagine yourselves crushed in between Ottoman Turks and Mughal Indians.
padishah, u not even persian, i know ur a paki, cause no way in world would persians ever be in to this paki stuff, u little wanna-be,. hey sarkal mezaney, agye parsian haste veleshoon kon, paki mesle ma ke nestan, na faghat shekleshoon. Nemedoonam chera hey magburi ke hamash bege paki ya hindu ane ma hastan. baba hich irani, agye shoma irani hasteen, injuree fek nemekoonan. fahmede man che goftam ya rahste shoma irani nestid?
This message has been edited by Pahlavi on May 11, 2004 8:15 PM
first off arab aan, its parsi, next up, man to amerika motavalid shodam, `ehameat nadaram agye shoma fek mekoonen man afghan hastam bekhatarenki man khodam medoonam man bakhtiari hastam, arab sag. shoma agar mesle man inja motavlid shode bad pedaret hamash englise sohbat mekard be andaze e man ham farsi nemedoonestid. shayad farsiam khoob nest vale dare batar meshe, also man farsi beshtar baladam befamam az ta begam ya benevesam, omidvaram ki eni daar karde. BAKHTIARIAH IRANIAH ASEL HASTAN!
This message has been edited by Pahlavi on May 12, 2004 7:58 PM
