Is Pakistan The Real India ?

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

You are trying to reason with guys who still are looking for answers after 72 years.they still ask Pakistan ka mathlab Kya ?

La ilaha ila Allah.

Still heard in Kashmir today.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

He never said we shared no history, but yes he did say the other things and he was and still is correct.

Being from the Indus was also a significant factor during partition, hence why we are called Pakistan (which stands for the Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and the "tan" comes from Baluchistan).

With all due respect, the Indus did not have an effect on the creation of Pakistan. If it did, Jinnah would not had been so adamant on Bangladesh being part of Pakistan. He also wanted Muslim majority parts of UP and Assam to be part of Pakistan, even though they are not part of the Indus. I think it was CHaudhary Rehmat Ali who came up with the Indus idea though

As for the Scythians and Khushans, they only ruled small parts of India for short periods of time. For the past 10 thousand years, only in the last millennium has major parts of India been ruled by foreigners.

I am not sure what you mean by Aryans, as that is a vague and scientifically incorrect term. I was just saying for most of India's history, India was ruled by indigenous Indian empires such as the Mauryans, Guptas, Cholas, etc.

And I am pretty sure Lahore has some fine Mughal monuments, but none of them are as visited as the Taj and Red fort.

The last sovereign of bangal bulk of Ganges plains beforw annexation by British was nawab serajudulah
Nawabs of dekan ruled right upto partition
Delhi sultanant and mughals rule whole India including ganges plains for 800 years

India and hindu r names given by others not forged by those who claim to be it
Let them keep it if it pleases em
We choose our own destiny our own name !!!

By Bengal, you mean Bangladesh.
And the rest of your post is BS. The DS never ruled South and East India, and the Mughals only did for a short period of time under Aurangzeb before the Mughals got defeated by the Maratthas.

 

[Hamza913]

With all due respect, the Indus did not have an effect on the creation of Pakistan. If it did, Jinnah would not had been so adamant on Bangladesh being part of Pakistan. He also wanted Muslim majority parts of UP and Assam to be part of Pakistan, even though they are not part of the Indus. I think it was CHaudhary Rehmat Ali who came up with the Indus idea though

As for the Scythians and Khushans, they only ruled small parts of India for short periods of time. For the past 10 thousand years, only in the last millennium has major parts of India been ruled by foreigners.

I am not sure what you mean by Aryans, as that is a vague and scientifically incorrect term. I was just saying for most of India's history, India was ruled by indigenous Indian empires such as the Mauryans, Guptas, Cholas, etc.

And I am pretty sure Lahore has some fine Mughal monuments, but none of them are as visited as the Taj and Red fort.

Yes it did, hence why Rehmat Ali envisioned Bangladesh as being a separate nation. He wasn't the only one either, Iqbal envisioned Pakistan revolving around the Indus region too.

No, they both ruled significant portions of Hindustan:

For most of post AD history, large portions of India were ruled by outsiders.

I guarantee all Mughal monuments in Pakistan would be more frequently visited if they existed in Hindustan rather than Pakistan. Blunt truth is nobody really likes Muslims.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Yes it did, hence why Rehmat Ali envisioned Bangladesh as being a separate nation. He wasn't the only one either, Iqbal envisioned Pakistan revolving around the Indus region too.

No, they both ruled significant portions of Hindustan:

For most of post AD history, large portions of India were ruled by outsiders.

I guarantee all Mughal monuments in Pakistan would be more frequently visited if they existed in Hindustan rather than Pakistan. Blunt truth is nobody really likes Muslims.

As you can see they ruled a small percentage of India than Pakistan, and for less time. For most of history, India was ruled by empires such as the Guptas, Mauryas, and Choloas.

 

[Hamza913]

As you can see they ruled a small percentage of India than Pakistan, and for less time. For most of history, India was ruled by empires such as the Guptas, Mauryas, and Choloas.

The amount of Hindustan ruled by these empires seems significant enough imo.

Muslim Empire's seem to have ruled Hindustan for longer in my opinion.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

The amount of Hindustan ruled by these empires seems significant enough imo.

Muslim Empire's seem to have ruled Hindustan for longer in my opinion.

Muslim Empires ruled large parts of India for about the same time Mauryans, Guptas, Gujjars, and Maratthas ruled large parts of Pakistan. I guess "large" and "significant" are subjective terms

 

[khanmubashir]

With all due respect, the Indus did not have an effect on the creation of Pakistan. If it did, Jinnah would not had been so adamant on Bangladesh being part of Pakistan. He also wanted Muslim majority parts of UP and Assam to be part of Pakistan, even though they are not part of the Indus. I think it was CHaudhary Rehmat Ali who came up with the Indus idea though

As for the Scythians and Khushans, they only ruled small parts of India for short periods of time. For the past 10 thousand years, only in the last millennium has major parts of India been ruled by foreigners.

I am not sure what you mean by Aryans, as that is a vague and scientifically incorrect term. I was just saying for most of India's history, India was ruled by indigenous Indian empires such as the Mauryans, Guptas, Cholas, etc.

And I am pretty sure Lahore has some fine Mughal monuments, but none of them are as visited as the Taj and Red fort.


By Bengal, you mean Bangladesh.
And the rest of your post is BS. The DS never ruled South and East India, and the Mughals only did for a short period of time under Aurangzeb before the Mughals got defeated by the Maratthas.

Well for me of past 10000 years humanity lived in small groups no lstge nstion or empires
Your maurya and Gupta empires existed barely a century each and bc times while Delhi sultanant 3 and mughal 5 centuries right upto industrial age
Aryan themselves by your definition r outsider came from Central Asia Google Aryan invasion theory
And those hindu lands which weren't directly under Muslim rule were mostly vasal states in most of those 800 years

With all due respect, the Indus did not have an effect on the creation of Pakistan. If it did, Jinnah would not had been so adamant on Bangladesh being part of Pakistan. He also wanted Muslim majority parts of UP and Assam to be part of Pakistan, even though they are not part of the Indus. I think it was CHaudhary Rehmat Ali who came up with the Indus idea though

As for the Scythians and Khushans, they only ruled small parts of India for short periods of time. For the past 10 thousand years, only in the last millennium has major parts of India been ruled by foreigners.

I am not sure what you mean by Aryans, as that is a vague and scientifically incorrect term. I was just saying for most of India's history, India was ruled by indigenous Indian empires such as the Mauryans, Guptas, Cholas, etc.

And I am pretty sure Lahore has some fine Mughal monuments, but none of them are as visited as the Taj and Red fort.


By Bengal, you mean Bangladesh.
And the rest of your post is BS. The DS never ruled South and East India, and the Mughals only did for a short period of time under Aurangzeb before the Mughals got defeated by the Maratthas.

And isn't Bangal Bangladesh major part of Ganges/brahmaputra plains

 

[YeBeWarned]

Pakistan is Pakistan ... India is India ... end of discussion

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Well for me of past 10000 years humanity lived in small groups no lstge nstion or empires
Your maurya and Gupta empires existed barely a century each and bc times while Delhi sultanant 3 and mughal 5 centuries right upto industrial age
Aryan themselves by your definition r outsider came from Central Asia Google Aryan invasion theory
And those hindu lands which weren't directly under Muslim rule were mostly vasal states in most of those 800 years


And isn't Bangal Bangladesh major part of Ganges/brahmaputra plains

The Mauryan and Guptas did not last barely a century. Combined, they ruled over most of India for almost 1000 years. Of course, they ruled over modern day Pakistan for a shorter period of time. Also remember that even the Dehli Sultanate and Mughals never ruled South India for a long time because of the Vijayanagar Empire. After Vijayanagar fell, the Nizams took over until the Marathas rose to power. As for the AIT, there are several flaws with that. Yes, most North Indians do have some Persian/Central Asian DNA, but that does not make them foreigners. and yes, Bengal is within the delta of Ganga and Brahmaputra, but it has historically been distinct from north India.

 

[khanmubashir]

The Mauryan and Guptas did not last barely a century. Combined, they ruled over most of India for almost 1000 years. Of course, they ruled over modern day Pakistan for a shorter period of time. Also remember that even the Dehli Sultanate and Mughals never ruled South India for a long time because of the Vijayanagar Empire. After Vijayanagar fell, the Nizams took over until the Marathas rose to power. As for the AIT, there are several flaws with that. Yes, most North Indians do have some Persian/Central Asian DNA, but that does not make them foreigners. and yes, Bengal is within the delta of Ganga and Brahmaputra, but it has historically been distinct from north India.

That's the point deary the craddle of North India is Indus valley which we have and Bengal is end of sounth India of Ganges plains which was under musliM rule for centuries

And your 1000 year empire clsim is bs
most of those 1000 years they existed as small regional kingdoms they became large empire and remained to be so for just a century or so
And your kingdom did payed off mughals for centuries and was vessel before properly annexed into it

The Mauryan and Guptas did not last barely a century. Combined, they ruled over most of India for almost 1000 years. Of course, they ruled over modern day Pakistan for a shorter period of time. Also remember that even the Dehli Sultanate and Mughals never ruled South India for a long time because of the Vijayanagar Empire. After Vijayanagar fell, the Nizams took over until the Marathas rose to power. As for the AIT, there are several flaws with that. Yes, most North Indians do have some Persian/Central Asian DNA, but that does not make them foreigners. and yes, Bengal is within the delta of Ganga and Brahmaputra, but it has historically been distinct from north India.

And ait has been proven from Dana evidence to historical and cultural
Only hindutva nationalist don't believe it for obvious redicule for there xenophobia

 

[Cobra Arbok]

That's the point deary the craddle of North India is Indus valley which we have and Bengal is end of sounth India of Ganges plains which was under musliM rule for centuries

And your 1000 year empire clsim is bs
most of those 1000 years they existed as small regional kingdoms they became large empire and remained to be so for just a century or so
And your kingdom did payed off mughals for centuries and was vessel before properly annexed into it


And ait has been proven from Dana evidence to historical and cultural
Only hindutva nationalist don't believe it for obvious redicule for there xenophobia

What are you talking about? North India and the Indus Valley do share cultural similarities, but they are two different civilizations. As for Bengal, we have Kolkata, the historical and cultural capital of Bengal. You do realize the Mauryan and Gupta Empires were two of the strongest empires to exist in the subcontinent? And yes, North India was ruled by Dehli Sultanate and Mughals for a couple Centuries, but It was taken by the Marathas be the 17th century. In fact, many of the Muslim kingdoms of the Deccan such as Hyderabad and Mysore actually paid tribute to the Marathas, similar to how kingdoms as far as Afghanistan payed tribute to the Mauryans and Guptas. Maybe some small Hindu States(mainly in Central India) paid tribute to the Mughals, but that is insignificant. The point is for the greater part of its 10,000 year history, modern day India was dominated by indigenous Empires, from the Mauryans to the Guptas to the Cholas and Vijayanagar to the Marathas. You cant say the same about Pakistan.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

The ancient ancient India is history.
What we have today is the republic of India and two other muslim countries.

 

[Srinivas]

Trying to steal identity from us ... Lol!

Pakistanis are the most confused people and it is their own doing.

 

[Politico]

You people are different sides of the same coin. When I read posts on PDF, I realise that the backward and farmish mentality of most Desi males (even educated ones) are the same.

 

[Hamza913]

Muslim Empires ruled large parts of India for about the same time Mauryans, Guptas, Gujjars, and Maratthas ruled large parts of Pakistan. I guess "large" and "significant" are subjective terms

No they didn't. You had the Ghurids, Khiliji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, Lodi Sultanate and Mughal Empire all rule over significant portions of Hindustan. That lasted much longer than the extremely short lived Gupta and Maratha control over Pakistan (the former also only ever controlled parts of the Punjab and Sindh), and the Mauryan rule over Pakistan (Chandragupta himself may have had ancestry from KPK, and his tutor Kautilya was from Taxila).

The Gujara-Pratihara's also never ruled over Pakistan.

Trying to steal identity from us ... Lol!

Says the monkey who's country named itself after a river flowing through his worst enemy.

Seems like Stockholm syndrome at work to me, you've been invaded so many times by people from the Indus that you think you actually have a connection to the land.