he Indus valley Civilization existed in what is today Pakistan. Pakistan is the natural inheritor of the Indus Valley Civilization, just like modern day China is the natural inheritor of the Chinese civilization (not called China then), and modern day Egypt in the natural inheritor of the Egyptian civilization (not called Egypt then). “Indus-valley-istan” existed 5000 years ago. Pakistan existed 5000 years ago, even though it was not called Pakistan. This is the geographic two nation theory.
Long before the Crescent and Star flew atop Islamabad, long before Mohammed Bin Qasim invaded Sind, and long before the Mughals spread prosperity in all the nooks and corners of the subcontinent, long before the Sikh dynasty briefly controlled Kashmir, and long before the Chundra Gupta Vikramadatya ruled India, the people of Punjab, Sindh, Sarhad, andKashmir were tied together as the people of Pakistan.
IVC existed only in the Western part of the subcontinent, almost exclusively on the banks of the Indus (current day Pakistan). Therefore current day Pakistanis are inheritors of the IVC. There was a civilization in present day Pakistan. “India” did not exist 5000 years ago. The Sumerians called it Meluhha and Mekan. We don’t know what they called it. No one can be sure. “Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago in the IVC, even though the IVC probably did not call it Pakistan.
One cannot accept the Lebanese, and the Syrian, and Cypriotic claim to the Egyptian civilization, and one cannot accept the Japanese claim to the original Chinese civilization. Similarly once cannot accept the “Delhi’s” claim to the IVC. The “Bharati” claim to the IVC is by association. The Egyptian claim to the “Egyptian” civilization is by geography.
There is a section of the Revanchist Bharati population that wants to describe the IVC as a Hindu civilization and then try to extend the boundaries of present day Bharat by claiming that the land from the Oxus to the mythical marker East of Bali called Raj Kilhani all belongs to Bharat. Of course a lot the revisionist history is “hocus pocus mambo jumbo” made inside temples.
The left-leaning Indian news magazine Frontline carried Farmer’s and Witzel’s article in a cover story titled “Horseplay in Harappa – In the ‘Piltdown Horse’ hoax, Hindutva propagandists make a little Sanskrit go a long way”. The article debunked sensational claims in 1999 that the Indus script had been “deciphered” by N S Rajaram and Natwar Jha.
The motive of this fraud was to prove that the Indus civilization was an early Hindu civilization. As proof, Rajaram and Jha produced an Indus Valley “horse” seal as evidence that the Indus people used horses, an animal commonly mentioned in the Vedas, the ancient Indian texts dating to the 2ndmillennium BC – over 2,000 years later than the earliest dated Indus Valley seals. But no images of horses were found in the Indus Valley excavations, until Rajaram and Jha produced their horse seal.
Farmer and Witzel proved that the horse seal was a fraudulent computerized distortion of a broken “unicorn bull” seal. The fake horse seal was derided as the “Piltdown Horse”, an imaginary creation to fill the gap between the Harappan and Vedic cultures, just as the famous “Piltdown Man” did in 1912. That year, skeletal remains of the “missing link” between ape and man were “discovered” in Piltdown, a village in England. They were later found to be fake. Indus Valley code is cracked – maybe By Raja
Romila Thapar says:
“The Rgveda then is a pre-urban Chalcolethic culture it does not speak of any urban centres. It certainly does not speak of any settlements which have the characteristics of Harappan cities. For example there is no reference to citadel areas and residential areas, there is no reference to massive brick platforms on the top of which monuments are built. There is no reference to drainage systems or to streets or to granaries or warehouses or to a public bath or to a sophisticated exchange system or weights and measures on a graduated scale which was known as and described. To me these are the essential characteristics or Harappan urbanization and all these characteristics are absent in the Rgveda. You may have people saying ‘Oh’ but there were coins in the Rgveda and they mention the word ‘niska’. Now niska can be a coin as was in the later period but during this period judging by the descriptions it was simply a little decorative piece in precious metal. These essential characteristics that I have mentioned non of these are referred to or described in the Rgveda. The people of the Rgveda are then agro-pastoralists with small scale village societies essentially indulging in cattle raids and predatory raids.”
“…Then there is the centrality of the horse and the chariot. The horse which is totally absent on the seals of the Harappa culture – there are many other animals but the horse doesn’t occur. The horse is central to the Vedic texts. The horse is central both as a functional animal – the horse draws the chariot, the chariot means speed, so if you’re carrying out a raid, the more chariots you have the quicker you get there, you raid the particular place and you bring back the loot much faster than if you were going by bullock cart and bringing it back by bullock cart. That wouldn’t work – the horse is necessary.
Secondly, the horse is ritually very important. And I don’t have to remind you here that whereas for example in the Rig Veda the sacrifice of the horse is a fairly simple, straightforward ritual of sacrificing a horse, what it becomes in the later vedic texts as the Ashwamedha is another story. It is ritually extremely important. And you don’t get any reflection of this in the Harappan culture.
The beliefs of the IVC are totally irrelevant to the inheritors of the IVC. There is no conclusive proof of the beliefs of the IVC. Bainerjee andSir Edmund Hill, the two founding archeologists on the IVCclearly state in their writings, that the IVC people did not have any organized religion. No “Temples” have been discovered either in Moenjadaro or in Harappa or in Taxila. The ancient IVCculture, whether they worshipped anything or nothing is besides the point. The current day Egyptians are the inheritors of the ancient Egyptian civilization. The current day Egyptians are also Muslim. Are they going to be denied the right to claim the Egyptian civilization, just because they are Muslim? If one denies the Pakistanis the inheritance to the IVC, then you should go and challenge the Egyptians also. The ancient Egyptians ALSO participated in rituals that were Un-Islamic.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krJ4J5RWPCE&NR=1]
THE GEOGRAPHIC TWO NATION THEORY:
“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago: What was it called 5000 years ago?
These maps clearly show the existance of Pakistan 5000 years ago as the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC).
The IVCtraded with areas contiguous to it and to places as far as Hawaii.
This map shows more than 570 states in the Subcontinent. At this particular stage of the British Raj over the hundreds of states, most of Pakistan is not part of the Raj.
These maps tell us about the Pakistan the people of the Subcontinent struggled for, and asked for. It shows the Muslim majority areas of the Subcontinent.
This is the Indus Valley Civilization (Pakistan) which we have right now. Compared to the map of the IVC 5000 years ago, it is very similar. The Indus Valley Civilization is a living and thriving civilization andit exists today as Pakistan, just like Pakistan existed as the IVC thousands of years ago.
The first Pakistani implements have been discovered in Soan River valley dating back 150,000 years. Mehergarh in Baluchistan is the oldest arable landdating back 7000 years ago. This frame by frame evolution of Pakistan begining 4000BC. From the Indus Valley the Pakistani civilization helped evolve the Gangetic civilizaiton in India which came hundreds of years later. During the British reign the Subcontinent was broken up into more than 570 states. When the British left the states on the Indus banded together to form Paksitan, and those on the Gangetic vally got together to from “Bharat” (official name in the constitution).
PAKISTAN AS INHERITOR OF THE IVC
Let us see what the encyclopedias says about the Indus Valley and Pakistan:
Present-day Pakistan shares the 5,000-year historyof the India-Pakistan Subntinent. At present day Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, the Indus Valley Civilization, with large cities and elaborateirrigation systems, flourished c. 4,000-2,500 BC. Beginning with the Persians in the 6th century BC, andcontinuing with Alexander the Great and with the Sassanians, successive nations to the west ruled or influenced Pakistan, eventually separating the area from the Indian cultural sphere.The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1994
History. The area that is now Pakistan was the site of the INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION, the earliest known culture on the Indian subcontinent. Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
Pakistan (pàk´î-stàn´, pä´kî-stän´) Abbr. Pak.
A country of southern Asia. Occupying landcrisscrossed by ancient invasion paths, Pakistan was the home of the prehistoric Indus Valley civilization, which flourished until overrun by Aryans c. 1500 B.C. After being conquered by numerous rulers and powers, it passed to the British as part of India andbecame a separate Moslem state in 1947. The country originally included what is now Bangladesh, which declared its independence in 1971. Islamabad is the capital and Karachi the largest city. Population, 83,782,000. – Pak´istan´i (-stàn´ê, -stä´nê) adjective & noun
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Indus valley civilization, c.2500-c.1500 B.C., ancient civilization that flourished along the Indus R. in present-day Pakistan. Its chief cities were Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, where archaeologists have unearthed impressive public and private buildings that are evidence of a complex society based on a highly organized agriculture supplemented by active commerce. The arts flourished, and examples in copper, bronze, andpottery have been uncovered. Also found were examples of a pictograph script that long baffled archaeologists but was finally deciphered in 1969. The fate of the Indus valley civilization remains a mystery, but it is believed that it fell victim to invading Aryans.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
An urban civilization with a so-far-undeciphered writing system stretched across the Indus Valley and along the Arabian Sea c3000-1500 BC. Major sites are Harappa and Mohenjo-Daroin Pakistan, well-planned geometric cities with underground sewers andvast granaries. The entire region (600,000 sq. mi.) may have been ruled as a single state. Bronze was used, and arts and crafts were highly developed. Religious life apparently took the form of fertility cults.
Indus civilization was probably in decline when it was destroyed by Aryan invaders from the northwest, speaking an Indo-European language from which all the languages of Pakistan, north India andBangladesh descend. Led by a warrior aristocracy whose legendary deeds are recorded in the Rig Veda, the Aryans spread east and south, bringing their pantheon of sky gods, elaborate priestly (Brahmin) ritual, andthe beginnings of the caste system; local customs and beliefs were assimilated by the conquerors.
The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1994
Indus (în´des),chief river of Pakistan, c.1,900 mi (3,060 km) long, site of the prehistoric INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION. It rises in the TIBET region of China, flows west across Jammu andKASHMIR, India, then southwest through Pakistan, where it receives the “five waters” of the PUNJAB (the Chenab, Jhelum, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers), to an infertile clay delta on the Arabian Sea SE of Karachi. The unnavigable Indus is harnessed for irrigation and hydroelectricity by the Jinnah, Sukker, and Kotri dams. A treaty (1960) between India and Pakistan regulates withdrawals of water from the river and its tributaries.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia Anthropologists have observed that the present population of …Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only inference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences adduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominentamong them having very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population of India.
I call this the GEOGPRAHIC TWO NATION THEORY…and when I originally proposed it andposted it on the SCI it was met with a lot of hostility….Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan has now written a book on this subject Aitzaz Ahsan’s Indus run.
Some more water has gone down the Indus since Aitzaz Ahsan published his book. As the Indus does not flow – at least not so far – in the Washington area, it is only natural that the book which was placed in a bottle and consigned to the waters by the author somewhere near Wazirabadhas only found its way to these shores in the last few days.
The Indus reminds me of many good things. There used to be a watering hole at the hotel on The Mall in Lahore, which bears the name of the river, from whose cool recesses one summer afternoon, I had been summoned by the incomparable Prof G.M. Asar who by the time I arrived was in a most delightfully loquacious frame of mind, declaiming poetry in his rich and measured voice. His diction was so perfect that you could just learn English by listening to him, or Urdu for that matter.
But that is not the Indus Aitzaz Ahsan frequents – and who can blame him considering what has become of it. Or has written about. His book is about the river andthe region that now makes up Pakistan, what he calls the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient. His thesis, spun out over 350 pages, is simple but is it also true? One has to think because it is so perfectly formed, with no rough edges.
Truth, on the other hand, is often less meticulously packaged and is far more awkward to handle. Being the consummate lawyer the author is, the case is brilliantly argued.
Whether that makes him right as well is an open question. The basic idea of the book is that India and Indus have always been two distinct entities or regions in terms of civilisation and culture, their differences being “primordial and many”. Religion has not been the dividing line, only one of the factors. And since there was and is an Indus, there is also an “Indus person” who, poor creature, is the mess he is today because he has been “deprived of his heroes, nay, of himself and he has not gained much in the bargain.” So what is he then? The answer, if it please their lordships, is that “……he remains a family man, an enlightened non-fundamentalist Muslim, and a brave soldier (I knew there were khakis lurking somewhere in there)…. he is an ostentatious consumerist, a bad administrator and devoid of civic sense and responsibility.” That does it for me. Consumerist is best rendered by the national. Punjabi philosophy: Khao, piyo te jan banao. Or eat, drink and develop your biceps. Or one better:
Khao, piyo te paghrai na dyo. Eat, drink and don’t get caught.
The author tells us that apart from poets, mystics and warriors, it is the River Indus and its tributaries that have shaped the Indus person. Since no one is perfect, this being has developed certain defects, though none that cannot be cured. The book has been an attempt to highlight his strengths and develop his original potential. Once that happens, there is no reason why the Indus person and the India person cannot live in peace, amity and eternal goodwill. I will drink any amount of spiked Indus water to that.
The Indus person, Aitzaz Ahsan asserts, is a good soldier but a lousy administrator, an observation, let’s hope Mr Shahbaz Sharif remains unaware of, otherwise I can hear his
big bulldoze brigade beating bongo drums and moving towards Bank Square, Lahore, where the author keeps an office.
The Indus person, we are told, is a good soldier because he has “lived in the path of marauders who have come to burn his crops and villages.” Ahsan maintains that the “untiring Aryans”, the “savage Huns”, Alexander himself, the “unrelenting invaders” from Ghazni and Afghanistan, not to forget “the scourge of the earth” Taimuror the “ferocious” Nadir Shah, were given a tasteof their own medicine, or their own steel, by the Indus people. This is somewhat amazing because the received wisdom on the valour of this region, especially Punjab, is that in the event of an invasion, the inhabitants were lined up ten deep on their side waving garlands, pointing towards Delhi and shouting as they bowed from the waist: “Light of the Universe, Most Exalted Majesty, the good stuff lies in that direction.”
Aitzazalso comes up with the theory that the people of the Indus believe that it is righteousness and not technical superiority which wins battles. Interesting. Andwhere is righteousness to be found?
“Righteousness is with the faithful, even though they may lack discipline,
technology andscientifically more effective strategies” which is why despitea hundred years of the British, the Indus person “has not acquired a scientific attitude towards life.”
Does he have a role model? Yes. It is the “man on horseback, brandishing a sword and charging the enemy, single-handedly killing a hundred armed opponents.” Splendid, isn’t it! The mercenary and professional armies raised from this area by the British andthose before them, are a matter of pride for the author. “The Indus person, when drilled, trained and subjected to discipline, can make the best military officer anywhere in the world … He has learnt the advantage, in peace and war, of obedience to superior officers. These were the men that Indus produced to help Britain rule over a global empire.” Umph!!!
Rule Britannia, we are on your side.
But if the Indus men are such good soldiers, why are they such lousy administrators? Aitzaz Ahsan’sanswer: “Having been subjected to abject anarchy for centuries, the Indus person sees no need to abide by the rules himself.” Ha! but we had just been old that the Indus person is the best soldier in the world. How come he is such a disaster as an administrator? Or does the Indus person come in two varieties? The good soldier and the lousy administrator. Ahsan’s argument is that as long as the Indus person is in uniform, he is just fine, but once he is out of it, he instantly forgets what he has learnt. You only have to take one look at Gen Hamid Gul and Gen. Aslam Beg and exclaim that truer words were never spoken. Yes, that is also why soldiers have made such bad civilian administrators, adds the author. Andsince they are bad administrators, the “Indus elite” cannot abide by or have any respect for civic norms. One will need a cup of strong black coffee to digest this one.
Be that as it may, the fact is that it takes some doing to write a heavy book like The Indus Saga andthe making of Pakistan. Aitzaz is a man of many gifts. His retentive memory, for example, is so phenomenal that had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto known that it was better than his, he would have sent him, instead of Iftikhar Tari, to DalaiCamp. He can recite from Faiz, Faraz and Jalib for hours without faltering. Even Ms BenazirBhutto, who is quite without emotion in most matters, would sometimes not fail to be moved by Aitzaz Ahsan’s stirring recitation of verse she only half understood, being strictly “English medium” where it was perfectly in order to say. “Azan baj raha hai.”
Please also see:
There was no “partition”
Why we Created Pakistan?
Also see The Indus Valley Civilzationarticles on this site. By Ishtiaq Ahmed 2/2/2008
The official position on the origin of Pakistanis something like this: Muslims are expected to lead their lives in accordance withcomprehensive Islamic injunctions. For doing that, an Islamic polity is imperative. Hence Indian Muslims were boundto demanda separate state for themselves whenever an opportunity arose. The end of British colonialism provided such an opportunity and the Muslims whole-heartedlyresponded to the call for a separateMuslim stateon the Indian subcontinent. Some versions of such theorising locatethe origins of Pakistan in the arrival of the Arabs in the subcontinent in 711. Islam andHinduism, it is argued, represent two diametrically opposite worldviews. Therefore partition was inevitable.
Another set of theories can be called ‘cultural-geographical theories’. We are told that six thousandyears a distinct civilisation evolved around the Indus River and its various tributaries (roughly corresponding to the present territories of Pakistan) andremained separatefor most of those six thousand years from the one centred on the Indo-Gangetic plains of Northern India. The sharp contrast between them being that the Indus Valley Civilisation evolved a liberal and egalitarian ethos deriving from the influence of various unorthodox creeds and movements which during the Muslim period were blended into the mystical forms of Sufi Islam, while the rest of India was organized into an hierarchical andrigid social system which foundits ultimateperfection in the Hindu caste system. Hence, when the British withdrew from SouthAsia the Muslims of the Indus Valley Civilisation chose to separatefrom the rest of India. Such a theory it may be noted has no room for East Pakistan being part of Pakistan. (Editors note: ..but part of Bangistan as proposed by Chaudhry RehmatAli in his brochure “Now or Never”. There was Pakistan, Bangastina, Usmanistan and other Muslim areas in “Dinya”)
Another cluster of theories deriving from Marxism, look upon the movement for Pakistan as a democratic mass movement of the oppressed Muslim community against the dominant Hindu majority. Here, emphasis is given to the head start that Hindus and Sikhs enjoyed in taking to modern education in the schools established by the British. The Muslims lagged behind and consequently the non-Muslims captured the main sectors of the emerging capitalist economy. In particular the overwhelmingly Muslim agrarian classes including various categories of peasants were deeply indebted to the Hindu and Sikh money-lenders. An ideology of popular, egalitarian Islam attracted Muslims from all segments of society and therefore the establishment of Pakistan was the culmination of a protracted struggle to liberate Muslims from the yoke of Hindu-Sikh domination.
The most famous of these Marxist theories is the one put forth by the late Hamza Alavi. He asserted that the most ardent supporters of the idea of Pakistan were not the ulema but the Muslim salariat. The salariat comprised the sizable body of modern-educated Muslims who perceived that the creation of Pakistan would drastically improve their chances of finding employment withthe state than if they were not to remain a part of a united India dominated by the more economically and educationally advanced Hindu majority. Thus, it is argued, Pakistan was not established out of confessional zeal but secular concerns of the salariat.
Alavi, however, never at any stage studied the actual dynamics of the Pakistan movement after the Lahore resolution of 1940. Therefore he was completely oblivious of the fact that the Muslim League made its breakthrough in the Punjab and NWFP only when it won over the Barelvi ulema and pirs. There is solid evidence to prove that Jinnah assured the ulema that the Shariah will apply to Muslims in Pakistan.
Theories based on high politics deriving from the role of individuals in the making of history, identify the role of Mohamed Ali Jinnah as pivotal anddecisive to the creation of Pakistan. Without his towering leadership, it is asserted, the movement of Pakistan would not have succeeded. No only his lieutenants andfollowers are portrayed as political pygmies but even his adversaries with the exception of Gandhi, perhaps, are considered light-weights. Some theories suggest that Jinnah never actually wanted the division of India and sought at most a fair share of power for Muslims in a united India and it was the Congress leaders who spurned his overtures for an accommodation within a loose federation and instead precipitated the partition because they wanted to rule India through a powerful centre. Ayesha Jalal is the main proponent of this variant of the role of individuals in history.
Other theories identify the fear of the Muslim upper classes of domination by Hindus. It is asserted that upper class Muslim leaders were not willing to accept a junior role for themselves in united India. Muslims had ruled India for more than 600 years andthey could not understand why under a democratic system they should be deprived of power and influence. The veteran Khalid bin Sayeed champions such a theory.
Some theories identify a British handin the creation of Pakistan. It has been suggested that the British were keen to use Pakistan as a base for their geopolitical and geo-economic designs in South Asia. In this regard, in a meeting held on May 12 1947 in London the chiefs of staff of various branches of the British armed forces and in the presence of Field Marshal Montgomery and Lord Ismay, it was observed:
‘From the strategic point of view there were overwhelming arguments in favour of Western Pakistan remaining within the Commonwealth, namely, that we should obtain important strategic facilities, the port of Karachi, air bases and the support of the Moslem manpower in the future… A refusal of an application to this end would amount to ejecting loyal people from the British Commonwealth, and would probably lose us all chances of ever getting strategic facilities anywhere in India…. From a military point of view, such a result would be catastrophic’ (Mansergh, N and Moon, P (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942-47, vol. 10. pp. 791-2).
Whatever the explanation for the origins of Pakistan, it is imperative that it becomes a state in which the rule of law and social justice prevail. For the Pakistani nation, the challenge is to look forward and not backwards.
The writer is a professor of political science anda visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg
ORIGINS OF THE TNT IN THE SUBCONTINENT
Contrary to the common belief that Jinnah originated the two-nation theory, actually it was Savarkar who propounded the theory years before the Muslim League embraced the idea. Savarkar had commanded all the Muslims to leave ‘Bharat’ to pave the way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. When Jinnah introduced his two-nation theory, Savarkarannounced, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory… It is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”
“His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.” (Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins).
So the hate campaign against Muslims was well in place even before the partition of erstwhile British India. This and many other significant factors forced Jinnah to demand a separate nation for Muslims as he believed that Muslims would not be safe in India — a prophetic declaration indeed! There is no denying the fact that Jinnah was secular to the marrow and would never have wished to cut ties with India, but circumstances compelled him to do so. However, he had not harbored grudges against India or its leaders. He had kept his house on Malabar Hill, thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays, but destiny had something else in store for the estranged neighbors of the Asia Partition.
When Nathuram Godsepumped three bullets into Gandhi, a section of the Hindu community compared him withJudas. The writing was on the wall. The dividewas evident. In some areas people mourned the death of Gandhi, and in other areas they distributed sweets, held celebrations, and demanded the release of Godse. Gandhi’s crime was that he had demanded security for Muslims.
The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu. Syed Alvi Tehran Times
The 7000 year old Pakistani Civilization: Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the IVC and 7000 years ago as the Mehergarh Civlization. During the time of Hazrat Musa (moses) the Pakistanis were called Melhullans, from Mallah (sailor). The map of the IVC llooks like the map of Pakistan. It is. It is the map of Indus Valley 3500 years ago. This is the map of the Indus Valley Civilization which existed 5000 years ago on the banks of the Indus. This represent the Indus Pakistanis (see Indus Saga by Ahtizaz Ahsan, and Professor Dani’s prolific writings). The IVC was not Hindu. They buried their dead, wrote a non-Sanskirt pictographic language, ate beef, did not know the horse, were not vegetarian, wrote right to left, did not know the horse (No Arjun), and did not worship any of the Hindu pantheon (Arjun, Agni, Mithra, Nag).
The IVC map shows the Indus Valley Civilization which traded with the Muslim Moses in Mesopotamia. Pakistan is the latest Muslim incarnation of the IVC. The Indus people banded together to live together as they had lived together for thousands of years. This was the contract once the Britain left. Bharat never existed as a united country–What Partition? Bharat never existed as a united country–Pakistan did for thousands of years. The original IVC thrived only on the banks of the Indus when Bharat was jungle.
No, Pakistan was never ruled by any Bharti emperor. During ‘Harsh Vardhan reign Pakistan was split it into 6 kingdoms. Sindh was ruled by Rai Dynasty, Punjab was split into two kingdoms (Kingdom of Taank and and kingdom of Kaikanan). Pakhtunkhwa was ruled by Kingdom of Kapisa and Kingdom of Jaguda, and Balochistan was ruled by Sassanid dynasty. Kashmir was independent.The only way Bharatis will stop calling us long lost brothers or as a break away province of Bharat when we destroy Bharat into smaller states like it was during British raj, 13 provinces and 565 states. This is the only way Pakistanis can reaffirm their identity back, stealing the name of ancient Pakistan (India) and all of a sudden we have become blood brothers. Just look at the Bharati propaganda, in almost every article about Pakistan they use the word partition to keep reminding the world how injustice was done to split their mother Bharat and the world should help to unite these brotherly countries.
I hear from every Bharati that we share common ancestors, Pakistani people are 80% Caucasoid while about 50% Bharati are Australoid and 20% Caucasoid, The only closest ethnic group to Pakistani would be Punjabi but they make up 2% population of entire Bharat and they are working to liberate themselves from Brahman tyranny.Even DNA has rejected any relation btw us and Bharati, Pakistani people mostly have Haplogroup R1a while in Bharat it is only present in high caste Brahmin who are the minority of 2%.
Many bigoted Bhartis claim Pakistan was a Hindu country and it was converted by Muslim invaders to Islam. Pakistan became a Buddhist country before Alexander’s invasion and remained monotheistic Buddhist until Muslims arrived. When Muslims invaded Pakistan region the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became “budh”. The fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there? are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD. A bigoted terrorist state(Bharatya) which has exterminated hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the past 60 years calls us Pakistani brothers.
Long before the Crescent and Star flew atop Islamabad, long before Mohammed Bin Qasim invaded Sind, and long before the Mughals spread prosperity in all the nooks and corners of the subcontinent, long before the Sikh dynasty briefly controlled Kashmir, and long before the Chundra Gupta Vikramadatya ruled India, the people of Punjab, Sindh, Sarhad, andKashmir were tied together as the people of Pakistan.
IVC existed only in the Western part of the subcontinent, almost exclusively on the banks of the Indus (current day Pakistan). Therefore current day Pakistanis are inheritors of the IVC. There was a civilization in present day Pakistan. “India” did not exist 5000 years ago. The Sumerians called it Meluhha and Mekan. We don’t know what they called it. No one can be sure. “Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago in the IVC, even though the IVC probably did not call it Pakistan.
One cannot accept the Lebanese, and the Syrian, and Cypriotic claim to the Egyptian civilization, and one cannot accept the Japanese claim to the original Chinese civilization. Similarly once cannot accept the “Delhi’s” claim to the IVC. The “Bharati” claim to the IVC is by association. The Egyptian claim to the “Egyptian” civilization is by geography.
There is a section of the Revanchist Bharati population that wants to describe the IVC as a Hindu civilization and then try to extend the boundaries of present day Bharat by claiming that the land from the Oxus to the mythical marker East of Bali called Raj Kilhani all belongs to Bharat. Of course a lot the revisionist history is “hocus pocus mambo jumbo” made inside temples.
The left-leaning Indian news magazine Frontline carried Farmer’s and Witzel’s article in a cover story titled “Horseplay in Harappa – In the ‘Piltdown Horse’ hoax, Hindutva propagandists make a little Sanskrit go a long way”. The article debunked sensational claims in 1999 that the Indus script had been “deciphered” by N S Rajaram and Natwar Jha.
The motive of this fraud was to prove that the Indus civilization was an early Hindu civilization. As proof, Rajaram and Jha produced an Indus Valley “horse” seal as evidence that the Indus people used horses, an animal commonly mentioned in the Vedas, the ancient Indian texts dating to the 2ndmillennium BC – over 2,000 years later than the earliest dated Indus Valley seals. But no images of horses were found in the Indus Valley excavations, until Rajaram and Jha produced their horse seal.
Farmer and Witzel proved that the horse seal was a fraudulent computerized distortion of a broken “unicorn bull” seal. The fake horse seal was derided as the “Piltdown Horse”, an imaginary creation to fill the gap between the Harappan and Vedic cultures, just as the famous “Piltdown Man” did in 1912. That year, skeletal remains of the “missing link” between ape and man were “discovered” in Piltdown, a village in England. They were later found to be fake. Indus Valley code is cracked – maybe By Raja
Romila Thapar says:
“The Rgveda then is a pre-urban Chalcolethic culture it does not speak of any urban centres. It certainly does not speak of any settlements which have the characteristics of Harappan cities. For example there is no reference to citadel areas and residential areas, there is no reference to massive brick platforms on the top of which monuments are built. There is no reference to drainage systems or to streets or to granaries or warehouses or to a public bath or to a sophisticated exchange system or weights and measures on a graduated scale which was known as and described. To me these are the essential characteristics or Harappan urbanization and all these characteristics are absent in the Rgveda. You may have people saying ‘Oh’ but there were coins in the Rgveda and they mention the word ‘niska’. Now niska can be a coin as was in the later period but during this period judging by the descriptions it was simply a little decorative piece in precious metal. These essential characteristics that I have mentioned non of these are referred to or described in the Rgveda. The people of the Rgveda are then agro-pastoralists with small scale village societies essentially indulging in cattle raids and predatory raids.”
“…Then there is the centrality of the horse and the chariot. The horse which is totally absent on the seals of the Harappa culture – there are many other animals but the horse doesn’t occur. The horse is central to the Vedic texts. The horse is central both as a functional animal – the horse draws the chariot, the chariot means speed, so if you’re carrying out a raid, the more chariots you have the quicker you get there, you raid the particular place and you bring back the loot much faster than if you were going by bullock cart and bringing it back by bullock cart. That wouldn’t work – the horse is necessary.
Secondly, the horse is ritually very important. And I don’t have to remind you here that whereas for example in the Rig Veda the sacrifice of the horse is a fairly simple, straightforward ritual of sacrificing a horse, what it becomes in the later vedic texts as the Ashwamedha is another story. It is ritually extremely important. And you don’t get any reflection of this in the Harappan culture.
The beliefs of the IVC are totally irrelevant to the inheritors of the IVC. There is no conclusive proof of the beliefs of the IVC. Bainerjee andSir Edmund Hill, the two founding archeologists on the IVCclearly state in their writings, that the IVC people did not have any organized religion. No “Temples” have been discovered either in Moenjadaro or in Harappa or in Taxila. The ancient IVCculture, whether they worshipped anything or nothing is besides the point. The current day Egyptians are the inheritors of the ancient Egyptian civilization. The current day Egyptians are also Muslim. Are they going to be denied the right to claim the Egyptian civilization, just because they are Muslim? If one denies the Pakistanis the inheritance to the IVC, then you should go and challenge the Egyptians also. The ancient Egyptians ALSO participated in rituals that were Un-Islamic.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krJ4J5RWPCE&NR=1]
THE GEOGRAPHIC TWO NATION THEORY:
“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago: What was it called 5000 years ago?
These maps clearly show the existance of Pakistan 5000 years ago as the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC).
The IVCtraded with areas contiguous to it and to places as far as Hawaii.
This map shows more than 570 states in the Subcontinent. At this particular stage of the British Raj over the hundreds of states, most of Pakistan is not part of the Raj.
These maps tell us about the Pakistan the people of the Subcontinent struggled for, and asked for. It shows the Muslim majority areas of the Subcontinent.
This is the Indus Valley Civilization (Pakistan) which we have right now. Compared to the map of the IVC 5000 years ago, it is very similar. The Indus Valley Civilization is a living and thriving civilization andit exists today as Pakistan, just like Pakistan existed as the IVC thousands of years ago.
The first Pakistani implements have been discovered in Soan River valley dating back 150,000 years. Mehergarh in Baluchistan is the oldest arable landdating back 7000 years ago. This frame by frame evolution of Pakistan begining 4000BC. From the Indus Valley the Pakistani civilization helped evolve the Gangetic civilizaiton in India which came hundreds of years later. During the British reign the Subcontinent was broken up into more than 570 states. When the British left the states on the Indus banded together to form Paksitan, and those on the Gangetic vally got together to from “Bharat” (official name in the constitution).
PAKISTAN AS INHERITOR OF THE IVC
Let us see what the encyclopedias says about the Indus Valley and Pakistan:
Present-day Pakistan shares the 5,000-year historyof the India-Pakistan Subntinent. At present day Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, the Indus Valley Civilization, with large cities and elaborateirrigation systems, flourished c. 4,000-2,500 BC. Beginning with the Persians in the 6th century BC, andcontinuing with Alexander the Great and with the Sassanians, successive nations to the west ruled or influenced Pakistan, eventually separating the area from the Indian cultural sphere.The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1994
History. The area that is now Pakistan was the site of the INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION, the earliest known culture on the Indian subcontinent. Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
Pakistan (pàk´î-stàn´, pä´kî-stän´) Abbr. Pak.
A country of southern Asia. Occupying landcrisscrossed by ancient invasion paths, Pakistan was the home of the prehistoric Indus Valley civilization, which flourished until overrun by Aryans c. 1500 B.C. After being conquered by numerous rulers and powers, it passed to the British as part of India andbecame a separate Moslem state in 1947. The country originally included what is now Bangladesh, which declared its independence in 1971. Islamabad is the capital and Karachi the largest city. Population, 83,782,000. – Pak´istan´i (-stàn´ê, -stä´nê) adjective & noun
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Indus valley civilization, c.2500-c.1500 B.C., ancient civilization that flourished along the Indus R. in present-day Pakistan. Its chief cities were Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, where archaeologists have unearthed impressive public and private buildings that are evidence of a complex society based on a highly organized agriculture supplemented by active commerce. The arts flourished, and examples in copper, bronze, andpottery have been uncovered. Also found were examples of a pictograph script that long baffled archaeologists but was finally deciphered in 1969. The fate of the Indus valley civilization remains a mystery, but it is believed that it fell victim to invading Aryans.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
An urban civilization with a so-far-undeciphered writing system stretched across the Indus Valley and along the Arabian Sea c3000-1500 BC. Major sites are Harappa and Mohenjo-Daroin Pakistan, well-planned geometric cities with underground sewers andvast granaries. The entire region (600,000 sq. mi.) may have been ruled as a single state. Bronze was used, and arts and crafts were highly developed. Religious life apparently took the form of fertility cults.
Indus civilization was probably in decline when it was destroyed by Aryan invaders from the northwest, speaking an Indo-European language from which all the languages of Pakistan, north India andBangladesh descend. Led by a warrior aristocracy whose legendary deeds are recorded in the Rig Veda, the Aryans spread east and south, bringing their pantheon of sky gods, elaborate priestly (Brahmin) ritual, andthe beginnings of the caste system; local customs and beliefs were assimilated by the conquerors.
The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1994
Indus (în´des),chief river of Pakistan, c.1,900 mi (3,060 km) long, site of the prehistoric INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION. It rises in the TIBET region of China, flows west across Jammu andKASHMIR, India, then southwest through Pakistan, where it receives the “five waters” of the PUNJAB (the Chenab, Jhelum, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers), to an infertile clay delta on the Arabian Sea SE of Karachi. The unnavigable Indus is harnessed for irrigation and hydroelectricity by the Jinnah, Sukker, and Kotri dams. A treaty (1960) between India and Pakistan regulates withdrawals of water from the river and its tributaries.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia Anthropologists have observed that the present population of …Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only inference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences adduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominentamong them having very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population of India.
I call this the GEOGPRAHIC TWO NATION THEORY…and when I originally proposed it andposted it on the SCI it was met with a lot of hostility….Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan has now written a book on this subject Aitzaz Ahsan’s Indus run.
Some more water has gone down the Indus since Aitzaz Ahsan published his book. As the Indus does not flow – at least not so far – in the Washington area, it is only natural that the book which was placed in a bottle and consigned to the waters by the author somewhere near Wazirabadhas only found its way to these shores in the last few days.
The Indus reminds me of many good things. There used to be a watering hole at the hotel on The Mall in Lahore, which bears the name of the river, from whose cool recesses one summer afternoon, I had been summoned by the incomparable Prof G.M. Asar who by the time I arrived was in a most delightfully loquacious frame of mind, declaiming poetry in his rich and measured voice. His diction was so perfect that you could just learn English by listening to him, or Urdu for that matter.
But that is not the Indus Aitzaz Ahsan frequents – and who can blame him considering what has become of it. Or has written about. His book is about the river andthe region that now makes up Pakistan, what he calls the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient. His thesis, spun out over 350 pages, is simple but is it also true? One has to think because it is so perfectly formed, with no rough edges.
Truth, on the other hand, is often less meticulously packaged and is far more awkward to handle. Being the consummate lawyer the author is, the case is brilliantly argued.
Whether that makes him right as well is an open question. The basic idea of the book is that India and Indus have always been two distinct entities or regions in terms of civilisation and culture, their differences being “primordial and many”. Religion has not been the dividing line, only one of the factors. And since there was and is an Indus, there is also an “Indus person” who, poor creature, is the mess he is today because he has been “deprived of his heroes, nay, of himself and he has not gained much in the bargain.” So what is he then? The answer, if it please their lordships, is that “……he remains a family man, an enlightened non-fundamentalist Muslim, and a brave soldier (I knew there were khakis lurking somewhere in there)…. he is an ostentatious consumerist, a bad administrator and devoid of civic sense and responsibility.” That does it for me. Consumerist is best rendered by the national. Punjabi philosophy: Khao, piyo te jan banao. Or eat, drink and develop your biceps. Or one better:
Khao, piyo te paghrai na dyo. Eat, drink and don’t get caught.
The author tells us that apart from poets, mystics and warriors, it is the River Indus and its tributaries that have shaped the Indus person. Since no one is perfect, this being has developed certain defects, though none that cannot be cured. The book has been an attempt to highlight his strengths and develop his original potential. Once that happens, there is no reason why the Indus person and the India person cannot live in peace, amity and eternal goodwill. I will drink any amount of spiked Indus water to that.
The Indus person, Aitzaz Ahsan asserts, is a good soldier but a lousy administrator, an observation, let’s hope Mr Shahbaz Sharif remains unaware of, otherwise I can hear his
big bulldoze brigade beating bongo drums and moving towards Bank Square, Lahore, where the author keeps an office.
The Indus person, we are told, is a good soldier because he has “lived in the path of marauders who have come to burn his crops and villages.” Ahsan maintains that the “untiring Aryans”, the “savage Huns”, Alexander himself, the “unrelenting invaders” from Ghazni and Afghanistan, not to forget “the scourge of the earth” Taimuror the “ferocious” Nadir Shah, were given a tasteof their own medicine, or their own steel, by the Indus people. This is somewhat amazing because the received wisdom on the valour of this region, especially Punjab, is that in the event of an invasion, the inhabitants were lined up ten deep on their side waving garlands, pointing towards Delhi and shouting as they bowed from the waist: “Light of the Universe, Most Exalted Majesty, the good stuff lies in that direction.”
Aitzazalso comes up with the theory that the people of the Indus believe that it is righteousness and not technical superiority which wins battles. Interesting. Andwhere is righteousness to be found?
“Righteousness is with the faithful, even though they may lack discipline,
technology andscientifically more effective strategies” which is why despitea hundred years of the British, the Indus person “has not acquired a scientific attitude towards life.”
Does he have a role model? Yes. It is the “man on horseback, brandishing a sword and charging the enemy, single-handedly killing a hundred armed opponents.” Splendid, isn’t it! The mercenary and professional armies raised from this area by the British andthose before them, are a matter of pride for the author. “The Indus person, when drilled, trained and subjected to discipline, can make the best military officer anywhere in the world … He has learnt the advantage, in peace and war, of obedience to superior officers. These were the men that Indus produced to help Britain rule over a global empire.” Umph!!!
Rule Britannia, we are on your side.
But if the Indus men are such good soldiers, why are they such lousy administrators? Aitzaz Ahsan’sanswer: “Having been subjected to abject anarchy for centuries, the Indus person sees no need to abide by the rules himself.” Ha! but we had just been old that the Indus person is the best soldier in the world. How come he is such a disaster as an administrator? Or does the Indus person come in two varieties? The good soldier and the lousy administrator. Ahsan’s argument is that as long as the Indus person is in uniform, he is just fine, but once he is out of it, he instantly forgets what he has learnt. You only have to take one look at Gen Hamid Gul and Gen. Aslam Beg and exclaim that truer words were never spoken. Yes, that is also why soldiers have made such bad civilian administrators, adds the author. Andsince they are bad administrators, the “Indus elite” cannot abide by or have any respect for civic norms. One will need a cup of strong black coffee to digest this one.
Be that as it may, the fact is that it takes some doing to write a heavy book like The Indus Saga andthe making of Pakistan. Aitzaz is a man of many gifts. His retentive memory, for example, is so phenomenal that had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto known that it was better than his, he would have sent him, instead of Iftikhar Tari, to DalaiCamp. He can recite from Faiz, Faraz and Jalib for hours without faltering. Even Ms BenazirBhutto, who is quite without emotion in most matters, would sometimes not fail to be moved by Aitzaz Ahsan’s stirring recitation of verse she only half understood, being strictly “English medium” where it was perfectly in order to say. “Azan baj raha hai.”
Please also see:
There was no “partition”
Why we Created Pakistan?
Also see The Indus Valley Civilzationarticles on this site. By Ishtiaq Ahmed 2/2/2008
The official position on the origin of Pakistanis something like this: Muslims are expected to lead their lives in accordance withcomprehensive Islamic injunctions. For doing that, an Islamic polity is imperative. Hence Indian Muslims were boundto demanda separate state for themselves whenever an opportunity arose. The end of British colonialism provided such an opportunity and the Muslims whole-heartedlyresponded to the call for a separateMuslim stateon the Indian subcontinent. Some versions of such theorising locatethe origins of Pakistan in the arrival of the Arabs in the subcontinent in 711. Islam andHinduism, it is argued, represent two diametrically opposite worldviews. Therefore partition was inevitable.
Another set of theories can be called ‘cultural-geographical theories’. We are told that six thousandyears a distinct civilisation evolved around the Indus River and its various tributaries (roughly corresponding to the present territories of Pakistan) andremained separatefor most of those six thousand years from the one centred on the Indo-Gangetic plains of Northern India. The sharp contrast between them being that the Indus Valley Civilisation evolved a liberal and egalitarian ethos deriving from the influence of various unorthodox creeds and movements which during the Muslim period were blended into the mystical forms of Sufi Islam, while the rest of India was organized into an hierarchical andrigid social system which foundits ultimateperfection in the Hindu caste system. Hence, when the British withdrew from SouthAsia the Muslims of the Indus Valley Civilisation chose to separatefrom the rest of India. Such a theory it may be noted has no room for East Pakistan being part of Pakistan. (Editors note: ..but part of Bangistan as proposed by Chaudhry RehmatAli in his brochure “Now or Never”. There was Pakistan, Bangastina, Usmanistan and other Muslim areas in “Dinya”)
Another cluster of theories deriving from Marxism, look upon the movement for Pakistan as a democratic mass movement of the oppressed Muslim community against the dominant Hindu majority. Here, emphasis is given to the head start that Hindus and Sikhs enjoyed in taking to modern education in the schools established by the British. The Muslims lagged behind and consequently the non-Muslims captured the main sectors of the emerging capitalist economy. In particular the overwhelmingly Muslim agrarian classes including various categories of peasants were deeply indebted to the Hindu and Sikh money-lenders. An ideology of popular, egalitarian Islam attracted Muslims from all segments of society and therefore the establishment of Pakistan was the culmination of a protracted struggle to liberate Muslims from the yoke of Hindu-Sikh domination.
The most famous of these Marxist theories is the one put forth by the late Hamza Alavi. He asserted that the most ardent supporters of the idea of Pakistan were not the ulema but the Muslim salariat. The salariat comprised the sizable body of modern-educated Muslims who perceived that the creation of Pakistan would drastically improve their chances of finding employment withthe state than if they were not to remain a part of a united India dominated by the more economically and educationally advanced Hindu majority. Thus, it is argued, Pakistan was not established out of confessional zeal but secular concerns of the salariat.
Alavi, however, never at any stage studied the actual dynamics of the Pakistan movement after the Lahore resolution of 1940. Therefore he was completely oblivious of the fact that the Muslim League made its breakthrough in the Punjab and NWFP only when it won over the Barelvi ulema and pirs. There is solid evidence to prove that Jinnah assured the ulema that the Shariah will apply to Muslims in Pakistan.
Theories based on high politics deriving from the role of individuals in the making of history, identify the role of Mohamed Ali Jinnah as pivotal anddecisive to the creation of Pakistan. Without his towering leadership, it is asserted, the movement of Pakistan would not have succeeded. No only his lieutenants andfollowers are portrayed as political pygmies but even his adversaries with the exception of Gandhi, perhaps, are considered light-weights. Some theories suggest that Jinnah never actually wanted the division of India and sought at most a fair share of power for Muslims in a united India and it was the Congress leaders who spurned his overtures for an accommodation within a loose federation and instead precipitated the partition because they wanted to rule India through a powerful centre. Ayesha Jalal is the main proponent of this variant of the role of individuals in history.
Other theories identify the fear of the Muslim upper classes of domination by Hindus. It is asserted that upper class Muslim leaders were not willing to accept a junior role for themselves in united India. Muslims had ruled India for more than 600 years andthey could not understand why under a democratic system they should be deprived of power and influence. The veteran Khalid bin Sayeed champions such a theory.
Some theories identify a British handin the creation of Pakistan. It has been suggested that the British were keen to use Pakistan as a base for their geopolitical and geo-economic designs in South Asia. In this regard, in a meeting held on May 12 1947 in London the chiefs of staff of various branches of the British armed forces and in the presence of Field Marshal Montgomery and Lord Ismay, it was observed:
‘From the strategic point of view there were overwhelming arguments in favour of Western Pakistan remaining within the Commonwealth, namely, that we should obtain important strategic facilities, the port of Karachi, air bases and the support of the Moslem manpower in the future… A refusal of an application to this end would amount to ejecting loyal people from the British Commonwealth, and would probably lose us all chances of ever getting strategic facilities anywhere in India…. From a military point of view, such a result would be catastrophic’ (Mansergh, N and Moon, P (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942-47, vol. 10. pp. 791-2).
Whatever the explanation for the origins of Pakistan, it is imperative that it becomes a state in which the rule of law and social justice prevail. For the Pakistani nation, the challenge is to look forward and not backwards.
The writer is a professor of political science anda visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg
ORIGINS OF THE TNT IN THE SUBCONTINENT
Contrary to the common belief that Jinnah originated the two-nation theory, actually it was Savarkar who propounded the theory years before the Muslim League embraced the idea. Savarkar had commanded all the Muslims to leave ‘Bharat’ to pave the way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. When Jinnah introduced his two-nation theory, Savarkarannounced, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory… It is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”
“His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.” (Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins).
So the hate campaign against Muslims was well in place even before the partition of erstwhile British India. This and many other significant factors forced Jinnah to demand a separate nation for Muslims as he believed that Muslims would not be safe in India — a prophetic declaration indeed! There is no denying the fact that Jinnah was secular to the marrow and would never have wished to cut ties with India, but circumstances compelled him to do so. However, he had not harbored grudges against India or its leaders. He had kept his house on Malabar Hill, thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays, but destiny had something else in store for the estranged neighbors of the Asia Partition.
When Nathuram Godsepumped three bullets into Gandhi, a section of the Hindu community compared him withJudas. The writing was on the wall. The dividewas evident. In some areas people mourned the death of Gandhi, and in other areas they distributed sweets, held celebrations, and demanded the release of Godse. Gandhi’s crime was that he had demanded security for Muslims.
The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu. Syed Alvi Tehran Times
The 7000 year old Pakistani Civilization: Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the IVC and 7000 years ago as the Mehergarh Civlization. During the time of Hazrat Musa (moses) the Pakistanis were called Melhullans, from Mallah (sailor). The map of the IVC llooks like the map of Pakistan. It is. It is the map of Indus Valley 3500 years ago. This is the map of the Indus Valley Civilization which existed 5000 years ago on the banks of the Indus. This represent the Indus Pakistanis (see Indus Saga by Ahtizaz Ahsan, and Professor Dani’s prolific writings). The IVC was not Hindu. They buried their dead, wrote a non-Sanskirt pictographic language, ate beef, did not know the horse, were not vegetarian, wrote right to left, did not know the horse (No Arjun), and did not worship any of the Hindu pantheon (Arjun, Agni, Mithra, Nag).
The IVC map shows the Indus Valley Civilization which traded with the Muslim Moses in Mesopotamia. Pakistan is the latest Muslim incarnation of the IVC. The Indus people banded together to live together as they had lived together for thousands of years. This was the contract once the Britain left. Bharat never existed as a united country–What Partition? Bharat never existed as a united country–Pakistan did for thousands of years. The original IVC thrived only on the banks of the Indus when Bharat was jungle.
No, Pakistan was never ruled by any Bharti emperor. During ‘Harsh Vardhan reign Pakistan was split it into 6 kingdoms. Sindh was ruled by Rai Dynasty, Punjab was split into two kingdoms (Kingdom of Taank and and kingdom of Kaikanan). Pakhtunkhwa was ruled by Kingdom of Kapisa and Kingdom of Jaguda, and Balochistan was ruled by Sassanid dynasty. Kashmir was independent.The only way Bharatis will stop calling us long lost brothers or as a break away province of Bharat when we destroy Bharat into smaller states like it was during British raj, 13 provinces and 565 states. This is the only way Pakistanis can reaffirm their identity back, stealing the name of ancient Pakistan (India) and all of a sudden we have become blood brothers. Just look at the Bharati propaganda, in almost every article about Pakistan they use the word partition to keep reminding the world how injustice was done to split their mother Bharat and the world should help to unite these brotherly countries.
I hear from every Bharati that we share common ancestors, Pakistani people are 80% Caucasoid while about 50% Bharati are Australoid and 20% Caucasoid, The only closest ethnic group to Pakistani would be Punjabi but they make up 2% population of entire Bharat and they are working to liberate themselves from Brahman tyranny.Even DNA has rejected any relation btw us and Bharati, Pakistani people mostly have Haplogroup R1a while in Bharat it is only present in high caste Brahmin who are the minority of 2%.
Many bigoted Bhartis claim Pakistan was a Hindu country and it was converted by Muslim invaders to Islam. Pakistan became a Buddhist country before Alexander’s invasion and remained monotheistic Buddhist until Muslims arrived. When Muslims invaded Pakistan region the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became “budh”. The fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there? are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD. A bigoted terrorist state(Bharatya) which has exterminated hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the past 60 years calls us Pakistani brothers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment