Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 28th, 2017, 12:54 PM   #31
Suspended until December 4th, 2017
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: USA
Posts: 178

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullit View Post
And 1937 Burma "partition"? Please do note we are talking about a entity called British India. You know the one with a Viceroy, poncy English and British flag etc etc. Please try not to confuse it with Indian Republic - even if it carries similar name.
Click the image to open in full size.

Why don't we use Mauryan Empire instead? By extension of your logic, should present day Biharis rule Pakistan because of the simple fact that Mauryans did so too?

British Empire has nothing to do with this or other topics but you seem to keep bringing them up. Why not just stick with glorifying Ghazni and others who brought "light" of Islam to Pakistani landmass?

This conqueror-worship never stops with you people

Last edited by Vayu; August 28th, 2017 at 01:05 PM.
Vayu is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 29th, 2017, 03:44 AM   #32

Rajeev's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 411

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullit View Post
And some "un-nationalistic" Indians.
Hi Bullit,

Read the views of fellow nationals at following link. The POV (Point of View) of most Pakistanis towards India is positive and changing to still more positive. They may anger you.

Question for separate identity which seem to be the focus in several of your comments, appear to be non-issues in history discussions to me.

It may be helpful if you throw light on duration of Sindhi dynasties which ruled in 15th / 16th century in area now in Pakistan. There is not much awareness about these in Indian books except what we get from Wikipedia.

regards

Rajeev

https://www.quora.com/What-do-Pakist...k-of-Indians-4

Last edited by Rajeev; August 29th, 2017 at 03:46 AM.
Rajeev is offline  
Old August 29th, 2017, 07:48 AM   #33

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,263

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troodon View Post
Both Indie and China are densely-populated state with sophisticated culture and ancient origin. Both countries are ethnically and religiously diversified. Despite its resemblances, histories of two states were quite different. China during most of its history has one unified centralized empire, meanwhile India was mix of many kingdoms, constantly fighting about hegemony. Indeed, some Indian rulers (Mauryan, Gupts, Mughals) succeeded to united greater part of Indian peninsula under his scepter, however all of these empires were ephemeral and quickly broke up into number of smaller warring states. Why?
Chinese too have seen a history of not unified by a centralized power. Besides, Han is umbrella term for closely related ethnic groups, the sense of a Han identity only starts to shape some 200 years back vis a vis non Han people in Chinese Empire particularly the Manchus who were ruling China. Besides, in China the conquered people were subject to forced assimilation that's the reason China is ethnically closely related now. In the case of India, all the regions of India retained their languages.
Devdas is offline  
Old August 29th, 2017, 07:53 AM   #34

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,263

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullit View Post
Sorry. The hyphenating of Indus with Ganges Basins conveniently overlooks something. From geographic point of view Indus Plain and Ganges Plain are like chalk and cheese.
Geographically Indo-Gangetic plain is a single landmass people having a similar cultural origin and similar origin of languages.

There is no cultural basis of Pakistani identity, Pakistani identity is all about "We are Muslims" and "Hindus are our enemies".
Devdas is offline  
Old August 29th, 2017, 07:55 AM   #35

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,263

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullit View Post
I know there is a tract called "Chach" on the east bank of Indus betwixt Attock and Taxila in Pakistan but sorry I have no knowledge of kings you refer to.
Chach were the last ruling Hindu dynasty of Sindh.
Devdas is offline  
Old August 29th, 2017, 08:25 AM   #36

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,030
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
Geographically Indo-Gangetic plain is a single landmass people having a similar cultural origin and similar origin of languages.

There is no cultural basis of Pakistani identity, Pakistani identity is all about "We are Muslims" and "Hindus are our enemies".
I think you mean geographic. One could argue that the basis of Pakistan was religion, which is a cultural feature. Similarly the construction of self in opposition to another can also be seen as a core pining of a "culture". Thus, it could be argued that there was, or atleast is now if not was always, a cultural basis for Pakistan. This wouldn't however indicate a geographic basis, as this culture was not unique to the regions associated with the area currently occupied by Pakistan.

Interestingly the regions which saw the strongest support for Pakistan are today in parts of UP and Bihar. Many of these regions did not infact see any significant movement of Muslims.
tornada is offline  
Old August 29th, 2017, 11:10 AM   #37

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,263

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
I think you mean geographic. One could argue that the basis of Pakistan was religion, which is a cultural feature. Similarly the construction of self in opposition to another can also be seen as a core pining of a "culture". Thus, it could be argued that there was, or atleast is now if not was always, a cultural basis for Pakistan. This wouldn't however indicate a geographic basis, as this culture was not unique to the regions associated with the area currently occupied by Pakistan.

Interestingly the regions which saw the strongest support for Pakistan are today in parts of UP and Bihar. Many of these regions did not infact see any significant movement of Muslims.
That's the contradiction, The Hindu and Sikh Punjabis and Sindhis were driven out of the modern territory of Pakistan. The culture brought by Muhajirs from India ended up dominating every life of Pakistan cultural life and politics.

With Urdu as the national language, it is quite ensured that Pakistan would never get rid of the ghost of their historical cultural link with India despite how much they try to deny it. Without Urdu, how was it even possible that Indian movies being more popular in Pakistan than the native Pakistani film industry.
Devdas is offline  
Old August 29th, 2017, 11:31 AM   #38

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,030
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
That's the contradiction, The Hindu and Sikh Punjabis and Sindhis were driven out of the modern territory of Pakistan. The culture brought by Muhajirs from India ended up dominating every life of Pakistan cultural life and politics.

With Urdu as the national language, it is quite ensured that Pakistan would never get rid of the ghost of their historical cultural link with India despite how much they try to deny it. Without Urdu, how was it even possible that Indian movies being more popular in Pakistan than the native Pakistani film industry.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the point here. Why is it a contradiction? A culture can be constructed and altered by any set of influences, and isn't always grounded geographically.

My basic point is merely that one can in fact say that there was and is a cultural basis for Pakistan. In addition to the ideas outlined above, I suppose there's no harm in adding language as well, though my understanding was that Pakistan's importance to Urdu was a post-independence feature, and language didn't feature strongly in the Partition discussions. I could be wrong though.

The two-nation theory can also be described as an articulation of a sense of differing cultural paradigms. But as I noted above, while a cultural basis can arguably be shown to exist for Pakistan, this cultural did not enjoy a geographic basis. It is also an open to question as to the historical extent of this basis. To my mind its roots can be dated at best to the beginning of the 20th century and partition of Bengal, which laid the seeds of a sense of administrative partition over religion. I suppose some people might however relate it to the Princely state hierarchies though, with British conceptualizations of the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Maharaja of Baroda being representative of Muslims and Hindus. I think there was also a lower level conceptualization of the ruler of Patiala being representative of Sikhs. Some of this is conjecture however.

Either way really. The argument also stands that inside the state of Pakistan there was a cultural basis for the creation of Bangladesh. Nor would I argue that there is no such parallel in India. At various points in time, one could infact locate a cultural basis for the creation of smaller or alternate polities. In some ways some of these have been harnessed or corralled by the Indian state as well, to oversee the conquest of territories such as Sikkim or in the creation of states within India.

It should be recognized, that while the general state of Pakistan had no real geographic locus, or even sincere logic given the practical distribution of the demanding population, in the context of Pakistan, Bangladesh did have a geographic basis in addition to a cultural basis comprising language and other features. It is possible that the modern Pakistani attempt to find a geographic basis for its current status is part of the rationalization process of some in engaging with the history of the state and dealing with the creation of Bangladesh.
tornada is offline  
Old August 29th, 2017, 05:37 PM   #39

Bullit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Indus Valley, Pakistan
Posts: 1,474

I am sorry, you can make all the snide remarks, digs, innuendos you like [which you can because of your numbers] but I entirely reject the notion of your supposed unipolarity being as it is informed by your nationalistic scape.

This unipolarity or glimpses of it that we see in history were brought about by outside invaders, be they Turkic, Afghan or British. The only exception I think of this is the blip on the radar of the Maurya Empire that occurred a long, long, long time ago for very short interval of time.

South Asia or the geographic India is analogous to Europe - with differance that it has twice more people, thrice more diversity and was only integrated by foreigner's [last being British] invading and stitching it together with "tak tak" of a Gatling gun.

The reality was South Asia was a continent like Europe. Divided and with fractures deeper and wider then anything they had in Europe. In addition there was horizontal division of society along caste lines. This prevented the rise of a single strong empire and as any such empire had to bridge the vast divisions in society. This militated again rise of a strong empire that had the stabilty to integrate the sub-continient. Instead took outside invaders to do ot.
Bullit is offline  
Old August 30th, 2017, 06:38 AM   #40

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,487

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajeev View Post
Here are some long-lived empires: Pala Empire 424 years (750-1174 AD), Ahom Kingdom 610 years (1228-1838 AD), Eastern Chalukyas 451 years (624-1075 AD), Hoyasala kingdom 317 years (1026-1343 AD), Vijaynagar Empire 310 years (1336-1646 AD), Solanki kingdom 302 years (942-1244 AD). These are fairly long reigns.
Nice post, Rajeev. The information is easily available on the Wikipedia page on History of India. Then there were kings and Nawabs who ruled parts of India for long time. For example, Jodhpur State - 1250 to 1949, Jaipur State - 1128 to 1947. They weathered all storms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullit View Post
And 1937 Burma "partition"?
Burma (Myanmar) and Sri Lanka were never considered a part of India. They sure were a part of British Indian Empire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vayu View Post
By extension of your logic, should present day Biharis rule Pakistan because of the simple fact that Mauryans did so too?
Well, two Bengalis have been Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Suhrawardy and Nurul Amin. Not making the third a Prime Minister cost Pakistan, Bangladesh. What is wrong if a Muslim of Bihari origin becomes the Prime Minister of Pakistan? We have had Kashmiris, UPians, Punjabis, Haryanvis, Gujaratis, Andhraites and Kannadas as Prime Minister of India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajeev View Post
The POV (Point of View) of most Pakistanis towards India is positive and changing to still more positive. They may anger you.
I don't think Bullit will be bothered by it. Bullit is an enlightened soul. Let us give credit to where it belongs.

BTW, I love Pakistani and (not talking about politic or military) and the Bangladeshi people (not talking about illegal migrants who create all sorts of problems). Cannot ever forget how they welcomed the Indian team in Pakistan. A Bangladeshi offered my son-in-law (Bengali speaking and looking very much Bengali) two packs of 'Jhal-Moori' free of cost in Broadway, New York. And my son stays in US with a former classmate who is a Bengali Muslim (when he or any member of his family is passing through Delhi, they stay with my son-in-law). This gentlemen sat in the puja enclosure during my daughter's marriage (I was a bit surprised but then he was the groom's best friend).

About cricket, it is not just terrorism in Pakistan that is the problem but spot-fixing too. No one in the cricketing world wants a repeat of that (Sharjeel banned. Such a promising cricketer spoiling his life. Very sad about it).

Last edited by Aupmanyav; August 30th, 2017 at 07:24 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
china, comparison, empires, ephemeral, indian, indie, political



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chindians in Hong Kong are Tanka/Indian not Chinese/Indian mix ? VerdictPunjab Asian History 1 November 18th, 2017 09:25 PM
How did the subjects of Indian pre Muslim era see a non native Indian ruler greatstreetwarrior Asian History 7 October 25th, 2016 07:24 AM
Contribution of Indian Left wing to Indian Freedom Movement SSDD Asian History 1 February 1st, 2016 09:34 AM
Is Indian spiritualism overrated by the west and Indian materialism underrated greatstreetwarrior Asian History 1 May 20th, 2015 08:23 AM
Why did Indian empires not generally have strong cavalries greatstreetwarrior Asian History 16 February 15th, 2015 09:23 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.