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


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 16th, 2014, 05:52 AM   #481
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
Never disputed. The Yamuna existed with the Saraswati in the time of the Rg Veda.



Only some. The very studies you infact linked showed that the Saraswati river was flowing till the collapse of the IVC and even then for a little while afterwards. The evidence all shows that the idea of a rainfed Saraswati is not contradicted by Literature. The science only disproves the existence of it as a glacial river. One lone scientific study disputes its existence during the IVC phase, and that study is contradicted by other scientific studies (some linked by Ticker himself) and other historical evidence. The evidence clearly shows that the earliest literature considered the Saraswati a sister to the Sapta Sindhu, was not associated with the Yamuna/Ganga (which came later) and emptied into the Samudra, the place where the Indus also emptied, clearly showing the drainage into the Arabian Sea. Ticker unfortunately it seems has read none of the literature he seeks to disprove, as evidenced by his assertion that the Ramayana is part of the Mahabahrata and his clear lack of knowledge of the Vedic texts.


The basic point to take away from Ticker's geological and scientific claims. His own links have disproved his assertions, especially the ones about "beyond reasonable doubt". His own links show that the Saraswati-Ghaggar Hakra link is not necessarily wrong
Are you suggesting that Rig Veda existed 50,000 years ago, after which Jamuna changed course and started flowing eastwards. WOW.

The claims that I make are well supported by the latest scientific studies and accepted and approved by many famous Indian scientists as well. It is you people who are confused between what has been written in your own ancient texts and what the hardline ultra nationalist Hindus are trying to project and present a wrong and revisionist form of history.
Ticker is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:00 AM   #482
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajra View Post
If Unmai doesn't wish to post,that is his own wish./QUOTE]

Then tell @Vajra to stop asking posters not to post on this thread. Thank you.

Nope.You have proven nothing,you just keep repeating the same crap over and over again!
I have proven my points time and time again. It is you who keep on repeating the same ol' same ol'.

Pakistan have an ancient history and you keep on stating again and again that Pakistan can not have an ancient history and that this history belong to India which was known actually as British India and ceased to exist in 1947.

And you are still repeating the same thing. It is now becoming funny.

Last edited by Ticker; November 16th, 2014 at 06:07 AM.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:04 AM   #483
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Pakistan
Posts: 1,777

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Never doubted, infact dividing Punjab indicates Pakistan was originated from partition of India.



It was not called British India, it is term to refer British period of India, but India? Even British said this land mass India that's why British monarch took the title of Emperor Of India, Empress of India, or British's army consisting Sepoys and British officers were called Indian army.

Al Beruni wrote "Tahkik-I-Hind". Here the word Hind refers to Indian civilization. He did not mention about Pakistan. Republic of India did not exist before 1947, but India did.
Pakistan and Republic of India originated from British India, which ceased to exist as an entity after 1947. What people called South Asia before Aug 1947, no longer holds true as the earlier entity or entities do not exist now and it is Pakistan and Republic of India which exist as sovereign entities and have their own heroes, their own history, ancient or otherwise.
Ticker is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:14 AM   #484

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,981
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
The landmass of Republic of India was never called as British India or even India, before the existence of Republic of India. I could not have been and can not be even now. There was no Republic of India before Aug 1947, irrespective of whatever it's Head of State was addressed as.
So when Victoria was declared Empress of India, that was what? After 1947?
tornada is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:15 AM   #485

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,981
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
Truth has to be repeated again and agin to counter a lie.
Lie
noun
an intentionally false statement.


Truth
noun
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.


Seems your dictionary needs an update Ticker. Reality is critical here. And realistically you have no sources to support your stands on Pakistan. None, Nada, Zilch. I should know, I've asked for them often enough. You even refuse to answer questions which are premised on your logic.
tornada is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:17 AM   #486

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,981
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
The Republic of India never had a civilisation of its own. It is a spill over of Indus Valley Civilisation, the core of which is in Pakistan, like the limited spill over of IVC in Afghanistan and Iran. Iran and Afghanistan have never claimed the IVC, and rightly so. It is only the Republic of India which does it because it perceives it to be the heir of British Raj.

The British Raj ceased to be an entity in 1947 and two different countries emerged after that. These two countries have a right to claim their own ancient, medieval and contemporary history from within their borders. The Republic of India, which is a part of South Asia, stakes it's right to the whole history of South Asia, which indeed is wrong.
over 35 sites in India. Less than half of that in Pakistan. Largest sites in India. Very old if not oldest sites in India. Continuation of culture (cemetery H) in India. Major ports such as Lothal in India. Sure India is just a spillover. Keep telling yourself that
tornada is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:17 AM   #487
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 4,333

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post

Pakistan have an ancient history and you keep on stating again and again that Pakistan can not have an ancient history and that this history belong to India which was known actually as British India and ceased to exist in 1947.
I told you to give me any historical reference which mentions the term 'pakistan'.But you haven't.So it is you who is running away from my questions and keep on repeating the same crap over and over again.

I will ask one more time : Give me any historical reference which mentions the term 'pakistan' before 20th century!!!!!
Vajra is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:19 AM   #488

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,981
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
Are you suggesting that Rig Veda existed 50,000 years ago, after which Jamuna changed course and started flowing eastwards. WOW.

The claims that I make are well supported by the latest scientific studies and accepted and approved by many famous Indian scientists as well. It is you people who are confused between what has been written in your own ancient texts and what the hardline ultra nationalist Hindus are trying to project and present a wrong and revisionist form of history.
Saraswati existed alongside Yamuna. The archaeological and hydrological evidence shows that. Even your own links show that. The dry up of the Rainfed Saraswati began in and around 2000 BCE (4 ka). Talk about confused. You don't even know the basics of dating.

Oh and the Yamuna drifted apart from the Saraswati sometime around 10,000-12000 BCE or just prior to that. That's not 50,000 years, its 12-14,000 years. Learn to count
tornada is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:22 AM   #489

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,981
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajra View Post
I told you to give me any historical reference which mentions the term 'pakistan'.But you haven't.So it is you who is running away from my questions and keep on repeating the same crap over and over again.

I will ask one more time : Give me any historical reference which mentions the term 'pakistan' before 20th century!!!!!
Hell, I'll just settle for any historical reference which considers the territory of modern Pakistan as independent of India prior to the 19th century. Forget Pakistan, let Ticker provide the evidence for the assertion that the modern territory of Pakistan has always been considered distinct from India. Cause the evidence suggests that the Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Europeans, Arabs and Turks certainly didn't think that. But then again, evidence is only relevant when it supports Ticker's stand (so far, one disputed link on geology), not when it works against him (as demonstrated by his totally ignoring his own links when showed that they contradict him).
tornada is offline  
Old November 16th, 2014, 06:28 AM   #490

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,981
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticker View Post
I have proven my points time and time again. It is you who keep on repeating the same ol' same ol'.
You've stated your points over and over again.
Proof
noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Please, I'm begging you, buy a new dictionary. There's something wrong with the one you own currently
Quote:
Pakistan have an ancient history and you keep on stating again and again that Pakistan can not have an ancient history and that this history belong to India which was known actually as British India and ceased to exist in 1947.
Yes Pakistan has an ancient history. That history is part of the Civilization known as India. Pakistan and the Republic of India are both descendants of the Civilization known as India. There is no Ancient Pakistan, there is only Ancient India. This does not mean that Pakistan has no ancient history. It merely means that the ancient history is the same as the ancient history of India. Please, I'm begging you, read this and understand this before you again claim that I am asserting that the Republic of India is thousands of years old

Quote:
And you are still repeating the same thing. It is now becoming funny.
Funny

adjective

1. causing laughter or amusement; humorous
2. difficult to explain or understand; strange or curious.

Yes, you're assertions are certainly funny, and it is strange that we keep having to refute the same idiotic nonsense over and over and over again. We figured after having refuted the nonsense last year it was enough, but back you come, with the same arguments, with the same lack of academic or evidentiary support.

Please show us the texts which claim that the regions of what constitutes modern Pakistan were distinct from the territories which constitute Modern India in the Ancient and Medieval period.
tornada is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
ganges, indus, river, saraswati, valley



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethnicity of The Indus Valley Civilization 1991sudarshan Ancient History 71 December 17th, 2015 05:44 PM
Indus Valley celtman Ancient History 26 January 10th, 2015 12:08 PM
Indus Valley is Tamil Civilization omtamil Asian History 407 December 21st, 2014 08:18 AM
some indus river valley questions dreamshadow3 History Help 4 February 18th, 2011 07:08 PM
Indus Valley Syed F. Inam Ancient History 3 November 19th, 2010 12:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.