Talk:Pakistan/Archive 5

Original title lost

I would agree that this wording creates a lot of ambiguities about the ancient past that are largely speculative and needs to be reworded. It also some sort of power relations that are too connected to the present. Lastly, Pakistan does have an identity crisis as it has an Indo Muslim east and an Afghan-Iranian west with religion being the only component that unites them. That and borders drawn up by the British. As for searching for a nation, every country on earth does that. Pakistan does have a regional history as the historical currents of its region are theirs. That's how it is for every country on earth. Tombseye 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Pakistan ??? with all due respect WTF ??

Someone please modify the so called ancient pakistan thing written in the article.Pakistan is 60 years old and the history they try to steal is of India. True the reigons fall in pakistan eg.Sindu Valley(Indus Valley) etc. but the history of these reigons predates the idea of partiton and even the birth of Islam so a thing as "ancient pakistan" does not exist. Modify it.Or i will.Freedom skies 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Pakistan and not India. The area that is pakistan now has its own history too. So leave the article as it is.

Uh,the idea is to remain neutral and tell the truth.You seem to be doing neither.Before partiton the concept of pakistan was unheard of.Pakistan only has a 60 year history and you should tell the world like it is. I'll make it simple so even you can understand ..see ??......If you asked Babar "Hey! Does Pakistan rock or what ??".He would have gone "Pakistan .What the F**K is that ??".So much for your ancient Pakistan theory.The reigon at the time which you call ancient did not fall under the nation state of pakistan(pakistan did not even exist then,neither did jinnah).It was india and if you try and lie to the world and say the state is that old then i'll have to take an hour off my schedule and fix the mistakes which you made.Freedom skies 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article already says that the history overlap with India and even other countries made before India like Iran and even that Pakistan was once part of india. If we want to remain neutral the article should be about Pakistan not for India. Go edit the india article.

Go edit the India article ....even other countries made before India like Iran......?? WTF have you been smoking ??...anyways i guess you can't afford the good stuff.......Listen,the article is for pakistan no one is disputing that so stop crying foul over that....my problem is a thing as ancient pakistan does not exist.Ancient india existed but pakistan is just 60 years old and what you call "ancient pakistan" was a reigon of india at the time so it does'nt even deserve a mention.Why mention india's history and say pakistan was there but it was just ancient......pakistan is just 60 years old if you want to give a history of the reigons falling under the 60 year old state of pakistan then you must do it neutrally and truthfully.Otherwise i'll have to......just be truthful and tell it like it is.these reigons were a part of india when they were ancient and then a newly formed state came into being approx. 60 years ago.......saying the history overlap with India is hedging the truth and trying to underhandedly steal another country's history.Freedom skies 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

i worked about 2 hours to bring material for the new pakistan page to find it relatively suitably edited...........i did add a heading line though ,just in order to avoid confusion.Freedom skies 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say neither existed really. the modern nation-states claim vast territories as a collective when in fact there is no collective. There are numerous regional histories and to more accurate, Pakistan falls into two regions, one Indic and one Iranic. South Asia is a more accurate term simply because it refers to a region rather than an entity that was invented in the 19th century when the British named their new colony India. In fact there are lots of cases of new nations claiming historical continuity. When, for example, did the Azeris start calling themselves Azeris as opposed to simply Turks? Also, this question came up with a region like Moldova. Linguistically close to Romania, some say identical, but with some regional variations that Moldovans believe constitute their 'separate' identity. the modern nation-state has an interest in promoting its territorial integrity and that includes its claims to borders and a history that corresponds to said borders. However, these borders are often porous and Pakistan is no different in this regard. More accurately, Pakistan's eastern provinces relate to India, while the west relates to Afghanistan in the modern sense. Stretching back further we are alluding to modern perspectives with varying degrees of accuracy and nationalism.Tombseye

Sorry my friend, but you are completely wrong when you say both did not exist. India has always existed as a separate nation since last five millennia. Freedomskies has put it quite accurately and humorously. Babur, if asked whether India rocks or what, would have said “Yah man, it sure does”! Only difference is that he would have understood the word Hind instead of India. (And, probably would more likely have replied, no man, Hind sucks big time. He wrote so in his memoirs! Quite a bit of racist he was. Anyway that is beside the point.). Alexander when led his army into India more than two thousand years ago, knew he was entering into India, and not into some undefined collection of kingdoms. On the other hand both Babur and Alexander would have failed a quiz question on Pakistan.

Pakistan was not just renamed or discovered in 1947. It was created in 1947. It did not have any existence prior to that. India was just transformed into a sovereign republic from its prior status as a British colony. This is a huge difference. Sisodia 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're missing the point here. 'India' as we know it did not exist. The region has been constantly changing. The reason most people support the view that they have an older history is because of modern nationalism. I've read the Baburnama and he actually wasn't too fond of India except for gold and other sources of wealth. Hind was a vague term used by outsiders to denote a region that they largely didn't explore themselves. And it's borders vary. Sometimes it's west of the Indus and sometimes it includes the Indus. Alexander actually separates the region as well. One part is Gandahara, another part India (the Punjab), and another part overlaps onto Gedrosia. This usage of 'India' is then later applied further. I agree that there was no 'Pakistan' at any rate until 1947, but I don't agree that it didn't have its own regional history that didn't include Hind/India. Just look at the events that involved the region and did not involve modern India. British India is what was partitioned, not India. If the British had not arrived, it's not difficult to contemplate a bunch of countries in South Asia with Afghanistan taking back its territories in the west. Tombseye 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Tombseye is correct. There was the Maurya Empire which covered nearly all of British India, but prior to the British Raj there was no single political entity corresponding to "India", there were just so many Moghulates and kingdoms. The famous IVC covered a small part of British India (but a large part of modern Pakistan). Modern India and Modern Pakistan are the result of a split of British India, and neither has a claim of precedence over the other, don't be misled by the names chosen by the modern states. Or, if you want to claim that the Republic of India is a continuation of British India, while Pakistan is an independent creation, well, then "India" was created in 1857, and Pakistan in 1947, neither being "ancient". Of course, "Ancient Pakistan" is not a very good term. This is about as sensible as talking about the "Ancient USA" or "Ancient Germany". It would be better to talk about the Punjab, or the Indus Valley, or whatever is appropriate. "Ancient India" would refer to the subcontinent as a whole, but there will rarely ever be a statement to be made about the entire subcontinent, as a unity, in ancient terms, except maybe in climatic or geological terms. dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all correct. Originally, my point in making edits was denote a regional history that Pakistan has, but not to create this gross generalization that it has a completely separate history from that corresponding regions in India either. It's not an end sum situation here. Pakistan is an overlapping REGION. Its western provinces, while historically often associated with the West, show strong cultural ties to adjacent modern Indian regions. All of these renditions are part of a modern nationalist bent. It is more accurate to simply say the Indus region when referring to the Punjab and Sind and/or saying the Pakistani region even, but ancient Pakistan as a historical entity is as meaningless as claiming that British India simply equals India. This has more to do with nationalist claims led by elite rulers who impart upon their populations their 'rights' to foreign territories and extend these as historical claims. This can be seen with Iranians and Azerbaijan and it can be seen with the Serbs and Greater Serbia and the Russians and the Ukraine. There are numerous examples of this same type of rival history and historical claims usage. The complexities involved transcend the common usage that is quite easy to apply, but very difficult to defend. Tombseye 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Moghulates???

Anyway, ignoring such naiveté, what exactly is meant by such sweeping statements like ‘prior to the British Raj there was no single political entity corresponding to "India"’. Two and a half millennia ago a Greek historian called Herodotus wrote that in the easternmost parts of the world lies India. He even narrated many fascinating stories about India, some true, some plain nonsense. What country was he referring to? What country did Columbus and Vasco de Gama set sail for? They surely were not going for an unnamed bunch of ‘Moghulates’ and kingdoms. On the other hand, had anybody in the ancient world ever heard of anything called Pakistan?

Politically fragmented or united, India has always existed in the recorded history. Most of the ancient nations like China, Japan, Iran etc have gone thru repeated cycles of fragmentation and unification in the course of history. That does not mean these countries ceased to exist during the periods of fragmentation. Similarly, change of form of governance (like from monarchy to republic, democratic republic to communist republic etc etc) can not dispute the undisputable fact that the country exists.

The criterion to judge whether a country existed at a certain period or not, if you are discernible enough, is actually that whether the nation that gives the country its name existed or not. We talk about ancient China, India, or Greece because the nations called Chinese, Indians, or Greeks existed in ancient periods and hence gave the country where they resided their name. Pakistani nation itself was a creation of Partition of India. Hence the country called Pakistan itself couldn’t have existed prior to 1947. Ancient Pakistan is nothing but Ancient India, because the nation that resided in those lands was known as Indian.

>>>Of course, "Ancient Pakistan" is not a very good term. This is about as sensible as talking about the "Ancient USA"

Well you are right for once. Similarity between USA and Pakistan has been noted by many others too. Both are the states founded on an Idea. That states always need some territory to exist is the sole reason we have a territory defined as USA and a territory defined as Pakistan. It will be totally illogical to extend the name of Pakistan or USA retrospectively to their respective territories to the periods before these states were founded.

Sisodia 05:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not reading the sources correctly. As British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote on the subject, to the ancient Greeks and Persians "India" was the Punjab and SOMETIMES applied to vague areas to the west by Herodotus and others. The reality is that there is no single Indian cultural unit and ignoring Pakistan's regional history is not a solution either. These are all extreme positions. Columbus set sail for the Indies, this hardly means that everything from Indonesia to the Punjab is 'India'. A lot of Indian historians with credibility don't buy into the notion that this is anything other than modern nationalism which projects the view that there is complete historical continuity in order to cement the notion that these lands which have historical connection should thus be subject to one perspective. The Mongols invaded and the Ilkhans occupied western Pakistan. The Greeks don't cross the Sutlej. Neither do the Persians. How is this the history of modern India if these people don't even go there? Whether people like it or not these countries exist and their regional histories are theirs. Claiming a greater historical sphere is simply pointless, although showing historical links is another matter and is quite valid (such as the 100 year Mauryan period and the conversion to Buddhism by many if not most people in the Pakistani region). Terminology aside, regional perspectives make more sense than some massive collective that tends to weed out the details that a majority population doesn't like. Look at the History of India page and you see a history that basically gives the Islamic period 2 paragraphs, while the other periods get long explanations. Don't think that just because nationalists are re-writing Pakistan's history that Indians aren't doing the same. It's endemic of people in most countries to write a glorious history so as to lay claims of various sorts. Tombseye 07:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Comment from Labakkudas

I feel Pak should better be moved into Middle-east rather than South Asia. It is obvious that Pak is the odd man out in South Asia whereas it gels with Middle-east in all matters comfortably... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labakkudas (talk • contribs)

IMHO, Pakistan is far more similar to other South Asian countries than Middle Eastern countries. Anyhow, it's not up to us to "move" countries into regions. We're describing the geographical categorization that exists in the real world: geographers consider Pakistan to be in South Asia. If in the future the consensus-opinion among geography scholars changes then the article can be changed to reflect that. FactNTact 05:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, jus because it is Muslim does not mean it belongs in the ME. Would that also make Bangladesh in the ME, and the Muslims of India and Sri Lanka Middle Eastern? Pakistan is in the Indan subcontinent and in common with other S Asian nations does not benefit from natural resources as its main source of income. It's economy is based in agriculture and has a strong industrial base in Karachi. How exactly is it like any Middle Eastern country, besides religion? Only people who have very little knowledge of Pakistan would make a statement like that. Fkh82 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dont know where you got that from Pakistan has been part of South Asia ans is still a part of it. I understand its religion might be inclined to the Middle-East but I think thats about it... Modern day Pakistan was the birthplace of the Indian civilzation. It was also part of the Moghul empire and later British India. Almost all middle-east countries are desert lands rich in oil. Pakistan, on the other hand, relies on agriculture and industry. Somehow I can't see your point about Pakistan being the "odd man".

More realistically, Pakistan is both Middle Eastern and South Asian as well as Central Asian. It can be broken into three parts: the NWFP can be either Mideastern or Central Asian, the northern Areas Central Asian, the Punjab and Sindh are South Asian, but have had shared thousands of years of history with the Mideast and Central Asia, while Baluchistan is pretty much Mideastern. These regions all overlap in Pakistan in ways similar to Turkey's situation or that of the Caucasus where it is European culturally and Asiatic in some ways as well such as geographically although the line between Europe and Asia is clearly artificial. As for being the birthplace of Indian civilization, that is true to some extent, but a lot of activity and civilization formation took place along the Ganges rather than the Indus which was constantly coming under western attacks starting with the Aryans onwards. Culturally, Pakistan is Iranian in the west and North Indian in the east and nationally the two overlap in various capacities although the Iranian influence is more considerable in the east as opposed to Indian influence in the west, although Indian movies are popular. Also, academics often put Pakistan in two or more regions without worry as that is what is realistic. Tombseye 09:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

WTF ??? Modern day pakistan was the birthplace of Indian civilization ??......i knew that pakistan had a poor education system but this is just too bad even for a pakistani..... The demographics of the reigon were different and the reigon predates both the idea of partiton and the the religion of islam.The people who settled in the reigon where pakistan's Indus valley is now situated were Indians,unpartitoned and undivided.The concept of pakistan was non-existant at the time and so it remained till the 20th century.Pakistan only has about 60 years of history before that the history is all indian until a mass transfer of population and formal begining a a new state.See the good thing is that this is wikipedia,read any well respected neutral source and you'll see that pakistan only has 60 years of history befor that it was INDIA.Freedom skies 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming Pakistan was the birthplace of Indian civilization. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote to better understand what I wrote. Secondly, 'Indians' is a British term from the 19th century. Lots of Indian historians relate this fact. This is the case with a lot similar examples all over the world. Modern nation-states have all changed. Indians in this case would, I assume, mean people who spoke Indo-Aryan languages and that's true in eastern Pakistan, while western Pakistan is at the very least a border-land of Iranian and Indo-Iranian origins. I'm not Pakistani so I'd appreciate it if you'd try to not get personal. well, the good sources you're referring to neglect to mention the millennia of history that for example engulfed where Pakistan now exists and not India such as the Durrani Empire, the various Persian Empires, the Ilkhans, Greeks, etc. It's a regional history we're talking about, not a national one. Tombseye 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

-Actually, Tombseye, you're a little off. The area known today as Pakistan was ruled by the Achaemenid Persians as "Hindustan" or India. And, in most geographical groupings predating partition, the region was known as part of India. The culture practiced by most Pakistanis is identical to the culture of the North Indians, particularly the Muslims. As to the Iranian culture in the west that differentiates it, India itself is a diverse place and different cultural currents occured in different regions. Whole regions of India have cultural influences unique to them that separate them from the rest of the country. The area known as India was and is never culturally homogenous throughout. Pakistan is no more different from the rest of North India than South or Eastern India is. The Iranian languages, though they now dominate the western areas, are actually a bit recent. The Baloch arrived in the first millenium after Christ (circa 1000 AD), prior to which, the region was populated partially by Dravidian-speakers, as academics have written. The Pashtuns also only spread into the north west frontier region as a result of migration in the past millenium. Before that, the area was the center of a mixed-Greco-Indian Buddhist civilization. Also, just because languages in a region are Iranian doesnt mean they signify Middle Eastern influence in a region. It is true that one of the most well-documented Iranian languages, Persian, is Middle Eastern, but, for many centuries, Iranian languages were also more or less concentrated in southern central Asia. In fact, Iranian languages were historically found mostly in central Asia(Parthian, Scythian, Sogdian, Bactrian, Kamboja, Alani) and only two Iranian languages, Mede and Persian, were historically found in the Middle East. In the modern era, however, most Iranian tongues are located in the plateau in the Middle East, ( the most notable Iranian language other than Persian in the Middle East being Kurdish) and the Turkic languages pushed out the older Iranian languages out of most their Central Asian stronghold. So the Iranian influence in the are today known as Pakistan was more of a Central Asian brand. And, the Iranian influence in eastern Pakistan was part of Islam and was mostly through an Indic prism. Also, the Baloch and the Pashtuns practice a culture that cant necessarily be called "Middle Eastern" but Central Asian, especially the Pashtuns. Middle Eastern influence does exist in the region, as it does in India. Historically, only four mid-eastern political units dominated the region today called Pakistan: the Achaemenid empire, the Sassanian empire, the Selucid empire ( very briefly), and the Ummayad empire. Opposed to this, 10 political units have kept it united with the rest, or part of the Indian subcontinent: Gandhara, the Mauryan empire, the Indo-Greek kingdom, the Indo-Parthian kingdom(separate from the Parthian empire), the Indo-Scythian kingdom(s), the Kushan empire, the Hindu Shahi kingdom, the Delhi sultanate, the Moghal empire, and British India. These units united the area with both the Indian subcontinent and/or Central Asia. Overall, this region today known as Pakistan was in the past, Northwestern India, a crossroads between South and Central Asia with some Middle Eastern cultural currents (via Islam) through an Indic prism. So, I guess I would classify Pakistan as a South/Central Asian region with some Middle Eastern influence. This is the "Afghan historian" from the Afghanistan thread, just so you know. And I dont and wont discourage you from differing. -"Afghan historian"

Actually, I'm not off. The Punjab was ruled as Hindush, which in modern translation was applied by the British to all of South Asia through the Greek as India. Secondly, Pakistan is a border-land like Turkey, while the eastern provinces share the closest relationship with corresponding adjacent regions. There is no national identity. It all comes later. the same is true with modern Iran and its relationship with ancient Persia. everyone was not a Persian in Iran then and they aren't today. The Baloch are recent, but the Pashtuns are not actually. In addition, the languages in many of these western areas are Indo-Iranian and thus show a gradiation point. Greco-Indian is a modern term as well. A more accurate view would be Graeco-indo-iranian in terms of languages and cultures in the region. The 4 entities you mentioned constitute over nearly 1000 years. I'm not sure that's inconsequential. The Indian subcontinent geologically ends at the Indus river and the brink of the Hindu Kush mountains. Also attaching Indo to everything misleads people into thinking the Scythians were Indian when they were actually Iranic and the Kushans were Tocharians and the Hindu Shahi kingdom was based in Kabul where the majority population was Iranic and buddhist. Lastly, you have to ask yourself why is this region different and a nation-state? The easy answer is that its political events of the 20th century, but the other view is that nation-states form because of history. The region is different enough that people wanted to have a country and if its based upon religion or language then that's the way it is. Yeah, you're the 'Afghan' history who seems to talk more about the Kambojas than about Afghans I know just like the other guy. Tombseye 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what afghan Historian ?? That was the most beautiful rebuttal i've heard in a long time...I could'nt have said it better myself even if i switched from engineering to taking history.Freedom skies 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

-Still,in a cultural context, Indo-Aryan and Ancient Indian culture thrived here throughout. Zoroastrianism never really took root here, even though there is a Parsi community from Gujarat. And, the Selucids ruled for at most 5 years before being driven out by the Mauryans. I guess overall 500 years as opposed to about 1,000 + years under other units that united it with both south and central Asia. I never said the Scythians were Indic, (duhhh!! of course their Iranic How could I not know that) I said their kingdom united mostly the area of Pakistan with the much of the area now covered by the Republic of India. The Scythians also played a prominent role in the development of post-Mauryan south asian culture and were absorbed into the population in modern day Punjab and Rajasthan. The Hindu Shahi kingdom also extended into the area of Pakistan where most people were Buddhist and Hindu. As for Greco-Indian, if the term "Indian" is unsuitable, lets use a term used more commonly used in those far off days, Gandharan. The mixed Greek-Indian art style in NWFP and Eastern Afghanistan was called the Gandharan school of art (translation). I would like some citing for the Pashtun existence here prior in ancient times, though. And, even though the political entity "India" never existed, most people, including the the Greeks, the Persians, the Arabs, the Turks and the Chinese recognised it as a common socio-economic/cultural area of Intu, Hindustan, Indikos, etc. Even the locals referred to the region as Aryavarta or Bharat without any political unification. As for the reason for separation, I dont think the justification for partition should be an issue in this section. In fact, my great-grandparents were strongly supportive of a union with Afghanistan or the formation of a Pashtunistan, but this is not my view, which is irrelevant. Funnily, this logic should apply to half the area now known as the ROI because South India, historically, racially and cuturally, to a certain extent, was independent of the north and the area of Assam also remained cut off from Northern India for many years, with the exception of language and ethnicity to a certain extent. I think I read somewhere that there were some separatist movements in both those places at some time. No wonder. User: Afghan Historian

how about you talk about the thousands of human rights violations commited every year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.150.41 (talk • contribs) August 5, 2005

Vandalism

Vandalism by 205.221.1.21, probably an Indian, has been reverted many times. It advisable for him to stop vandalizing Pakistan related pages. -- User:Siddiqui 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way Siddiqui, I'm not Indian. And, I only made changes on one Pakistan-related page, to rid it of POV. Some complaints have also been filed on the "History of Pakistan" page concerning POV, but I've done no work on that one, particularly to avoid accusations like yours. I also do work to rid the India page of its own POV, however without much success, as nationalists keep deleting the Aryan and Achaemenid invasion from the main page's history section. No hard feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.1.8 (talk • contribs)

My comments are directed at 205.221.1.21. If you are the same person then please say so. Your 205.221.1.8 is similar to 205.221.1.21. User:Siddiqui 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-I meant "Afghan Historian", which is me, is not Indian. And many people do agree with me that the history section, particularly the Pre-colonial history section is strongly POV. Remember that modern political concepts should not be used to change history. Pakistan may have had some regional distinction from the rest of the subcontinent but so did all other regions as well(ie: South India). And no, I'm not proposing Partition was wrong. Most non-biased South Asia scholars, aside from Oxford, will tell you that the region today known as Pakistan was socially, culturally, racially(to a certain extent), linguistically, and often religiously tied more to South Asia and often Central Asia with some influence from the Middle East, mostly through an Indic prism. Many commentators other than myself, have also made similar arguments on the History of Pakistan, and have complained of vandalism as well as getting blocked. To avoid this, I will no longer make changes on the main Pakistan page and will just discuss on the discussion and let someone else try instead, to avoid getting blocked myself. That's all I'm going to say and your welcome to disagree with me. "Afghan Historian"(I'm just an amateur historian and I have some Pashtun ancestry.)

I do repect your point of view but at the same time would appreciate that we discuss the different point of views rather than first making reverts.

User:Siddiqui 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a historic basis for this?

"The Aryan invaders instituted the Caste system to enslave the native population and the aborigine tribes. This apartheid system prohibited intermarriage and relegated the natives into low caste untouchables while elevating the status of Aryan invaders."

I was wondering if there is any historical proof/evidence for the above. If not, should this not be removed? 82.24.246.148 12:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Raghu

Hello, I just read that myself and there are a lot of problems with these theories. First, the Munda people reference requires a citation as there is not really any evidence that I've heard of that supports their presence. Also, no one knows if the Indus Valley was Dravidian as that's just a theory and usually the correct term is Elamo-Dravidian as a hypothetical group between the Elamites in Iran and the Dravidians in India, but none of this is proven as no one has deciphered the Indus Valley script. Secondly, the caste system probably emerged much later, but not in what is today Pakistan. I read in the Oxford History of India was that it is believed by many academics (including Indian historian Romila Thapar) that Hinduism emerged not along the Indus, but along the Ganges and that later the caste system came about. Also, many now believe that terminology referring to the Dravidians as Dasa is actually incorrect and may in fact be a reference to rival early Indo-Aryan tribes OR even Iranian tribes in Afghanistan before the Indo-Aryans left Afghanistan and they may have referred to the Iranians as such since they had a different religion etc. Regardless, the usage and relation of this ancient history as fact is very questionable and I think it should be reworded back to how I left it not because I'm claiming some inside knowledge, but I believe what I wrote is more verifiable and common information that is more probable, although the exact location of the Vedic civilization is also largely hypothetical and based upon guesswork. Tombseye 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many arguments that the languages belonging to Munda family were also widespread in lands that constitute modern Pakistan. The Dravidian invaded from Iranian plateau and were most probably the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. The Aryan invaders instituted the Caste system to enslave the native population and the aborigine tribes. This apartheid system prohibited intermarriage and relegated the natives into low caste untouchables while elevating the status of Aryan invaders. This is also evident as the scheduled castes and tribes are the untochables or Harijans. The intermarriage between the castes or even subcaste is prohibited. Many Indian related pages state that Aryan "settled" in South Asia while the Muslim "invaded". This issue of who "invaded" and who "settled" must be discussed. In my view, both invaded first and then settled in South Asia. Why this double standard exists in India related pages ? Thanks.

User:Siddiqui 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm creating a double-standard here with regards to India. I'm just saying that the caste system has less relevance, historically, to the Pakistani region. It really did vary and its usage has changed over the centuries. And I agree that the usage of the Aryans as friendly invaders is clearly a POV position that is not tenable as the Muslims can hardly be viewed as something different. In addition, there is an emphasis that Hindus were forced to convert, while the pogroms of the Buddhists after Ashoka's death are largely viewed as something natural. Not sure the Buddhists would think that way though. So I'm not applying a double-standard, I'm just trying to impart that there's a lot of speculation being written as fact and demonizing the Aryans completely isn't the solution either, especially since their ways, as relateable to modern India form along the Ganges and not the Indus which was constantly being invaded and redefined. Tombseye 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sisodia's unprofessional comments

Sisodia reverted my contribution and added this comment:

02:45, 9 January 2006 Sisodia (→Arrival of Islam - Muhammad Bin Kasim's army went to Kashmir? Pakistani Bros this is Wikipedia, not the Quaid-e-Azam Govt Higher Secondary School of Faisalabad.)

I will also reply to him in the same language but first I want to give him an oppurtunity to rethink his statement. User:Siddiqui 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

be cool man, not need to reply him in this manner. sisodia (talk · contribs · block log) had already been once block of this sort of behaviour. dnt get yourself blocked.Wisesabre 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

-I recognize the name Sisodia. I dont know but I think he was one of the blokes on the Aryan Invasion Theory discussion page who was in denial of the whole event. I dont remember though so dont take anything I say here seriously. User: Afghan Historian

Portal Pakistan???

I think it will be good to have a portal for discussions on Pakistan related articles . What do you guys say ? F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

are you talking about this Portal:Pakistan or Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topicsWisesabre 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lots of grammatical and structural errors

There is a tendency in the article to overuse words. As an example, the Political History section sees the word 'constitutionally' used several times within the space of a few sentences. Whatever the reason for this, it doesn't make good reading. The Political History section also does not make much sense. The first paragraph begins with 1958 and rushes through to the present day. The second paragraph then rambles on about the first decade, followed by a third paragraph which comes back to the present. I will move the paragraphs round so they make chronological and literal sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.238.197 (talk • contribs)

Ancient??????????????????

The changes have been made in both pre colonial histories of India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan were formed in 1947. Thats just 50+ and certainly not ancient. India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh are all third world countries, with shared histories and cultures. It's stupid for India and Pakistan to crib about 'My culture' and 'My History'.

Changes are more in Pakistan article, as whoever wrote that article seems too much bent upon proving that Pakistan was never a part of India. India and Pakistan were never together, technicaly they never could have been. Guys GET OVER IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberwizmj (talk • contribs)

Too much to edit.

I suggest that a common ancient histroy page be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberwizmj (talk • contribs)

History section in this page is attempting to create a new history for Pakistan as a separate nation even before it was created in 1947. Srinivasasha 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add frivolous protected tags to the article. Thanks. --Ragib 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Pre-Colonial History' Section

This section does not make any sense. The preceding sections tell of the Ancient History and the Arrival of Islam, but the Pre-Colonial History has some material that would be more appropraite at the start of the Ancient History and some material that would be more appropriate in a personal opinion piece. Gushing about such matters as the separateness of Indus and Gangetic civilisations is a POV. If you are going to write this, then at least write it properly, so it doesn't look like a high school essay. Prove your capability by recognising that English uses definite and indefinite articles and that it has a certain grammar without which sentences sound like gibberish. Prove your literary skills by using references and sourcing from genuine scholarly works and not the Geocities webpage your friend maintains. Most of the first paragraph (if you can call it that) and the second paragraph would be better placed in the Ancient History section. The final sentence of the first paragraph would make more sense in the Arrival of Islam section.

The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that it became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by people of Pakistan. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the South Asia took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Indian based governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. Persian Achaemenian Empire conquered ancient Pakistan and it remained part of Persian empire for more than two hundred years. Alexander the Great also conquered Indus satrapy, modern Pakistan, and did briefly cross into India but returned after his army refused to advance further into India. Ancient Pakistan remained part of the Hellenic world for next hundred fifty years. During the Arab rule, the territories of Pakistan were known as 'Sindh' and Indian territories were known as 'Hind'. The Arab dynasties ruled Pakistan from Baghdad in Iraq and from Damascus in Syria for more than two hundred years.

Pakistan, a part of the Indus land, is the child of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile. The Indus has provided unity, fertility, communication, direction and the entire landscape to the country. Its location marks it as a great divide as well as a link between Central Asia and South Asia. But the historical movements of the people from Central Asia and South Asia have given to it a character of its own and have established closer relation between the people of Pakistan and those of Iran, Afghanistan and Turkistan.

If nobody objects, I'll merge the sections. 82.20.13.130 01:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, I wrote much of the History of pakistan article with the original intent not to convey that there is no relationship with India, but to show that Pakistan had its own regional history that often did not involve what is today modern India. Modern nation-states try to relate common histories, but even Pakistan can be broken up into regional histories is my other point. There are numerous cultural interactions and the languages in eastern Pakistan correspond to northwestern India. On the one hand, I've had to defend my points against one extreme, that there is a historical India that subsumes the region, and then there is the other extreme, that Pakistan has a separate existence altogether. It's not even an in-between thing as both positions aren't accurate. Regional histories are just that, but do not exclude other variables. I think this now presents a bit more POV as what defines relations between people? Is it religion, history, language? If these are the factors, than Pakistan is, as I was contendign an overlapping Indo-Iranian region and stating that its ties are more substantive one way or the other is very subjective. Tombseye 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tombseye, User:82.20.13.130 here (unless the IP has changed again). I agree with your point about Pakistan having a regional history. My original point was that one section didn't seem to flow with the rest of the History article. I suggested moving parts of the section to make a more readable article, which is pretty much what Idleguy has done (see below). 82.13.18.206 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Commented out redundant para

I have commented out an entire section or two since the para talks about early indus valley history and not pre colonial history. Given the chronological flow the article has taken after the mughals and nadir shah etc. it goes to british rule. I was expecting anything in between that period. but it throws back needlessly to indus valley again and speaks why pakistan wasn't ruled by India as a self defence statement.

Being repetitive in nature and of a poorer edit quality i have commented out and if there is no objection it can be removed. please go through the history section and you'll understand that the removal is the right choice. Tx Idleguy 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your position. Its needless and is really POV as the point is not to say whether modern nation-states can be related as separate or not so much as simply relaying the major events. Tombseye 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree and I have reinserted the paragraph.

Siddiqui 17:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah's Picture

That picture of Jinnah shows him when he was a young man. Whilst it may be an appropriate picture in the article on the man himself, most people wouldn't recognise it as much as the picture at the top of the article about him. It's a bit like showing a picture of George W. Bush when he was at college rather than a more recent one which would be more relevant. 81.107.198.254 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The map in the Post-Independence section

The map a German one (East Pakistan is labelled as Ost-Pakistan). Whilst it might be easy to work out what the labels refer to, wouldn't it be better to have a map in English from the BBC for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm

82.13.18.206 02:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That image isn't free so we'll see if we get a free licence one to replace this. Until then, I'm afraid this one might have to do the job. Idleguy 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Pakistan

Currently this section (Subdivisions of Pakistan) is languishing between sections on Ethnic Groups and Society and Culture. It would be better placed somewhere amongst the political sections, perhaps just after the section on Forms of Government. Any opinions? Green Giant 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The changes I made

Ready for this? I moved the Subdivisions section to go into the group of sections on Politics because that is the most logical place for it. In the Post Independence section, I felt that the photo of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and a pre-1971 map were appropriate. The picture of the Quaid-e-Azam Mausoleum is better placed around the Tourism section because it is one of the top tourist destinations in Karachi, although it seems to have ended up next to the Economy section where I think a picture of the State Bank or perhaps the Karachi Stock Exchange might be appropriate. Also in the Tourism section, I reduced the size of the K2 picture (we know it's a big mountain but there is no need for it to dominate the article). I also resized some of the other pictures and moved them around so that areas of text are not herded into awkward looking shapes.

I am still debating (in my tiny mind) whether to move the picture of the Shah Faisal Mosque down to the Religion section in place of the Mosque by Gul. The reason I am in favour of that is there is already a picture of a famous mosque (the Badshahi Mosque) a little above the Shah Faisal at the moment. Personally I feel most people will have heard of the Shah Faisal as opposed to the Mosque by Gul or at least they will recognise one more than the other. The fact that it is the major mosque in the national capital would make it more relevant when talking about the majority religion of Pakistan.

Ok, I'm ready to accept flak from anyone who is bored enough to do so :P Green Giant 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Pakistan were moved into the Geography section. I disagree with this because the subdivisions are political in nature and not defined by geography. I moved the Subdivisions back to the Politics section but this was reverted on the grounds that subdivisions are provinces and hence more appropriate in geography. However, geography is nothing to do with political subdivisions - it is about the physical features of the land, not the manmade ones. Oceans, mountain ranges, rivers, plains, lakes and forests are appropriate geographic subdivisions, so please leave political subdivisions as part of politics adhacent to the Forms of Government. Green Giant 17:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The subdivisions refer to geography and divisions in land like provinces and belongs in geography. The section even starts like this Pakistan has 4 provinces, 2 territories, Any other articles about countries would have this section in geography. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The United States, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Spain, Russia, Switzerland, India, and Australia articles all describe their political subdivisions either in a Politics or Government section or immediately beneath such sections. I agree that some of these are immediately adjacent to the main Geography sections but always with Politics or Government immediately above. Their Geography sections describe physical geography with mention of geography particular to some subdivisions. Only the Germany article describes political subdivisions in Geography. As a compromise, I would suggest making the Subdivisions into a separate main section, immediately between the Politics and Geography.

Templates

Shouldnt the yellow one be merged in the green one. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No they shouldnt, the yellow one takes you to the general categories relating to a subject, whilst the green one takes you to more precise articles that one may be searching for. They were on purposely created as they both have different functions. User talk:Fast track 26 January 2006

Dog fighting legal?

I know that bear-baiting is illegal in Pakistan, but still occurs. What is the legal status of dog fighting? Certainly dog fighting occurs in Pakistan, but what is it legal or illegal ? I have googled for a citation, but I cannot find a decent one, such as the Pakistani criminal code on-line version. Thank you in advance. WritersCramp 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

'Ost' Pakistan?

Does anyone realise that the Map for East and West Pakistan has East Pakistan labelled as 'Ost' Pakistan? ...I find that just a tad weird since this 'is' the English Language Edition of Wikipedia. Perhaps if someone could get a better Map...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.155.23 (talk • contribs)

See section 29 above ("The map in the Post-Independence section"). --Ragib 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

no leave the ost there, its a nice touch! it gives it a grim german feel.

re: description of Aryan migration

"The Indus Valley Civilisation spanned much of what is today Pakistan, but suddenly went into decline just prior to the invasion of Indo-European Aryans. A branch of these tribes called the Indo-Aryans are believed to have founded the Vedic Civilization that may have existed somewhere between the Sarasvati River and Ganges river in modern India around 1500 BCE."

I've rewritten to read:

"The Indus Valley Civilization spanned much of what is today Pakistan, but suddenly went into decline just prior to the migration of Indo-Aryan tribes from Central Asia. Their introduced culture mingled with that of the natives to produce the Vedic Civilization that existed between the Sarasvati River and Ganges river in what is now modern India around 1500 BCE."

Because: a) Labelling it an "invasion" is innacurate considering modern findings and views b) Indo-Aryan is more accurate and specific than "Indo-European Aryan" c) Evidence for a Dravidian substrate in Sanskrit, as well as genetic studies, show that the population of the North of the Indian subcontinent and it's associated culture is a mixture of native and Indo-Aryan influences. that ok? good. --86.135.217.213 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair play to you, your changes are an improvement, but you'd get fewer reversions if you signed up for an account Green Giant 10:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have an account (several infact) I can just never be bothered to use them. --86.135.217.213 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)