Why have you made this video private, mate, I request you make it public.
I have to say you have this immense knowledge about pakistan, Even though i know much about pakistan but you beat me in your knowledge by reading your comments.
hahahahah uneducated PAKIS ,this ancient history of hindustan , which shows that today pakistan was the hub of hinduism and these people are converts to islam shame on you pakis
The piece of Land that today is known as Pakistan....has never ruled itself....Pakistan was ruled by Indians(Nandas, Mauryas, Guptas, Palas), Greeks(Alexander), Arabs(Rashiuddin and Umaayad), Persians(Achaemenids, Sassanids), Turkics(Delhi Sultanate and Mughals) and Afghans(Ghaznavi, Ghauri and Abdali).
Do u know pakistan has never produced any king or empire...you have been ruled by Indian, Central Asians, Persians, Arabs, Afghans and Britishers all your life...check ur history and name me any one empire that has come out of Pakistan....its a Challenge
For instance, the word India comes from this territory; and used for it exclusively. Ancient Indus Valley Civilization isbased in Pakistan. The heart of Vedic civilization lies in Pakistan. The earliest Vedic texts were composed in Pakistan, Sanskrit was formalized and named in Pakistan. Porus, the king who fought Alexander was from Pakistan's territory. As was Chandragupt Maurya, whose grandson Ashoka ruled most of South Asia.
@omerlives hahahaha....Kushans came from central Asia...indus valley civilazation was not an empire, if itwas tell me the king, heart of vedic civilization is not in pakistan its in Gangetic plains of India where texts and vedas were produced. Sanskrit was not foound in modern Day India....Porus was from Punjab, agree...but his capitals and cities are not mentioned....Chandragupta maurya was from India....from BIHAR...today the poorest state in India
Central Asia is the name of a vast territory not a country. Every one in Pakistan came from somewhere. Persians too settled in Persia from Central Asia. The proto Vedic nomads entered Pakistan from Central Asia. etc etc. We are talking about dynasties that became native and identified itself not with their ancestral lands (pagan nomads don't do that) but with the country they settled down and adopted names in. Kushans thus ruled form Pakistan. Just to clarify ;)
You're right IVC was not an empire, but the first civilization nonetheless. The heart of Vedic civilization has always been in Pakistan. Gangetic plain was of course a much later development and about whose history we know very little.
We know where Porus's kingdoms were based between the 2 rivers that flow in Pakistan or the Hydaspes and the Acesines. Chandragupt was not from Bihar.
@omerlives Vedas started in Gangetic Plains, they were not started by Indus Valley people. but people of gangetic plains from North India....Kushana kingdom was started by ppl from BACTRIA
@ThePseudoBasher Again you are factually wrong or insist on lying. Only later Vedas were composed in the Gangetic plains as some of the nomads moved into northern part of modern India. A much later development than composition of early Vedas in Pakistan.
And no Kushans, were not Bactrians (not in language or lineage). Nomadic Kushans invaded Bactria from Western China, and moved down into Gandhara in Pakistan from where they ruled their empire.
Chandraguptas birth place is a contested issue, largely due to the inimical nationalist tendencies amongst some of India's politicians who would ofcourse wince at the knowledge that one of their treasured national symbols was born not on local soil. The most durable account/ majority scholarly opinion of placing him though, lie in the territory of Pakistan especially considering the fact tht much of what we know about him come from Greek and local accounts based in Pakistan.
@omerlives ok let me tell u something...Chandragupta Maurya's birthplace is not a contested issue...he was born in Magadha(Bihar) which was under Nanda Empire, he brought down Nanda empire and started his own empire known as Maurya, he conqured modern day pakistan and Afghanistan made a pact with Seleucus to not attack him....its a well known fact from global sources.
Chandragupt's birthplace is uncontested if one considers the dominant viewpoint and historical sources (both western and local) and that would place his birthplace in Pakistan not Magadha or Bihar or Nepal etc. It becomes contested ONLY because of psuedo Indian revisionist history AFAIK.
@omerlives are u serious or some paki jingoist ultra nationalist who wants to store everything in pakistan.....its a well(very well) known fact that Chandragupta was from Magadha(Bihar) with his capital as Patliputra(Patna)....fuck the Indian sources....check any global source
@ThePseudoBasher (cotd.) The Great Kushan Kings ruled from this territory as did the dynasties of Huns. Infact, large swathes of central and south Asia have been ruled from the territory of Pakistan. Empires based in Pakistan have usually ruled over what is today mistakenly known as state of India. Truth is many parts of central Asia have themselves been ruled for vast periods of times by empires based in other modern nations.
@omerlives Kushana came from Central Asia, let me tell u never aan empire has come out from modern day land known as pakistan....pakistan has always seen secondary capital....
Central Asia is the name of a vast territory not a country. Every one in Pakistan came from somewhere. Persians too settled in Persia from Central Asia. The proto Vedic nomads entered Pakistan from Central Asia. etc etc. We are talking about dynasties that became native and identified itself not with their ancestral lands (pagan nomads don't do that) but with the country they settled down and adopted names in. Kushans thus ruled form Pakistan. Just to clarify ;)
As far as modern state of India is concerned, it infact has been largely isolated from the Western world for much of its history (that's the reason for sparse accounts of any history rom the state that is mistakenly known as India) and the instances in which it has been connected to World history it's due to being ruled by foreigners or by Empires based in the land watered by the Indus aka Pakistan.
Pakistan is a cradle of civilization and world history.
@omerlives pakistan is no cradle of civilization of anything let alone the whole WORLD......Buddhism was from India(BIHAR)....Vedics from India(Gangetic plains)...Islam to Pakistan came from Arab, Persia, Afghanistan, Turkics etc
I think you do not know what the cradle of civilization means. There are four ancient cradles based in 4 modern countries: Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and Yangtze in China. And it seems to be you are being redundant again. Vedic civilization was brought to India from Indus plains. Classical vedic civilization including development of Sanskirit occurred in Pakistan.
Buddha was born in Nepal not modern state called India.
@omerlives Indus valley was a civilization but remember it died....it was not the same civilization that produced Vedas....i again challenge you, Vedas were produced by Gangetic Plain ppl....not by Indus valley.....and as far as Buddha is concerned....Buddha was born in the era of Mahajanpadas, he was not born in any palace but his mother was travelling to a modern part day part of Nepal(which is near India-Nepal border)....his kingdom was in India....
Yes we know that Indus Valley died out and that it was based in Pakistan. And no need to challenge any one. The classical Vedic texts including the Rg Veda were all composed in Pakistan, later developments (with which Pakistan is not concerned) occured in India, as the nomads invaded the Gangetic plains in later history.
@omerlives i agree abt Indus valley, that most of it was in pakistan.......but not Vedas.....why are u acting silly........Indus ppl died, do u even know the history of Indius valley ppl........there launguage was comletely different and has not been decoded till date.......Vedas were written in GANGETIC PLAINS of India in Sanskrit............u can be dreamer but stop cheating ur history
Yes Indus Valley died out and was absorbed in by the later invading nomads or the proto sanskirit nomads. It is their legacy that dominates large parts of eastern and northern Pakistan. As said before, early vedas were composed by the nomads in Pakistan largely including the Rg Veda, while some later works were composed in modern state of India as some of these nomads moved on into the gangetic plains.
Sanskirit itself was formalized, and named as such in Pakistan.
There is no such ting as the "era of the Mahajanapadas." Just lossely based chiefdoms, and kingdoms. Buddha was born and raised in Nepal not in the state of India. You need to check your facts. No need to hijack Nepali history here.
@ThePseudoBasher It seems to me that you are here not to learn but because your animosity towards Pakistan makes you feel that your country (state of India) is being belittled. You need not feel that way.
And btw, Islam came to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Persia and the Turks viz the Arabs.
Every one knows that. Or do your think that Afghanistan and Turks are located in Saudi Arabia?
@omerlives You are discussing the Indian part with me....i can even discuss the turkic, central asian part with u....u want to discuss Islam in pakistan i can....but sstop lying that ur country has produced a Kingdom....it never has!!
@ThePseudoBasher Asked and answered multiple times. Several names of both Kingdoms and Empires based in Pakistan have been named.
As ALREADY stated, Kushans were not Bactrians. Not in race or language. They invaded Bactria, and later on moved fiurth down in Pakistan from whence they settled and ruled an empire from Peshawar.
Mauryas as ALREADY stated were from Pakistan i.e. Gandhara who invaded India and later ruled as a transplanted dynasty.
@omerlives no no, not just mauryas...britishers were also from pakistan, ming dynasty was also from pakistan, romans were also from pakistan, french are also pakis....pakistan is the best country ever with all the empires in the world....happy pumpkin??????
British were from the British Isles, Romans were from the Italian peninsula, French were from the Gaul. You just had a sarcasm FAIL; that happens when you obtusely close your mind out of hate or insecurity. :(
But, yes for most Pakistanis, it is the best country in the world despite its many faults and problems.
I fear you've learned nothing, though I hope I am wrong.
Bharata (Sanskrit: भरतः) is a legendary emperor of India, referred in Hindu and Jain mythology.He was the first to conquer all of Greater India, uniting it into a single entity which was named after him as Bhāratavarṣa.According to the Mahābhārata, Bharat's empire covered all of the Indian subcontinent, Bactria, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan, and Persia. The Republic of India is officially known as Bhārat in Hindi after Bharata.
It's very interesting video! I like it! You my friend Omerlives, I well- understood your point in here but Great Islam is nowhere related to Indus(Hindu) valley civilization! It has its own unique Great Arab civilization; Evidently you're belong into Indo-Aryan ethnic groups, I'm glad that you people adapted Great Islam and stepped into right path! Stealing one's religion heritage and culture would be shameful, Please don't do that! Take care.
@ABDULLAHGUDA I agree with you, pakistanis should be watching and be proud of arabic videos....these videos and cultures belong to us infidels, the indians..your culture is totally different ,I don't know why pakistanis take pride in their infidel history and acestory, that belongs to usss..your history is the arabs. I agree with you.
@ABDULLAHGUDA First sensible post here, we hindus are harrapa and you pakistani/arabs are mecca and medina...I dn't understand how pakistanis can take pride in this infidel culture ...this belongs to ussss.
I see Indian dogs re barking here lolzz..guess what u indian Dravidians dogs belongs to india "the land deep in south" haha. This "Anicent Indus Valley Civilization" is in Pakistan and matter fact all Present-Pakistan was used to be Indus Valley civilization.
truth is pakistan own the AIVC and india got no history to show.
Ironically India gets its name from Indus which is in modern day Pakistan!!...why not keep it as Bharat as it has been called by the Hindus since the writing of the Vedas. India is not an original name but a given name by the Brits..as is Indus which should be called Sindhu..so none of you have Indian heritage or Hindu pasts...your all a bunch of savages who got taken up the back street by colonisers and your savagery exists to this day...and for always...pakistanis and indians alike..
@indoaria Bharat only referred to the doaba of gangetic plain. And just to let you know, the term Hindu as referring to a "religion" in this generic region is also modern dating back to the 16th century. So no there were no ancient "Hindus" and there was no ancient Bharat. The former only referred to people living in the Indus basin, and the later to a gangetic doaba.
@omerlives you seem to miss the point that I am making...WE are all descended from ONE RACE..the HUMAN RACE...no matter what the historic scriptures say we are all the same and no matter how deep you dig you will be faced with the same truth and that is YOU ARE HUMAN!! Wake up and smell the coffee! LOL! XX
@indoaria I have no idea why you would use that tone to say what you just said, as I have absolutely no qualm, dispute or disagreement with that notion, or ever had.....both in my commentaries or this video.
@omerlives Hindu is a turkish word actually, it is called santana dharma originally and before that no one knows that knowledge has been lost for ever. But the religion called hinduism existed a long long time ago but in a much more pure uncorrupted form than today..but thats besides the point. Even in many hindu texts and stories places in ( what u call pakistan and afghanistan today) are refered to
@subroto81 Actually you are misinformed. Hindu is a protosanskririt/sanskirit word which literally means river and was employed for river Indus as a name because of its grandeur and centrality to the lives of those tribes that settled/invaded in the regoin. : The River. And no there is where the term sanatan dharma has been used in ANY ancient text to describe the holistic belief system of the region. The employment of that term is a recent phenomena dating back to late 19th early 20th century.
@subroto81 And the problem with calling ancient texts "hindu" texts is both anachronistic and false as those texts ad little bearing with sense the word is used today. I have no problem calling them hindu text today though, as the meaning of the term hindu has very difernt meaning than it did in ancient times. And the way this religion called "hinduism" has evolved these texts have become sacrosanct to it even if the nomadic tribes who wrote them in earliest times had no sense of its modern use.
@omerlives I advise you to practice hatha yoga which is a very physical type of yoga but leads to spiritual enlightenment eventually, many muslims and christians pracice yoga as well, but today yoga has been commercialized and practiced in gyms everywhere thats why the misinformation about yoga.
@omerlives IT is like the millitary or army, you join the army to defend your country right?? but along the way you get fit and strong..same with yoga you do it to attain spiritual enlightenment but along the way you get fit and healthy..but nowadays people only use it for it's health purposes and without the right breathing techniques which have been abandoned there is little spirituality, I kow it sounds wierd but the only way to find out is to do it.NOT read about it.
@omerlives If u think the texts have no mordern use, practice some chanting of the sanskrit mantras for 3 weeks non stop , then if it doesn't work u can say yea it has no use. Mantras are sound energy put together in certain formats and have a lot to do with sound vibrations and frequencies, the way u pronounce certain words but I am getting too deep , I am not a philosopher I would rather practice it than read about it.
Ha ha ha ha ha......Ancient Pakistan history!! How do you expect civility when you indulge in such extraordinary subversion of human history? You are bastards of the british at best. You didn't have any separate identity before 1947. If you continue to deny your Indian & thereby Hindu heritage, there can't really be any honest. meaningful dialogue, can there?
@adityabose26 What does civility have to do with your bastardised point of view? The only subversion of history is what has been taught in Bharati text books---a total warped and farcical view of history. No wonder savage butchery is the hallmark of bahrat.
@adityabose26 And I don't understand what you mean by seperate identity? What does that mean? lol Didn't have separate identity with respect to whom? The British colonial masters? lol If tomorrow some dumb fvck says that all Europeans are one and have no seperate identity does that make it Gospel?
@Persipolis1 hindu roots?? who gives a shit the only thing worth knowing about india is when the mughals took over and bought some civilisation in to the dirthy filthy peoples of the continent or you wouldv been still making statues of your naked mums and sleeping with your sisters! inbred languar monkeys!
If you know anything about South Asian history at all or if you pick up a history book,the Indus Valley Civilization,Mohendajaro,Harrappan Civilization was hindu the artifacts,everything was hindu and it was the most advanced civilization just like hinduism is an advanced religion scientifically proven the first that said the earth was round and not flat like all other religions suggested.When muslims came into India they adapted the science & math they were taking from asia to sell to europe
It's upsetting that pakistan doesn't teach their children their true history some ignorant pakistanis say they ruled India lol
They thought they were always muslims that's not true pakistanis were Indians because pakistan was India then when with all the invasions islam came,the british came & basically it tore India apart & created islamic pakistan and secular India.
@TheQueenGia Hogwash. There is absolutely "nothing" Hindu about IVC. There is nothing "scientific " about Hinduism any more than any other religion. In fact it is not even a religion. It is the generic pagan culture of a huge region. And Arabs never conquered modern day India nor did they take any scholars from that region. The only interaction and borrowing they did was from the region comprising Pakistan which was under the Omayyad domain.
@omerlives AS far as scientific about hinduism, I would advise to do a few weeks of meditation and spiritual yoga just for experimental sake thats all, then you can see for yourself if it is scientific or not. You can't say something is scietific or not without testing it first, like conducting a scientifc experiment thats all. Just reading books is not enough, books can confuse people but if you put the knowledge in the books to practice then you will know for sure, just like in science.
@subroto81 Yoga is a form of stretching and meditation. It has as much relation to hinduism as pilates has with Christianity or Tai Chi with Buddhism. These are cultural artforms largely, their religiosity is secondary and by and large coincidental corrollary.
And scientific validity of hinduism is as valid as that of buddhism,Islam,scientology. Just ask the followers :-D Of course that doesn't mean that these religions aren't compatible with science.
@omerlives There are many many different types of yoga, you can do yoga for 20 years and barely scratch the surface. Yoga in sanskrit means Union..union with the divine. The main reason for yoga is spiritual enlightenment. Kundalini yoga for example is very spiritual in nature and delivers results if practiced the right way but the only way to determine that is by practicing it, many people comment on yoga with no experience it whatsoever.
@omerlives How do you know????, have u tried it? or are you one of these people that like to "theorize and debate" with no practical experience whatsoever.
hey people dont be fooled.... the civilization which was 5000 yrs old was not pakistan. pakistan is just a 63 yrs old country...... so calling it as an ancient pakistani history is wrong.
@coolsidshan4u Ofcourse Pakistan is 63 years old. It is a modern state. The various people and cultures within this stae do comprise a historic territory with 5000 years old history.
@SonofPs On your other point, looks like you're referring to South Asia rather than the modern concept of India. In that case those who invaded South Asia did so because of the usual reasons that empires expand. It has much to do with territory, real estate and resources and hardly any thing to do with culture or civilisation. The Brits for example might have been impressed by the muslim Mughals who built wonders of the world in architecture, but would've occupied South Asia nevertheless.
Wrong framing. This point of yours has been explained several time by now. 5000 year history of what country? which domain? If we're talking about history of IVC or Pakistan/India- proper(land of Indus), there no inconsistency nor picking and choosing. Any ways, the 5000 year civilization of Pakistan has never been contiguous but always in flux.
Not really. Mauryas, Cholas etc are not considered "classically indian" OR "Hindu". The territory covered by Afghanistan was never considered part of the arbitrary geographic realm called India at any point in time.
@omerlives Yes really. In the Rig Veda and in the Mahabhrata "India" is called Bhārat (भारत) in Hindi and Bhāratam (भारतम्) in Sanskrit. This covers all the lands between South India and as far west as Afganistan.
This talk of "India" is a red herring, the oficial name of india is Bhārat (भारत) in Hindi and Bhāratam (भारतम्) in Sanskrit, and has been called thus since at leat the Mahabhrata.
For those who do not know Emporer Bhratam is a legendary King that united "greater India"
@LambrettaFunk That's an absolute farce. Mahabharta is an epic poen and the the region bharat only referred to northern indian gangetic plains. There has not been or ever will be any thing called "greater India" or anything thereof. Not a single local text mentiones any local equivalent of the term "India" except for when referring to the territory of "Indus".
Oh well, lets just say the classical view of india would cover much of modern day afghanistan, pakistan, bangladesh and parts of burma, indonesia,cambodia.
The Mauryas ,Cholas etc are considered classical Indian (aka "hindu" culture- whatever you may want to term it)- and covered most or all of these areas at times well before the creation of several modern day states.
The reason ppl bring religion etc into this thing is because unfortunately most ppl get the sense that islam is not a kind of "inclusive" religion. i.e its basically "my way or the highway"...I may be wrong technically, since i am not an islamic scholar or any of that sort. Its the general perception.
So, i feel, that ppl sense that to claim a civilisation some 5000 yrs old as ones own and simultaneously reject the interim predominantly "Hindu" (call it what you will)one doesn quite gell.Thatall
You are right Islam along with other major religions xtianity, judaism, buddhism, zoroastarianism are what you may call fit the traditional definition of religion. "Hinduism" on the other hand never fit this definition until new local reframing came about in 19th century. "Hinduism" before the 19th century was pretty much defined by foreigners primarily muslims Arabs, and Central Asians and later on the Brits.
B) And the Brits, Arabs et al "defined" hindu"ism" because of their worldview and social psyche which formed after converting to an official monotheistic religion.
To say "hinduism" is a religion is like saying that Native American peoples (with diverse and disparate peoples and belief systems with certain common themes) followed a "religion" called Native Americanism.
C) That's the nature I believe of non proselytizing "pagan" (not used in any degrading sense) cultural belief systems: they are flexible and capable of absorbing and expanding the belief cluster/pantheon etc etc.
Because that is the nature of human culture. And these "cultural religions" who have been named and defined by those that follow an official and clearly defined religions mentioned above.
D) SO exmple: to the early Central Asian muslims (AfghansTurksetc) the Buddhist were a clearly defined group of unbelievers, but the term "hindu" was synonymous for the term "idol worshiping pagan" and was pretty much any body else who didn't have a religion unlike, muslims Zoroastrians or Buddhists etc.
And hence even though IVC has NOTHING to do with Hinduism, modern day "hindus" are the way they are due to historical events and due to politics of their own elites in the 19th cent.
E) And ofcourse no one is stopping people of the state of India or those around the world today who call themselves "Hindu" or ANY creed and identity, to identify and revere or marvel in Pakistan's ancient heritage of which IVC is just a part of. Because as said before world's heritage are treasures to be shared and celebrated and studied. And thus, this is only possible if we all respect each others heritage.
@omerlives Flag waving halfwit......IVC is neither Pakistani nor Indian...it is the history of a region......grow up!!.....nations and borders are transitory......as is your IQ ....sadly.....
The history of mankind is not something to wave your flag over...and you would do well perhaps to remember it is the property of 'mankind'........not Pakistans (nor Indias come to think of it)
@00TriedandTested00 No need to chatter like a dimwitted shit flailing monkey. No one said that history, Pakistan's or others, is not part of the collective human legacy. But it is not wrong for a people directly descended and living on a land with deep history to have some pride in the land's rich and ancient past. I wonder if you flail shit like a macaca when ever you hear some one talking about the ancient treasures of Iraq.
But like i said the basic thing is "motivation" and "definition".
So if we have say World>Asia>south Asia>India>pakistan>punjab>particular city over which say harappa is located,
What we chose to describe as "ancient history of X (from above)" depends a bit on our 'motivation'
Firstly ,of course,we are all human beings and ALL this stuff is our common heritage- somewhere during all the hatred,relgiosity and nationalistic jingoism we forget this
So, for eg. a person residing in say "Delhi" may well claim a particular site there as the "ancient history of delhi"...and technically he would not be wrong to do so.
However, the "parent" Always takes "precedence" .
Similarly, you may well claim that as the "ancient history of pakistan", but by comment consent the "parent" in this case the chaps "before" that claim "precedence"....i.e India, South Asia ,The World.
Not really. This reply will be longer so let me number it:
#1
The parent and child example is quite inefficient for several reasons because it can render tings useless especially considering the case at hand. For sure Pakistan is in Asia, but it wouldn't make much sense if say Korea and Japan started to take credit for Pakistan's and Iraq's ancient heritage because they too are in Asia right? cotd.
Secondly, Modern day India is not and never has been the "parent" of Pakistan just because it is larger in size. Had the state created by Nehru not distastefully kept the name India, we wouldn't have much trouble. Or had more states been formed out of British India, we wouldn't have this confusion.
Pakistan is "in" South Asia. India is "in" South Asia. But these two states like other are not in "in" each other lol. Both were "part" of the British India along with other states.
The sequence would be World>Asia>SouthAsia>Pakistan>Punjab.
Yes, ancient heritage is always something that should treasured by every one . That's something I always advocate. And people must respect the heritage of each other for the simple reasons of deference, and truthiness. Political deviations and wordplay is what causes angst to the ppl who feel their heritage and past is under attack or dishonorably mislabeled. That's how Pakistanis feel.
That would happen if there was no conflict in names, meaning, context and so forth. Otherwise the modern academic terms such as South Asia would not be needed to be employed.
Forexample if there is suddenly a huge country called europe in the middle of europe but does not include Greece or Italy, but claims look we are Europe, Greece was part of Europe so ancient Italian history is our history because European history included Italy. That's basically your logic here. Its wrong.
So, clearly in any logical train if say india >pakistan.( especially chronologically)...then the 'ancient history of pakistan' ancient history of pakistan' is first and foremost the 'ancient history of india'?
You have essentially agreed to this when you said that if punjab breaks away from pakistan then harappa would be the 'ancient history of punjab'- however , with what possible reasoning can you claim that it is not first 'ancient history of "chronological" order'?
Just as the temples etc in Indonesia, Cambodia are very clearly ancient indian history( since the area first fell under the umbrella of the idea of india, sind, hind...whatever)...it is first "ancient indian history" and only THEN can it be termed "ancient indonesia history"
Similarly, harappa is first and foremost "ancient indian history" because the subcontinental area was well before anyone under the idea of 'india'...thereafter you may subclassify infnitely
No the temples in Cambodia, Indonesia have nothing to do with India (if you're attemting to make connestions with the modern state and concept of the term India).
The term India, Sindh, Hind, Hundi all stemmed from the land and people and the River which flows through Pakistan. That was the historical rendering in Sanskrit, Persians and the Greeks.
And the Harrapans existed way before the term "India" was even employed by the new arrivals in the same area.
Hey guys, I think omaerlives may have a point when he calls a 63 yr old thing "ancient." You see there is a rare medical ( I think it is some sort of a genetic aberration, just a guess) called Progeria, where a person ages about 20 times the rate of a normal person. Na, even then it would make pakistan only about 1260 yrs, & that's not ancient. Ye, may be he's calculating age of pakistan in ant years.
There is absolutely no term such as sanatan dharma used in ANY single ancient local text and definitely not in any foreign texts which recored neither the term hindu NOR sanatan dharma to describe the religon of this vast sub continent.
There was never any unified religion or pantheon just a generic theme, much like the European religions whether Germanic, Celtic, Greek or Slavic.
All this sanatn dharma, and framing of "Hindu" thought is an modern18th 19th century phenomena.
the closest parallel you will find to define hinduism is perhaps "science".
i.e like science it has self development at its core.
it can always evolve, unlike other religions- the entire definition is to stick to some single book.
which is why a modern day "questioner'- may interrogate any of the texts or offer up his own theory without any fear of "blasphemy" or damnation to hell etc.
Regardless of India's name, the thought of "Ancient Pakistan" is an utter joke and the way this pathetic excuse for a country is going I doubt it'll even be in existence in a hundred years time.
@SonofPs "omar' can suck my preverbals. I do hope this promise of an extended life leads to me living long enough to see Pakistan disappear into a black history. And I hope all the wetern governments who helped fund it and gave it life are enjoying the bombs being set off by those trained in Pakistan. Historical Karma if ever I saw it. 8-)
DO read the instruction in the description section of this video.
And try to be a little more optimistic, kind and productive in your thinking. All that pakistan-obsession and illwill will leave you with chronic ulcer and cripled digits.
However, I still maintain - the most critical point here is motivation. What motivates one to make such videos , in essence striving to claim an ancient civilisation as one's own- especially when it is clear the country in question was part of a much larger entity, and yes well before British India too.
The motivation is simple: one's interest in one's heritage and the subject matter of archeology, history, anthropology and to educate others. Any attempts to to concoct a motivation further would be reading too much into a simple video.
The country in question has been part of many entities through its history. and shouldn't remian hostage to the colonial legacy.
I do appreciate your inquiries and input. Yes and as you can see i do have to put up with inconvenient annoyances. However I have always believed that fruitful discussions are not to convince the other but for later reflection and for others who may benefit from it. Take care.
The term Hindu referring to people is pretty old but was strictly meant for people in the Persian province of Hinduya not for all of South Asia or modern day India. Later on the term covered various geogrpahical extents depending on who was using it. I believe it was the Turko-Afghan muslims who would employ it for the first time in the religious sense . Not a single local text exists where therm hindu or any variant has been used to describe a religion, a people, a pan geo state etc.
The point is that for the people living in India the term Hindu was relatively new. The term generally used was sanatan dharma. Hinduism in any case isnt a religion in the traditional use of the word......for eg. i can be an atheist, idol worshipper, non idol worshiper, agnostic, etc etc etc and still be within the hindu umbrella.
Your goalpost shifting. This video is about Harrapan civilization. For sure the province of Punjab has many important sites and IVC forms part of its history.
It is rather straighforward. If x>y>z, and if A is currently located in z, it follows that it is also located in x. Similarly, if it is clear that Pakistan is a relatively recent break away from "India" ,of "Hind" , or "Sindh"...whatever...Harappa has got to be a part of the whole.
If there were no mughals or British, this land wouldn't carry the burden of being associated with the modern country with the misnomer rendering of India.
Pakistan didn't "break away" from India. It was carved out of British India. As was the ocuntry India (or its official name Bharat). Both Bharat and Pakistan were "in" India (British India moreappropriately) ...a term which has been replaced by the correct term South Asia. It would be nonsense to say Pakstan brokeaway from SouthAsia
Incorrect. As others have mentioned the East India company was trading in India for a couple of hundred years in an area which covered not just pakistan, but Bangladesh as well. So, the area covering India (and pakistan,bangladesh) etc. were "in situ" well before your concept of British India
Yes, to the Europeans as well to the Brits everything south of the Sino sphere and east of Turco-Persian domain was India of some sort and has absolutely nothing to do with the modern misnomer state called India. Ever heard of the Dutch East India company? Guess where it was trading? That's right in Indonesia. India has only as much claim to the term India as does Indonesia or Indo-China or East Indies or West Indies. But the story started from what is today Pakistan.
Indonesia too was essentially a Hindu nation under the Chola empire.
so, again if follows that if you find a civlisation there it is actually first "ancient indian history" and then only may it be termed "ancient indonesian history"...indonesia having been formed later...pretty straighforward one may have imagined
Nope India nesia was not "hindu" under the cholas. Their is not a single ancient text where this empire would call its belief system Hindu or refer to ANY people under its domain as hindu or indian or any variant thereof.
For sure, that the subjects of Chola empire were pagans of various beliefs and themes; They were not Hindu, Indian or has anything to do with this modern concept if India.
Nope Indonesia was not "hindu" under the cholas. Their is not a single ancient text where this empire would call its belief system Hindu or refer to ANY people under its domain as hindu or indian or any variant thereof.
For sure, that the subjects of Chola empire (which btw was based far removed in the deep south) were pagans of various beliefs with perhaps common underlying themes themes, but they were not Hindu, Indian or has anything to do with this modern concept if India.
Like we said b4, the word "hindu" itself was a word used by other parts of the world to kind of classify the chaps living around here..and the temples etc in cambodia, bali etc are all basically "hindu"- however you may chose to define the term
The word Hindu has been used differently by different people. For the Turks and Afghans it literally meant Pagan, For the Europeans it largely meant a Geographic designation such as European, not the modern usage. The modern usage is a religious description.
The concept of India as a geographical term such as sub-saharan Africa, middle east, Europe etc is no longer valid for several reasons, the 2 big ones being:
1) The original birthplace of the name, land and people (the indus basin or modern day Pakistan) has not retained that name.
2) Their is a modern sate called India who name is both anachronistic, a historical and a misnomer.
The same thing would happen if suddenly there was a large country in Europe called "republic of Europe"!
Which is why i stated that your logic may be extended to the ancient history of punjab. or ancient history of the particular province within which harappa is located.
however, you yourself use the whole in your video -i.e Pakistan.
Essentially, it is attempting to have your cake and eat it too.
Yes if Punjab tomorrow breaks away from Pakistan, it could very well claim the ancient history of Punjab which would comprise of everything that transpired in tis territory. Some event could be unique , other shared.
You DO realize that all the "main" cities of this civilization are inside pakistani borders and in all provinces just not punjab? the concentration is in Sindh and southern punjab though.
Oh my dear friend. If say for eg. Mr.Jinnah had wrangled only and East Pakistan aka Bangladesh and not the current pakistan , would we even be having this conversation?
This is roughly like claiming that my son (if you have one) is related to mealone and not to my forerathers....not a wholly correct metaphor, but will do till i find a better one!
Logical fallacy in your example. One'a biological immutable event the other is not.
Such massive amounts of misconception and cloud nine mythical thinking in indian discourse has very modern basis : it started with the congress elite in British india and has become a holy cow. A rotten fallacious holy cow.
Even if one follows your fallacy, the father names the son, sometimes with his own name. And where did the name India come from? From the territory of Pakistan. lol
If the British were still around the name of the history of their South Asian domain would be "Ancient history of British India" or And had they conquered further east or furthe north into Afghanistan they would probably still classify their domain as India which as has been explained before has absolutely nothig to do with modern india or some historical entity.
And THAT is precisely my point. If Punjab breaks away tomorrow, then it becomes ancient punjab history and NOT ancient pakistan history- as per the current logical train?
The essential point is that if you can claim harappa as "ancient pakistan history" - that ofcourse came after the "ancient indian history" bit.
so, in the similar vein of thought the "ancient history of pakistan" includes indian history, indian customs, the reign of several indian emperors including the mauryas etc...then to the mughals, british etc....
Not at all. Mughals always held a bigoted disdain against the locals of India for the usual reasons of supermacism of the conquering class, the same can be said about the British. The mughals held the natives with disdain mostly with certain exceptions such as Kashmir. They had no attraction to indian culture or people whom they considered uncultured, savage and ugly.
They like the Brits were interested in extending their domain just as the Brits did in Africa.
So, clearly in any logical train if say india >pakistan.( especially chronologically)...then the 'ancient history of pakistan' ancient history of pakistan' is first and foremost the 'ancient history of india'?
You have essentially agreed to this when you said that if punjab breaks away from pakistan then harappa would be the 'ancient history of punjab'- however , with what possible reasoning can you claim that it is not first 'ancient history of "chronological" order'?
I believe this logic has been answered many times as to why it is not so. The term India was employed for the land and river which flows through Pakistan and later on was used as geographical domain like Asia, Europe etc. It didn't mean any country, state, people, religion and or anything hereof until the arrival of muslims and later on the Brits.
TOday to refer to Pakistan, republic of india, indonesia, vietnam etc as India is both anachronistic, ahistorical, inaccurate and wrong.
Before you make statements such as "X is not Y" , it is necessary to define what X is in the first place. Therefore , the definitions of hinduism, india, pakistan are required first. Once you have them in place ,then and only then, is there some scope to move forward.
As an example: Pakistan was a state created out of India. You may chose to call this British India. But as you yourself have mentioned in other comments the general conception of India was for ages of a much vaster area.
Pakistan could very well have chosen to retain the name India: the name's original birthplace and historical juxtaposition. The country today known as India was also carved out of British India. it should have chosen another name. Infact did show his reservations about Nehru's republic chossing to keep the name India. India was a concept much like Europe or Middle East. Hence the proper term today for that concept is South Asia.
No,I think the name is quite appropriate. India , Indoi, Hind are all various derivatives of the sanskrit Sindhu. In the modern world India was known as "india"...
From the ancient greeks Indoi, to the persian Hindu...to the modern usage "India".
Yes Indoi, Hinduya etc are derived from Sankirit Sindhu which means The River referring to the largest river in Asia the Indus river and historically the terra that carried this name was the one watered by Indus and was a satrapy of the Persian empire. The greeks before the ventured into this Persian Satrapy (Hinduta) thought that beyond this river and land is the end of the world. Greeks never even knew of the the land comprising modern day India until later.
On this point you need some serious research. there is abundant proof for flourishing trade between the greeks and indians several years BCE....ditto romans ,indians etc....
As has been explained many time before the only trade that existed between Greeks and "Indians" was that between classical Greeks and people of the Indus Basin(which is Pakistan). The Greeks until the arrival of Alexander didn't even know that there was more land beyond the Indus. To them beyond Indus was an empty desert and then the ocean or end of the world. They never knew, traded or set a foot in modern India.
It would be much later development when Greeks would discover more land beyond the land of Indus that the name India would lose its original meaning and take up meaning of something more abstract such as Europe or Asia or Asia minor or Middle east etc.
@SonofPs this omar lives in a vaccuumm under the rock. He says that "Pakistan could very well have chosen to retain the name India" the moron doesn't get it that, that is AH Jinnah & the rest of his moronic "ancestors" did not want India, they had asked for a "pakistan" & wanted to change India's name 2 Hindustaan, which was turned down by Sardar Patel as it was not the case of creating India, it was breaking away a part of India to make pakistan. The losers need to lie to their kids 2 save face
I am a first year Grad student in college, I am assuming you too are atleast past 20. But if I make you feel like a kid it's because ...well that's how you feel in front of me LMAO!
Not IVC had only spuriousconnection with modern day India only some areas immediately adjoining Pakistan have overspill of this culture. The reast of India has absolutely no cities of cultural centers with IVC.
This video is about ancient Pakistan. Pakistan's history would not include events and kingdoms of the rest of India which had nothing to do with its territory nor do pakistanis have much interest in them.
you know, the only reason you are in so called 'pakistan' is because your father/grand father was a little closer to that than 'east pakistan'- other wise you would have been 'bangladeshi'
Question No.2:
So, do the neanderthals (and your close brethren) who bombed the bahmiyan buddhas claim 'buddhism' and its associated teaching as "ancient afghanistan history'?
For the second point, yes Bamiyan Buddhas were created by the ancestors of modern day Afghans. The fact that they destroyed it was an act of stupidity but by certainly no means a unique incidence.
Why have you made this video private, mate, I request you make it public.
I have to say you have this immense knowledge about pakistan, Even though i know much about pakistan but you beat me in your knowledge by reading your comments.
Keep it up.
RadioPakistanDelhi 10 months ago
hahahahah uneducated PAKIS ,this ancient history of hindustan , which shows that today pakistan was the hub of hinduism and these people are converts to islam shame on you pakis
MrBubbakool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The piece of Land that today is known as Pakistan....has never ruled itself....Pakistan was ruled by Indians(Nandas, Mauryas, Guptas, Palas), Greeks(Alexander), Arabs(Rashiuddin and Umaayad), Persians(Achaemenids, Sassanids), Turkics(Delhi Sultanate and Mughals) and Afghans(Ghaznavi, Ghauri and Abdali).
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
Beautifully made. I am proud of being Pakistani and of my ancient heritage. Thanks for sharing this.
GeorgiaIsOnMyMind 1 year ago
Do u know pakistan has never produced any king or empire...you have been ruled by Indian, Central Asians, Persians, Arabs, Afghans and Britishers all your life...check ur history and name me any one empire that has come out of Pakistan....its a Challenge
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
Your comment is factually wrong on many levels.
For instance, the word India comes from this territory; and used for it exclusively. Ancient Indus Valley Civilization isbased in Pakistan. The heart of Vedic civilization lies in Pakistan. The earliest Vedic texts were composed in Pakistan, Sanskrit was formalized and named in Pakistan. Porus, the king who fought Alexander was from Pakistan's territory. As was Chandragupt Maurya, whose grandson Ashoka ruled most of South Asia.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives hahahaha....Kushans came from central Asia...indus valley civilazation was not an empire, if itwas tell me the king, heart of vedic civilization is not in pakistan its in Gangetic plains of India where texts and vedas were produced. Sanskrit was not foound in modern Day India....Porus was from Punjab, agree...but his capitals and cities are not mentioned....Chandragupta maurya was from India....from BIHAR...today the poorest state in India
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
Central Asia is the name of a vast territory not a country. Every one in Pakistan came from somewhere. Persians too settled in Persia from Central Asia. The proto Vedic nomads entered Pakistan from Central Asia. etc etc. We are talking about dynasties that became native and identified itself not with their ancestral lands (pagan nomads don't do that) but with the country they settled down and adopted names in. Kushans thus ruled form Pakistan. Just to clarify ;)
omerlives 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
You're right IVC was not an empire, but the first civilization nonetheless. The heart of Vedic civilization has always been in Pakistan. Gangetic plain was of course a much later development and about whose history we know very little.
We know where Porus's kingdoms were based between the 2 rivers that flow in Pakistan or the Hydaspes and the Acesines. Chandragupt was not from Bihar.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives Vedas started in Gangetic Plains, they were not started by Indus Valley people. but people of gangetic plains from North India....Kushana kingdom was started by ppl from BACTRIA
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher Again you are factually wrong or insist on lying. Only later Vedas were composed in the Gangetic plains as some of the nomads moved into northern part of modern India. A much later development than composition of early Vedas in Pakistan.
And no Kushans, were not Bactrians (not in language or lineage). Nomadic Kushans invaded Bactria from Western China, and moved down into Gandhara in Pakistan from where they ruled their empire.
omerlives 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
Chandraguptas birth place is a contested issue, largely due to the inimical nationalist tendencies amongst some of India's politicians who would ofcourse wince at the knowledge that one of their treasured national symbols was born not on local soil. The most durable account/ majority scholarly opinion of placing him though, lie in the territory of Pakistan especially considering the fact tht much of what we know about him come from Greek and local accounts based in Pakistan.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives ok let me tell u something...Chandragupta Maurya's birthplace is not a contested issue...he was born in Magadha(Bihar) which was under Nanda Empire, he brought down Nanda empire and started his own empire known as Maurya, he conqured modern day pakistan and Afghanistan made a pact with Seleucus to not attack him....its a well known fact from global sources.
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
Chandragupt's birthplace is uncontested if one considers the dominant viewpoint and historical sources (both western and local) and that would place his birthplace in Pakistan not Magadha or Bihar or Nepal etc. It becomes contested ONLY because of psuedo Indian revisionist history AFAIK.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives are u serious or some paki jingoist ultra nationalist who wants to store everything in pakistan.....its a well(very well) known fact that Chandragupta was from Magadha(Bihar) with his capital as Patliputra(Patna)....fuck the Indian sources....check any global source
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher (cotd.) The Great Kushan Kings ruled from this territory as did the dynasties of Huns. Infact, large swathes of central and south Asia have been ruled from the territory of Pakistan. Empires based in Pakistan have usually ruled over what is today mistakenly known as state of India. Truth is many parts of central Asia have themselves been ruled for vast periods of times by empires based in other modern nations.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives Kushana came from Central Asia, let me tell u never aan empire has come out from modern day land known as pakistan....pakistan has always seen secondary capital....
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
Central Asia is the name of a vast territory not a country. Every one in Pakistan came from somewhere. Persians too settled in Persia from Central Asia. The proto Vedic nomads entered Pakistan from Central Asia. etc etc. We are talking about dynasties that became native and identified itself not with their ancestral lands (pagan nomads don't do that) but with the country they settled down and adopted names in. Kushans thus ruled form Pakistan. Just to clarify ;)
omerlives 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
As far as modern state of India is concerned, it infact has been largely isolated from the Western world for much of its history (that's the reason for sparse accounts of any history rom the state that is mistakenly known as India) and the instances in which it has been connected to World history it's due to being ruled by foreigners or by Empires based in the land watered by the Indus aka Pakistan.
Pakistan is a cradle of civilization and world history.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives pakistan is no cradle of civilization of anything let alone the whole WORLD......Buddhism was from India(BIHAR)....Vedics from India(Gangetic plains)...Islam to Pakistan came from Arab, Persia, Afghanistan, Turkics etc
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
I think you do not know what the cradle of civilization means. There are four ancient cradles based in 4 modern countries: Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and Yangtze in China. And it seems to be you are being redundant again. Vedic civilization was brought to India from Indus plains. Classical vedic civilization including development of Sanskirit occurred in Pakistan.
Buddha was born in Nepal not modern state called India.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives Indus valley was a civilization but remember it died....it was not the same civilization that produced Vedas....i again challenge you, Vedas were produced by Gangetic Plain ppl....not by Indus valley.....and as far as Buddha is concerned....Buddha was born in the era of Mahajanpadas, he was not born in any palace but his mother was travelling to a modern part day part of Nepal(which is near India-Nepal border)....his kingdom was in India....
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
Yes we know that Indus Valley died out and that it was based in Pakistan. And no need to challenge any one. The classical Vedic texts including the Rg Veda were all composed in Pakistan, later developments (with which Pakistan is not concerned) occured in India, as the nomads invaded the Gangetic plains in later history.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives i agree abt Indus valley, that most of it was in pakistan.......but not Vedas.....why are u acting silly........Indus ppl died, do u even know the history of Indius valley ppl........there launguage was comletely different and has not been decoded till date.......Vedas were written in GANGETIC PLAINS of India in Sanskrit............u can be dreamer but stop cheating ur history
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
Yes Indus Valley died out and was absorbed in by the later invading nomads or the proto sanskirit nomads. It is their legacy that dominates large parts of eastern and northern Pakistan. As said before, early vedas were composed by the nomads in Pakistan largely including the Rg Veda, while some later works were composed in modern state of India as some of these nomads moved on into the gangetic plains.
Sanskirit itself was formalized, and named as such in Pakistan.
omerlives 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
I must say now, that you are contributing anything new. Just recycling already said statements.
omerlives 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
There is no such ting as the "era of the Mahajanapadas." Just lossely based chiefdoms, and kingdoms. Buddha was born and raised in Nepal not in the state of India. You need to check your facts. No need to hijack Nepali history here.
omerlives 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher It seems to me that you are here not to learn but because your animosity towards Pakistan makes you feel that your country (state of India) is being belittled. You need not feel that way.
And btw, Islam came to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Persia and the Turks viz the Arabs.
Every one knows that. Or do your think that Afghanistan and Turks are located in Saudi Arabia?
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives You are discussing the Indian part with me....i can even discuss the turkic, central asian part with u....u want to discuss Islam in pakistan i can....but sstop lying that ur country has produced a Kingdom....it never has!!
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher I just listed the numerous Kingdoms as examples. You are being incoherent. Lying and being envious is not going to get you anywhere.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives u did not ....all are ur fantasy.....name me any Empire started in Pakistan.....any one...challenge is still open
Kushanas were from BACTRIA with primary capital as Bagram(Afghanistan)
Mauryas were from India i.e Magadha
what else??
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher Asked and answered multiple times. Several names of both Kingdoms and Empires based in Pakistan have been named.
As ALREADY stated, Kushans were not Bactrians. Not in race or language. They invaded Bactria, and later on moved fiurth down in Pakistan from whence they settled and ruled an empire from Peshawar.
Mauryas as ALREADY stated were from Pakistan i.e. Gandhara who invaded India and later ruled as a transplanted dynasty.
Anything else?
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives no no, not just mauryas...britishers were also from pakistan, ming dynasty was also from pakistan, romans were also from pakistan, french are also pakis....pakistan is the best country ever with all the empires in the world....happy pumpkin??????
ThePseudoBasher 1 year ago
@ThePseudoBasher
British were from the British Isles, Romans were from the Italian peninsula, French were from the Gaul. You just had a sarcasm FAIL; that happens when you obtusely close your mind out of hate or insecurity. :(
But, yes for most Pakistanis, it is the best country in the world despite its many faults and problems.
I fear you've learned nothing, though I hope I am wrong.
But I guess this is bye bye :)
omerlives 1 year ago
Indus Valley Civilization or IVC
omerlives 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is from wiki......
Bharata (Sanskrit: भरतः) is a legendary emperor of India, referred in Hindu and Jain mythology.He was the first to conquer all of Greater India, uniting it into a single entity which was named after him as Bhāratavarṣa.According to the Mahābhārata, Bharat's empire covered all of the Indian subcontinent, Bactria, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan, and Persia. The Republic of India is officially known as Bhārat in Hindi after Bharata.
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That was from wiki you ignorant Pakistani.
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
Comment removed
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
It's very interesting video! I like it! You my friend Omerlives, I well- understood your point in here but Great Islam is nowhere related to Indus(Hindu) valley civilization! It has its own unique Great Arab civilization; Evidently you're belong into Indo-Aryan ethnic groups, I'm glad that you people adapted Great Islam and stepped into right path! Stealing one's religion heritage and culture would be shameful, Please don't do that! Take care.
ABDULLAHGUDA 1 year ago
@ABDULLAHGUDA I agree with you, pakistanis should be watching and be proud of arabic videos....these videos and cultures belong to us infidels, the indians..your culture is totally different ,I don't know why pakistanis take pride in their infidel history and acestory, that belongs to usss..your history is the arabs. I agree with you.
subroto81 1 year ago
@ABDULLAHGUDA First sensible post here, we hindus are harrapa and you pakistani/arabs are mecca and medina...I dn't understand how pakistanis can take pride in this infidel culture ...this belongs to ussss.
subroto81 1 year ago
What a nice video :D
aisha18cherine 1 year ago
Comment removed
00TriedandTested00 1 year ago
@00TriedandTested00
ah you're back like the proverbial bad smell.
Listen monkeynuts, Yes Pakistan is an acronym and a modern name for the Indus Valley. The region has had many names? What's your point?
You didn't have one now did you monkey nuts?
omerlives 1 year ago
I see Indian dogs re barking here lolzz..guess what u indian Dravidians dogs belongs to india "the land deep in south" haha. This "Anicent Indus Valley Civilization" is in Pakistan and matter fact all Present-Pakistan was used to be Indus Valley civilization.
truth is pakistan own the AIVC and india got no history to show.
Agirlnot2messwith 1 year ago
@Agirlnot2messwith LOL, in that case Israel is now isreal and the muslims can F'off??
Hypocrites, all of you.
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
Whay have you disabled the rating on this? Democracy to hard for you lot????
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
Ironically India gets its name from Indus which is in modern day Pakistan!!...why not keep it as Bharat as it has been called by the Hindus since the writing of the Vedas. India is not an original name but a given name by the Brits..as is Indus which should be called Sindhu..so none of you have Indian heritage or Hindu pasts...your all a bunch of savages who got taken up the back street by colonisers and your savagery exists to this day...and for always...pakistanis and indians alike..
indoaria 1 year ago
@indoaria Bharat only referred to the doaba of gangetic plain. And just to let you know, the term Hindu as referring to a "religion" in this generic region is also modern dating back to the 16th century. So no there were no ancient "Hindus" and there was no ancient Bharat. The former only referred to people living in the Indus basin, and the later to a gangetic doaba.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives you seem to miss the point that I am making...WE are all descended from ONE RACE..the HUMAN RACE...no matter what the historic scriptures say we are all the same and no matter how deep you dig you will be faced with the same truth and that is YOU ARE HUMAN!! Wake up and smell the coffee! LOL! XX
indoaria 1 year ago
@indoaria I have no idea why you would use that tone to say what you just said, as I have absolutely no qualm, dispute or disagreement with that notion, or ever had.....both in my commentaries or this video.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives Hindu is a turkish word actually, it is called santana dharma originally and before that no one knows that knowledge has been lost for ever. But the religion called hinduism existed a long long time ago but in a much more pure uncorrupted form than today..but thats besides the point. Even in many hindu texts and stories places in ( what u call pakistan and afghanistan today) are refered to
subroto81 1 year ago
@subroto81 Actually you are misinformed. Hindu is a protosanskririt/sanskirit word which literally means river and was employed for river Indus as a name because of its grandeur and centrality to the lives of those tribes that settled/invaded in the regoin. : The River. And no there is where the term sanatan dharma has been used in ANY ancient text to describe the holistic belief system of the region. The employment of that term is a recent phenomena dating back to late 19th early 20th century.
omerlives 1 year ago
@subroto81 And the problem with calling ancient texts "hindu" texts is both anachronistic and false as those texts ad little bearing with sense the word is used today. I have no problem calling them hindu text today though, as the meaning of the term hindu has very difernt meaning than it did in ancient times. And the way this religion called "hinduism" has evolved these texts have become sacrosanct to it even if the nomadic tribes who wrote them in earliest times had no sense of its modern use.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives I advise you to practice hatha yoga which is a very physical type of yoga but leads to spiritual enlightenment eventually, many muslims and christians pracice yoga as well, but today yoga has been commercialized and practiced in gyms everywhere thats why the misinformation about yoga.
subroto81 1 year ago
@subroto81 Yeah I know it's commercialized...that's the magic of consumer capitalism. I like the way you think though.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives hope you're well
PakistaniShaheen 1 year ago
@PakistaniShaheen
Hey man, how have you been? Nice o you to drop by.
As you can see, I still have to clean house with pestering little pests from time to time. Pakistani heritage apparently gives them nightmares.
The problem is not with Pakistan of course, but there own sense of inferiority and warped sense of history. I blame their leaders and government.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives totally agreed bro though we have our ignorance to our heritage to blame as well. I started university. Pakistan Zindabad
PakistaniShaheen 1 year ago
@PakistaniShaheen congrats on starting school.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives thanks. You should start blogging on these topics. you can even earn money from blogging.
PakistaniShaheen 1 year ago
@omerlives IT is like the millitary or army, you join the army to defend your country right?? but along the way you get fit and strong..same with yoga you do it to attain spiritual enlightenment but along the way you get fit and healthy..but nowadays people only use it for it's health purposes and without the right breathing techniques which have been abandoned there is little spirituality, I kow it sounds wierd but the only way to find out is to do it.NOT read about it.
subroto81 1 year ago
@omerlives If u think the texts have no mordern use, practice some chanting of the sanskrit mantras for 3 weeks non stop , then if it doesn't work u can say yea it has no use. Mantras are sound energy put together in certain formats and have a lot to do with sound vibrations and frequencies, the way u pronounce certain words but I am getting too deep , I am not a philosopher I would rather practice it than read about it.
subroto81 1 year ago
@subroto81 Interesting. Can I listen to New Age music while chanting mantras? lol
omerlives 1 year ago
Ha ha ha ha ha......Ancient Pakistan history!! How do you expect civility when you indulge in such extraordinary subversion of human history? You are bastards of the british at best. You didn't have any separate identity before 1947. If you continue to deny your Indian & thereby Hindu heritage, there can't really be any honest. meaningful dialogue, can there?
adityabose26 1 year ago
@adityabose26 What does civility have to do with your bastardised point of view? The only subversion of history is what has been taught in Bharati text books---a total warped and farcical view of history. No wonder savage butchery is the hallmark of bahrat.
omerlives 1 year ago
@adityabose26 And I don't understand what you mean by seperate identity? What does that mean? lol Didn't have separate identity with respect to whom? The British colonial masters? lol If tomorrow some dumb fvck says that all Europeans are one and have no seperate identity does that make it Gospel?
omerlives 1 year ago
@Persipolis1 hindu roots?? who gives a shit the only thing worth knowing about india is when the mughals took over and bought some civilisation in to the dirthy filthy peoples of the continent or you wouldv been still making statues of your naked mums and sleeping with your sisters! inbred languar monkeys!
eazzymo 1 year ago
If you know anything about South Asian history at all or if you pick up a history book,the Indus Valley Civilization,Mohendajaro,Harrappan Civilization was hindu the artifacts,everything was hindu and it was the most advanced civilization just like hinduism is an advanced religion scientifically proven the first that said the earth was round and not flat like all other religions suggested.When muslims came into India they adapted the science & math they were taking from asia to sell to europe
TheQueenGia 1 year ago
It's upsetting that pakistan doesn't teach their children their true history some ignorant pakistanis say they ruled India lol
They thought they were always muslims that's not true pakistanis were Indians because pakistan was India then when with all the invasions islam came,the british came & basically it tore India apart & created islamic pakistan and secular India.
TheQueenGia 1 year ago
@TheQueenGia Hogwash. There is absolutely "nothing" Hindu about IVC. There is nothing "scientific " about Hinduism any more than any other religion. In fact it is not even a religion. It is the generic pagan culture of a huge region. And Arabs never conquered modern day India nor did they take any scholars from that region. The only interaction and borrowing they did was from the region comprising Pakistan which was under the Omayyad domain.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives AS far as scientific about hinduism, I would advise to do a few weeks of meditation and spiritual yoga just for experimental sake thats all, then you can see for yourself if it is scientific or not. You can't say something is scietific or not without testing it first, like conducting a scientifc experiment thats all. Just reading books is not enough, books can confuse people but if you put the knowledge in the books to practice then you will know for sure, just like in science.
subroto81 1 year ago
@subroto81 Yoga is a form of stretching and meditation. It has as much relation to hinduism as pilates has with Christianity or Tai Chi with Buddhism. These are cultural artforms largely, their religiosity is secondary and by and large coincidental corrollary.
And scientific validity of hinduism is as valid as that of buddhism,Islam,scientology. Just ask the followers :-D Of course that doesn't mean that these religions aren't compatible with science.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives There are many many different types of yoga, you can do yoga for 20 years and barely scratch the surface. Yoga in sanskrit means Union..union with the divine. The main reason for yoga is spiritual enlightenment. Kundalini yoga for example is very spiritual in nature and delivers results if practiced the right way but the only way to determine that is by practicing it, many people comment on yoga with no experience it whatsoever.
subroto81 1 year ago
@subroto81 yeah, thanks. If I try Hatha yoga...i'll end up in a permanent knot.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives How do you know????, have u tried it? or are you one of these people that like to "theorize and debate" with no practical experience whatsoever.
subroto81 1 year ago
@TheQueenGia ummmmmm nnnnoooooooooooooooooo greeks new it was round in hinduissmmmmmmm is dum
chitownzfinesthustla 1 year ago
@TheQueenGia ummmmmm nnnnoooooooooooooooooo greeks new it was round in hinduissmmmmmmm is dumn in barbaric
chitownzfinesthustla 1 year ago
Pakistan was created because of islam and the british
TheQueenGia 1 year ago
hey people dont be fooled.... the civilization which was 5000 yrs old was not pakistan. pakistan is just a 63 yrs old country...... so calling it as an ancient pakistani history is wrong.
coolsidshan4u 1 year ago
@coolsidshan4u
you´re right
hotsizzlingPERSIAN 1 year ago
@coolsidshan4u Ofcourse Pakistan is 63 years old. It is a modern state. The various people and cultures within this stae do comprise a historic territory with 5000 years old history.
omerlives 1 year ago
Comment removed
00TriedandTested00 1 year ago
@SonofPs On your other point, looks like you're referring to South Asia rather than the modern concept of India. In that case those who invaded South Asia did so because of the usual reasons that empires expand. It has much to do with territory, real estate and resources and hardly any thing to do with culture or civilisation. The Brits for example might have been impressed by the muslim Mughals who built wonders of the world in architecture, but would've occupied South Asia nevertheless.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Wrong framing. This point of yours has been explained several time by now. 5000 year history of what country? which domain? If we're talking about history of IVC or Pakistan/India- proper(land of Indus), there no inconsistency nor picking and choosing. Any ways, the 5000 year civilization of Pakistan has never been contiguous but always in flux.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Not really. Mauryas, Cholas etc are not considered "classically indian" OR "Hindu". The territory covered by Afghanistan was never considered part of the arbitrary geographic realm called India at any point in time.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives Yes really. In the Rig Veda and in the Mahabhrata "India" is called Bhārat (भारत) in Hindi and Bhāratam (भारतम्) in Sanskrit. This covers all the lands between South India and as far west as Afganistan.
This talk of "India" is a red herring, the oficial name of india is Bhārat (भारत) in Hindi and Bhāratam (भारतम्) in Sanskrit, and has been called thus since at leat the Mahabhrata.
For those who do not know Emporer Bhratam is a legendary King that united "greater India"
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
@LambrettaFunk That's an absolute farce. Mahabharta is an epic poen and the the region bharat only referred to northern indian gangetic plains. There has not been or ever will be any thing called "greater India" or anything thereof. Not a single local text mentiones any local equivalent of the term "India" except for when referring to the territory of "Indus".
omerlives 1 year ago
Comment removed
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh well, lets just say the classical view of india would cover much of modern day afghanistan, pakistan, bangladesh and parts of burma, indonesia,cambodia.
The Mauryas ,Cholas etc are considered classical Indian (aka "hindu" culture- whatever you may want to term it)- and covered most or all of these areas at times well before the creation of several modern day states.
SonofPs 1 year ago
The reason ppl bring religion etc into this thing is because unfortunately most ppl get the sense that islam is not a kind of "inclusive" religion. i.e its basically "my way or the highway"...I may be wrong technically, since i am not an islamic scholar or any of that sort. Its the general perception.
So, i feel, that ppl sense that to claim a civilisation some 5000 yrs old as ones own and simultaneously reject the interim predominantly "Hindu" (call it what you will)one doesn quite gell.Thatall
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
A)
You are right Islam along with other major religions xtianity, judaism, buddhism, zoroastarianism are what you may call fit the traditional definition of religion. "Hinduism" on the other hand never fit this definition until new local reframing came about in 19th century. "Hinduism" before the 19th century was pretty much defined by foreigners primarily muslims Arabs, and Central Asians and later on the Brits.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
B) And the Brits, Arabs et al "defined" hindu"ism" because of their worldview and social psyche which formed after converting to an official monotheistic religion.
To say "hinduism" is a religion is like saying that Native American peoples (with diverse and disparate peoples and belief systems with certain common themes) followed a "religion" called Native Americanism.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
C) That's the nature I believe of non proselytizing "pagan" (not used in any degrading sense) cultural belief systems: they are flexible and capable of absorbing and expanding the belief cluster/pantheon etc etc.
Because that is the nature of human culture. And these "cultural religions" who have been named and defined by those that follow an official and clearly defined religions mentioned above.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
D) SO exmple: to the early Central Asian muslims (AfghansTurksetc) the Buddhist were a clearly defined group of unbelievers, but the term "hindu" was synonymous for the term "idol worshiping pagan" and was pretty much any body else who didn't have a religion unlike, muslims Zoroastrians or Buddhists etc.
And hence even though IVC has NOTHING to do with Hinduism, modern day "hindus" are the way they are due to historical events and due to politics of their own elites in the 19th cent.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
E) And ofcourse no one is stopping people of the state of India or those around the world today who call themselves "Hindu" or ANY creed and identity, to identify and revere or marvel in Pakistan's ancient heritage of which IVC is just a part of. Because as said before world's heritage are treasures to be shared and celebrated and studied. And thus, this is only possible if we all respect each others heritage.
omerlives 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@omerlives Flag waving halfwit......IVC is neither Pakistani nor Indian...it is the history of a region......grow up!!.....nations and borders are transitory......as is your IQ ....sadly.....
The history of mankind is not something to wave your flag over...and you would do well perhaps to remember it is the property of 'mankind'........not Pakistans (nor Indias come to think of it)
00TriedandTested00 1 year ago
@00TriedandTested00 No need to chatter like a dimwitted shit flailing monkey. No one said that history, Pakistan's or others, is not part of the collective human legacy. But it is not wrong for a people directly descended and living on a land with deep history to have some pride in the land's rich and ancient past. I wonder if you flail shit like a macaca when ever you hear some one talking about the ancient treasures of Iraq.
omerlives 1 year ago
Comment removed
00TriedandTested00 1 year ago
Hey Omar, You sound like a smart chap- no doubt.
But like i said the basic thing is "motivation" and "definition".
So if we have say World>Asia>south Asia>India>pakistan>punjab>particular city over which say harappa is located,
What we chose to describe as "ancient history of X (from above)" depends a bit on our 'motivation'
Firstly ,of course,we are all human beings and ALL this stuff is our common heritage- somewhere during all the hatred,relgiosity and nationalistic jingoism we forget this
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
So, for eg. a person residing in say "Delhi" may well claim a particular site there as the "ancient history of delhi"...and technically he would not be wrong to do so.
However, the "parent" Always takes "precedence" .
Similarly, you may well claim that as the "ancient history of pakistan", but by comment consent the "parent" in this case the chaps "before" that claim "precedence"....i.e India, South Asia ,The World.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Not really. This reply will be longer so let me number it:
#1
The parent and child example is quite inefficient for several reasons because it can render tings useless especially considering the case at hand. For sure Pakistan is in Asia, but it wouldn't make much sense if say Korea and Japan started to take credit for Pakistan's and Iraq's ancient heritage because they too are in Asia right? cotd.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
#2
Secondly, Modern day India is not and never has been the "parent" of Pakistan just because it is larger in size. Had the state created by Nehru not distastefully kept the name India, we wouldn't have much trouble. Or had more states been formed out of British India, we wouldn't have this confusion.
Pakistan is "in" South Asia. India is "in" South Asia. But these two states like other are not in "in" each other lol. Both were "part" of the British India along with other states.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Thanks.
The sequence would be World>Asia>SouthAsia>Pakistan>Punjab.
Yes, ancient heritage is always something that should treasured by every one . That's something I always advocate. And people must respect the heritage of each other for the simple reasons of deference, and truthiness. Political deviations and wordplay is what causes angst to the ppl who feel their heritage and past is under attack or dishonorably mislabeled. That's how Pakistanis feel.
omerlives 1 year ago
So, if a country which exists now was preceded by a larger more encompassing entity , the present entity will always be a subset of the larger one.
The simple example we have is of punjab being a subset of current day pakistan.
Essentially, if say for eg. I claim a 1000 yr old home as my own 'ancient family home' since i have say disowned my parents/grandparents etc...
It may certainly theoretically classify as "my ancient home", however it is abundantly clear who takes precedence.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
That would happen if there was no conflict in names, meaning, context and so forth. Otherwise the modern academic terms such as South Asia would not be needed to be employed.
Forexample if there is suddenly a huge country called europe in the middle of europe but does not include Greece or Italy, but claims look we are Europe, Greece was part of Europe so ancient Italian history is our history because European history included Italy. That's basically your logic here. Its wrong.
omerlives 1 year ago
So, clearly in any logical train if say india >pakistan.( especially chronologically)...then the 'ancient history of pakistan' ancient history of pakistan' is first and foremost the 'ancient history of india'?
You have essentially agreed to this when you said that if punjab breaks away from pakistan then harappa would be the 'ancient history of punjab'- however , with what possible reasoning can you claim that it is not first 'ancient history of "chronological" order'?
SonofPs 1 year ago
To kind of summarise:
Just as the temples etc in Indonesia, Cambodia are very clearly ancient indian history( since the area first fell under the umbrella of the idea of india, sind, hind...whatever)...it is first "ancient indian history" and only THEN can it be termed "ancient indonesia history"
Similarly, harappa is first and foremost "ancient indian history" because the subcontinental area was well before anyone under the idea of 'india'...thereafter you may subclassify infnitely
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
No the temples in Cambodia, Indonesia have nothing to do with India (if you're attemting to make connestions with the modern state and concept of the term India).
The term India, Sindh, Hind, Hundi all stemmed from the land and people and the River which flows through Pakistan. That was the historical rendering in Sanskrit, Persians and the Greeks.
And the Harrapans existed way before the term "India" was even employed by the new arrivals in the same area.
omerlives 1 year ago
Hey guys, I think omaerlives may have a point when he calls a 63 yr old thing "ancient." You see there is a rare medical ( I think it is some sort of a genetic aberration, just a guess) called Progeria, where a person ages about 20 times the rate of a normal person. Na, even then it would make pakistan only about 1260 yrs, & that's not ancient. Ye, may be he's calculating age of pakistan in ant years.
aparaajita10 1 year ago
Comment removed
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
There is absolutely no term such as sanatan dharma used in ANY single ancient local text and definitely not in any foreign texts which recored neither the term hindu NOR sanatan dharma to describe the religon of this vast sub continent.
There was never any unified religion or pantheon just a generic theme, much like the European religions whether Germanic, Celtic, Greek or Slavic.
All this sanatn dharma, and framing of "Hindu" thought is an modern18th 19th century phenomena.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
The question is not of the term. It is regarding the meaning of the term.
As also mentioned to you Hinduism is essentially a foreigh tag later adopted in india.
hinduism is not a religion in the classical term in the first place.
so, the question of a unified religion does not exist.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@omerlives
the closest parallel you will find to define hinduism is perhaps "science".
i.e like science it has self development at its core.
it can always evolve, unlike other religions- the entire definition is to stick to some single book.
which is why a modern day "questioner'- may interrogate any of the texts or offer up his own theory without any fear of "blasphemy" or damnation to hell etc.
SonofPs 1 year ago
Regardless of India's name, the thought of "Ancient Pakistan" is an utter joke and the way this pathetic excuse for a country is going I doubt it'll even be in existence in a hundred years time.
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago
@LambrettaFunk
:)...But don't tell Omer that! Sensitive chap , our pal Omer.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs "omar' can suck my preverbals. I do hope this promise of an extended life leads to me living long enough to see Pakistan disappear into a black history. And I hope all the wetern governments who helped fund it and gave it life are enjoying the bombs being set off by those trained in Pakistan. Historical Karma if ever I saw it. 8-)
LambrettaFunk 1 year ago 3
@LambrettaFunk
Save your "preverbal diarrhea".
DO read the instruction in the description section of this video.
And try to be a little more optimistic, kind and productive in your thinking. All that pakistan-obsession and illwill will leave you with chronic ulcer and cripled digits.
omerlives 1 year ago
@LambrettaFunk
Sad comment. Shows your pakistanphobia, obsession, ill will and envy.
I partly blame your government sponsored text books.
omerlives 1 year ago
However, I still maintain - the most critical point here is motivation. What motivates one to make such videos , in essence striving to claim an ancient civilisation as one's own- especially when it is clear the country in question was part of a much larger entity, and yes well before British India too.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
The motivation is simple: one's interest in one's heritage and the subject matter of archeology, history, anthropology and to educate others. Any attempts to to concoct a motivation further would be reading too much into a simple video.
The country in question has been part of many entities through its history. and shouldn't remian hostage to the colonial legacy.
omerlives 1 year ago
Oh, but Omer- Tell you what. I'm outta of here. I don't wish to get into a tit for tat, to and fro as you seem to have with several persons in here.
It is basically a case of nomenclature and classification.
Hindus were essentially called such for people living in a geographical area- perhaps because of the need for the western religions to classify.
They must have been scratching their heads since things were a bit different from their prophet based religions where God reveals things to him
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
I do appreciate your inquiries and input. Yes and as you can see i do have to put up with inconvenient annoyances. However I have always believed that fruitful discussions are not to convince the other but for later reflection and for others who may benefit from it. Take care.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
The term Hindu referring to people is pretty old but was strictly meant for people in the Persian province of Hinduya not for all of South Asia or modern day India. Later on the term covered various geogrpahical extents depending on who was using it. I believe it was the Turko-Afghan muslims who would employ it for the first time in the religious sense . Not a single local text exists where therm hindu or any variant has been used to describe a religion, a people, a pan geo state etc.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
The point is that for the people living in India the term Hindu was relatively new. The term generally used was sanatan dharma. Hinduism in any case isnt a religion in the traditional use of the word......for eg. i can be an atheist, idol worshipper, non idol worshiper, agnostic, etc etc etc and still be within the hindu umbrella.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Your goalpost shifting. This video is about Harrapan civilization. For sure the province of Punjab has many important sites and IVC forms part of its history.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
It is rather straighforward. If x>y>z, and if A is currently located in z, it follows that it is also located in x. Similarly, if it is clear that Pakistan is a relatively recent break away from "India" ,of "Hind" , or "Sindh"...whatever...Harappa has got to be a part of the whole.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
If there were no mughals or British, this land wouldn't carry the burden of being associated with the modern country with the misnomer rendering of India.
Pakistan didn't "break away" from India. It was carved out of British India. As was the ocuntry India (or its official name Bharat). Both Bharat and Pakistan were "in" India (British India moreappropriately) ...a term which has been replaced by the correct term South Asia. It would be nonsense to say Pakstan brokeaway from SouthAsia
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
Incorrect. As others have mentioned the East India company was trading in India for a couple of hundred years in an area which covered not just pakistan, but Bangladesh as well. So, the area covering India (and pakistan,bangladesh) etc. were "in situ" well before your concept of British India
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Yes, to the Europeans as well to the Brits everything south of the Sino sphere and east of Turco-Persian domain was India of some sort and has absolutely nothing to do with the modern misnomer state called India. Ever heard of the Dutch East India company? Guess where it was trading? That's right in Indonesia. India has only as much claim to the term India as does Indonesia or Indo-China or East Indies or West Indies. But the story started from what is today Pakistan.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
That is my point precisely.
Indonesia too was essentially a Hindu nation under the Chola empire.
so, again if follows that if you find a civlisation there it is actually first "ancient indian history" and then only may it be termed "ancient indonesian history"...indonesia having been formed later...pretty straighforward one may have imagined
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Nope India nesia was not "hindu" under the cholas. Their is not a single ancient text where this empire would call its belief system Hindu or refer to ANY people under its domain as hindu or indian or any variant thereof.
For sure, that the subjects of Chola empire were pagans of various beliefs and themes; They were not Hindu, Indian or has anything to do with this modern concept if India.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Nope Indonesia was not "hindu" under the cholas. Their is not a single ancient text where this empire would call its belief system Hindu or refer to ANY people under its domain as hindu or indian or any variant thereof.
For sure, that the subjects of Chola empire (which btw was based far removed in the deep south) were pagans of various beliefs with perhaps common underlying themes themes, but they were not Hindu, Indian or has anything to do with this modern concept if India.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
Like we said b4, the word "hindu" itself was a word used by other parts of the world to kind of classify the chaps living around here..and the temples etc in cambodia, bali etc are all basically "hindu"- however you may chose to define the term
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
The word Hindu has been used differently by different people. For the Turks and Afghans it literally meant Pagan, For the Europeans it largely meant a Geographic designation such as European, not the modern usage. The modern usage is a religious description.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
The concept of India as a geographical term such as sub-saharan Africa, middle east, Europe etc is no longer valid for several reasons, the 2 big ones being:
1) The original birthplace of the name, land and people (the indus basin or modern day Pakistan) has not retained that name.
2) Their is a modern sate called India who name is both anachronistic, a historical and a misnomer.
The same thing would happen if suddenly there was a large country in Europe called "republic of Europe"!
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
Which is why i stated that your logic may be extended to the ancient history of punjab. or ancient history of the particular province within which harappa is located.
however, you yourself use the whole in your video -i.e Pakistan.
Essentially, it is attempting to have your cake and eat it too.
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Yes if Punjab tomorrow breaks away from Pakistan, it could very well claim the ancient history of Punjab which would comprise of everything that transpired in tis territory. Some event could be unique , other shared.
You DO realize that all the "main" cities of this civilization are inside pakistani borders and in all provinces just not punjab? the concentration is in Sindh and southern punjab though.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
Oh my dear friend. If say for eg. Mr.Jinnah had wrangled only and East Pakistan aka Bangladesh and not the current pakistan , would we even be having this conversation?
This is roughly like claiming that my son (if you have one) is related to mealone and not to my forerathers....not a wholly correct metaphor, but will do till i find a better one!
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Logical fallacy in your example. One'a biological immutable event the other is not.
Such massive amounts of misconception and cloud nine mythical thinking in indian discourse has very modern basis : it started with the congress elite in British india and has become a holy cow. A rotten fallacious holy cow.
Even if one follows your fallacy, the father names the son, sometimes with his own name. And where did the name India come from? From the territory of Pakistan. lol
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
Oh no.
The logic on your part is completely flawed.
As an eg. if the British were still around (i.e is a mere 60 yrs later)-
would harappa classify as "ancient british history"?
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Nope your logic is still flawed.
If the British were still around the name of the history of their South Asian domain would be "Ancient history of British India" or And had they conquered further east or furthe north into Afghanistan they would probably still classify their domain as India which as has been explained before has absolutely nothig to do with modern india or some historical entity.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
And THAT is precisely my point. If Punjab breaks away tomorrow, then it becomes ancient punjab history and NOT ancient pakistan history- as per the current logical train?
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Yes ofcourse.
But is there a thing as ancient Afghanistan or ancient Iraq history? Ofcourse there is.
Is there such a ting as ancient Pakistan history? Of course!
How about ancient India? Sure (whose history would be either sans the events transpired in Pakistan or shared).
Is there such a ting as ancient South Asian history? Sure. Central Asia? Sure
Ancient Europe? Ofcourse Ancient greece and German history ?....
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
The essential point is that if you can claim harappa as "ancient pakistan history" - that ofcourse came after the "ancient indian history" bit.
so, in the similar vein of thought the "ancient history of pakistan" includes indian history, indian customs, the reign of several indian emperors including the mauryas etc...then to the mughals, british etc....
SonofPs 1 year ago
@omerlives
Omer,
I am sure you are aware that the British (like the mughals) were essentially conquerors.
why was India such an attractive nation to them?
Because to the mughals it was an extremely rich country with a renowned and classical civilisation
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Not at all. Mughals always held a bigoted disdain against the locals of India for the usual reasons of supermacism of the conquering class, the same can be said about the British. The mughals held the natives with disdain mostly with certain exceptions such as Kashmir. They had no attraction to indian culture or people whom they considered uncultured, savage and ugly.
They like the Brits were interested in extending their domain just as the Brits did in Africa.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
So, clearly in any logical train if say india >pakistan.( especially chronologically)...then the 'ancient history of pakistan' ancient history of pakistan' is first and foremost the 'ancient history of india'?
You have essentially agreed to this when you said that if punjab breaks away from pakistan then harappa would be the 'ancient history of punjab'- however , with what possible reasoning can you claim that it is not first 'ancient history of "chronological" order'?
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
I believe this logic has been answered many times as to why it is not so. The term India was employed for the land and river which flows through Pakistan and later on was used as geographical domain like Asia, Europe etc. It didn't mean any country, state, people, religion and or anything hereof until the arrival of muslims and later on the Brits.
TOday to refer to Pakistan, republic of india, indonesia, vietnam etc as India is both anachronistic, ahistorical, inaccurate and wrong.
omerlives 1 year ago
Before you make statements such as "X is not Y" , it is necessary to define what X is in the first place. Therefore , the definitions of hinduism, india, pakistan are required first. Once you have them in place ,then and only then, is there some scope to move forward.
As an example: Pakistan was a state created out of India. You may chose to call this British India. But as you yourself have mentioned in other comments the general conception of India was for ages of a much vaster area.
So,first..
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Your framing is wrong.
Pakistan could very well have chosen to retain the name India: the name's original birthplace and historical juxtaposition. The country today known as India was also carved out of British India. it should have chosen another name. Infact did show his reservations about Nehru's republic chossing to keep the name India. India was a concept much like Europe or Middle East. Hence the proper term today for that concept is South Asia.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
No,I think the name is quite appropriate. India , Indoi, Hind are all various derivatives of the sanskrit Sindhu. In the modern world India was known as "india"...
From the ancient greeks Indoi, to the persian Hindu...to the modern usage "India".
SonofPs 1 year ago 2
@SonofPs
Yes Indoi, Hinduya etc are derived from Sankirit Sindhu which means The River referring to the largest river in Asia the Indus river and historically the terra that carried this name was the one watered by Indus and was a satrapy of the Persian empire. The greeks before the ventured into this Persian Satrapy (Hinduta) thought that beyond this river and land is the end of the world. Greeks never even knew of the the land comprising modern day India until later.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
As regards the Greeks and India, perhaps some further research is due on your part
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
I'm always interested in research. Do let me know if you any questions regarding classical Greeks and their original concept of India.
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
err, you mentioned that greeks essentially had no knowledge of india.
perhaps you require to look further into that
SonofPs 1 year ago
@omerlives
On this point you need some serious research. there is abundant proof for flourishing trade between the greeks and indians several years BCE....ditto romans ,indians etc....
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
As has been explained many time before the only trade that existed between Greeks and "Indians" was that between classical Greeks and people of the Indus Basin(which is Pakistan). The Greeks until the arrival of Alexander didn't even know that there was more land beyond the Indus. To them beyond Indus was an empty desert and then the ocean or end of the world. They never knew, traded or set a foot in modern India.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs
It would be much later development when Greeks would discover more land beyond the land of Indus that the name India would lose its original meaning and take up meaning of something more abstract such as Europe or Asia or Asia minor or Middle east etc.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs this omar lives in a vaccuumm under the rock. He says that "Pakistan could very well have chosen to retain the name India" the moron doesn't get it that, that is AH Jinnah & the rest of his moronic "ancestors" did not want India, they had asked for a "pakistan" & wanted to change India's name 2 Hindustaan, which was turned down by Sardar Patel as it was not the case of creating India, it was breaking away a part of India to make pakistan. The losers need to lie to their kids 2 save face
aparaajita10 1 year ago
@aparaajita10
I am a first year Grad student in college, I am assuming you too are atleast past 20. But if I make you feel like a kid it's because ...well that's how you feel in front of me LMAO!
omerlives 1 year ago
@omerlives
Further, if the proper name for the concept is South Asia then the name of this particular video should be -Ancient history of South Asia
SonofPs 1 year ago
@SonofPs
Not IVC had only spuriousconnection with modern day India only some areas immediately adjoining Pakistan have overspill of this culture. The reast of India has absolutely no cities of cultural centers with IVC.
This video is about ancient Pakistan. Pakistan's history would not include events and kingdoms of the rest of India which had nothing to do with its territory nor do pakistanis have much interest in them.
omerlives 1 year ago
@SonofPs Do you realize the definitions are arbitrary, & every one defines the same thing differently?
aparaajita10 1 year ago
LOL., i asked you simple questions:
1)about so called 'pakistan' and 'east pakistan'
you know, the only reason you are in so called 'pakistan' is because your father/grand father was a little closer to that than 'east pakistan'- other wise you would have been 'bangladeshi'
Question No.2:
So, do the neanderthals (and your close brethren) who bombed the bahmiyan buddhas claim 'buddhism' and its associated teaching as "ancient afghanistan history'?
alllman2000 1 year ago 2
@alllman2000
I am not sure what you mean in your first point.
For the second point, yes Bamiyan Buddhas were created by the ancestors of modern day Afghans. The fact that they destroyed it was an act of stupidity but by certainly no means a unique incidence.
omerlives 1 year ago