Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

2002/3 Talks

I've fixed the BBC poll results that somebody added so they tally with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2017631.stm - if there is some other survey which matches the figures which were given here, then a source should be given for it. I also have very severe doubts about some other changes recently made by the same user (see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=439956&oldid=439933 ) - unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to fix this up myself. --Camembert 03:28 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)

UserPakAtheist removed:

India defeated Pakistan in all the three wars that it launched.

A recent survey conducted by Mori for the BBC, found that 61% of Kashmiris would prefer Indian citizenship, 6% would prefer Pakistani, with 33% undecided [1].

--

I disagree. While all surveys are inherently biased, it is still useful information. It should up to the reader to beware the potential for error. I think the BBC can be trusted enough to not further any political purpose. Are there any other surveys by different organizations supporting or debunking these results? Those would help...

And what's wrong with that general statement? Isnt it true?

--Jiang 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Poll:

The problem with that particular poll is dual, first it counted votes only in indian held kashmir, secondly it the only muslim concentrated area that it gave importance was areas sorrounding sirinagar.

Secondly If you are going to mention a poll in an article about "history of pakistan" which forces the user to conclude about a contentious issue which has taken more then 50 years to resolve, then it could only be a poll which takes the whole population into account without being under the influence of pakistani or indian governments.

The second statement that i deleted was about the three wars, it was because the if you mention such a generalized statement then you should better come up with your authentic references, because you can only be sure about the 70's war the other two.... you cant.

A survey by an indian organization finds 74% people want freedom!!!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001008/j&k.htm#2

[I think whoever gave this link here should consider taking a course in English!] ~rAGU

POV

Some user has recenty edited the article drastically to make it conform to the theory that Pakistan was never a part of India, apart from small intermittent periods from time to time, and that Pakistan was always a separate entity. One example is this: "When the Abdali kingdom weakened early in the 19th century due to internecine warfare, Pakistan did not revert to Indian control but instead an independent kingdom arose in Punjab headed by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh....."

These edits seem to convey a point of view that Pakistan always existed as a separate nation for thousands of years, which was colonized by India from time to time. Someone please read the article thoroughly and make it less POV. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)

I can do it myself too, but I am tired of vandals who would come again and restore the changes, and perhaps also get me blocked. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Another gem:

So far one of our objects has been to underline the fact that right from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization down to the end of the Ghaznavid rule at the fall of the 12th century A.D. over a period of more than four thousand years, Pakistan has been invariably a single, compact, separate entity either independent or part of powers located to her west; its dependence on or forming part of India was merely an exception and that too for an extremely short period. It was only when the Muslims established themselves at Delhi early in the 13 century A.D. that Pakistan was made a part of India, but not in the pre-Muslim period. And once Muslims' successors in the sub-continent, the British, relinquished power in the middle of the 20th century, Pakistan reverted to its normal position of an independent country. Indian propaganda that the division of this sub-continent was unnatural and unrealistic is fake and fraudulent. Muslims had joined this region of Pakistan with India in the early 13th century A.D. when the Delhi Sultanate was formed; again Muslims have disconnected it from India giving it the normal and natural form which its geographical, ethnical, cultural and religious identity demanded.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.203.202.156 (talk • contribs) 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC).

I believe the article needs to state facts instead of judgement from any viewpoints. I agree with the comments above, that some sections, especially the Vedic Civilization section, needs rewording and possible removal of some "quotes" to remove POV. For example, the section "Vedic civilization"'s last part, the para from "It may be of interest to mention here that so long as the Aryans stayed in Pakistan, they did not evolve that particular religion called 'Hinduism' with its caste system and other taboos." is a plain example of POV, and even somewhat hilarious. --Ragib 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)
I'm the guy who made some of the changes actually. It's in the Oxford History of India and isn't my POV. In addition, Vedic civilization's geography and the fact that it's religious hymns makes it difficult to place:

http://www.answers.com/topic/vedic-civilization

I also added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire.

Also, no mention of the Sassanian control of the southern western regions of Pakistan prior to Muslim invasions. It's as if the western parts are being deliberately left out.

All of my edits can be checked out and verified. Just google Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud of Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Ahmad Shah Durrani and the rest. And then check out the various views of ancient Pakistan. --Tombseye 00:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not the existence of rule by Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud, Muhammad bin Quasim. The issue is the tone you write it. Just state the facts, which should speak for themselves. The sentence I mentioned is POV, no doubt about that. The section "Vedic civilization" seems ok until judgement and theories about the emergence of caste system start to creep into the article. By the way, you referenced Answers.com which is actually a wikipedia mirror. I don't find the article Vedic civilization contain any of the "references" on aryans-were-good-until-they-entered-current-day-India theory. Please stick to the facts. Thanks. --Ragib 30 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)
Okay that's fair enough. I'm going to rewrite it. I can't really reference the Oxford History of India as it doesn't seem to be on the net. I just googled it regarding Central Asian origins. I'm going to remove that part. I'm also going to edit those sections regarding Ghori, Mahmud and Qasim, but in addition the Sassanians aren't mentioned and nor are the Turkic slave dynasties before the Mughal Empire. Nonetheless I'll make changes and see what people have to say.

--Tombseye 01:05, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-It would be nice if the "Pre-Colonial History" section be edited drastically so it doesnt assume the existance of India and Pakistan (as is today) in those ancient times. Also, its not like the area now known as the Republic of India had a complete common history of its own when much of it was also ridden with different history in different parts of the country (ie: Assam and southern India). -[[Afghan Historian 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]]

article focus

see Talk:History of India; the pre-1947 material should be merged in History of the Indian subcontinent. The division into Pakistan vs. Indian Republic is only aged 60 years, and it is inappropriate to organize articles about early history guided by it. Before the RoI and Pakistan, there was the British Raj. Before that, it was just a collection of shifting kingdoms anyway, so the only thing that unites it are geographical criteria. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be merged. It's like merging all of Europe together as a subcontinent of Eurasia. One series of events takes place in what is today Pakistan and something else in Central India. Pakistan is mostly on the subcontinent, but most of Baluchistan is on the Iranian plateau. Furthermore, western Pakistan has a history and culture that is very closely aligned to that of Afghanistan rather than India. In fact, before the British came there was little concept of India so much as that of empires both old and new. Religion, language and regional affinities were more dominant than a national identity. While Pakistan is invaded and part of the empires of the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, and others most of India has a different history. Why should that be merged? Pakistan is a modern creation indeed as are most nations, but it's history is also that of two civilizations at least and cannot be neatly placed into a single monolithic category.

Tombseye 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Baluchistan belongs to a greater Iranian nation, legitimately belonging to Iran, occupied sometime in History by the British. North West Frontier Province (was earlier called Afghania) , again occupied by British, identifies with Afghanistan which has been closer to Central Asia in the modern times. The rest of Pakistan, consisting of an overwhelming population of Pakistan, and all that we identify today as Pakistani culture has always been a part of India. India, afterall, is named after the Indus river. Afghanistan is also included an a Greater India, which is a socio-cultural rather than a political concept. Nations are not made of kingdoms. Even if you somehow fabricate a history which shows that Pakistan was ruled for long periods by people who did not rule large parts of India, you cannot deny that most of what is today Pakistan was (and in large part still is) socially, linguistically, economically, ethnically, culturally inseparable from India. Muwaffaq 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean part of the overall Indian (or Indo-Aryan language) linguistic and cultural sphere and I would agree that that is a consideration. The problem is that language alone does not make for a "Greater India" alone as that would make the Czechs a part of Greater Russia due to Slavic similarity (and the notion of Pan-Slavism). That's what that becomes when talking of a Greater India, it's a similar notion ot pan-Slavism rather than a more solid concept based upon history. The history part diverges and due to geography the Czechs have more to do with Germany than Russia and Sindh has more interaction with Iran than it does with central India, but maintains the cultural ties that you speak of that are obvious to note. However, the history aspect is separate at times or simply intersects with corresponding areas of India's extreme northwest. The concept of "India" as a nation does not arise until the 19th century as the most vague conceptions include references to "Hindustan" or Hind largely by Muslim invaders. Indians refer to a more vague region called Bharat. However all of that aside, Pakistan as a state today constitutes a separate nation and has a local history and that's really the point. In addition, parts of eastern Afghanistan intersect with Buddhist tradition and a brief period of Hindu rule in Kabul did take place under the Iranian Hindu Shahis, but this is so brief in terms of context and for most of its history Afghanistan is basically part of the Persian sphere of influence to the point that the Avesta is believed to have originated there. There is of course correlation with the language of Sanskrit and the Avestan Iranian dialects that makes for overlap. One can mention the many points and how the western part associates with the Iranic world and the east associates with South Asia of course. Nations and nationalities tend to man-made obviously and perception becomes a matter of view. I think the way this article is written it pays homage to the fact that Pakistan is an overlapping region rather than a historical state. I would agree though that the Panjab and Sind are culturally, linguistically, and, in part, ethnically related to corresponding regions of India, but keep in mind that there is a large Baluchi minority in Sind and there are Punjabi Pathans who overlap as well. It's a messy border region, but the article doesn't shrink away from making the point that for example, the Sikh empire arose in Lahore even though the Sikhs were a minority. Or that Hinduism and the related religion of Buddhism were predominant in the region. What can perhaps be surmised from all of this is that while the west is clearly part of Iranian civilization and the east is an extension of Indic civilization, religion and local history has also given rise to a regional civilization and a modern nation that can best be termed as Indo-Iranian as a result. This removes the notion that many people have that Pakistan seeks to emphasize the Arabs and Islamic period as that seems to me about a limited way of approaching this. Indeed, most articles emphasize the ancient ties and connections as well. What makes this difficult is that historically the western Punjabis and Sindhis have been ruled by "western" empires and this has inevitably made changes that included conversion to Islam that did not take place in India proper. Overall though, I see nothing inaccurate in what you have said. Tombseye 14:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

all I mean is that the same topic is covered several times. Both History of India and History of Pakistan have sections on the IVC, Vedic civilization etc. dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There are in-depth articles and then there are brief summaries. What part of the History of India talks about the Durrani Empire or the Mongols controlling Pakistan west of the Indus? The reality is that there is cursory mention because while on thing takes place in what is today Pakistan, another takes place in India. The Vedic section is short at any rate as are the other sections, while overall one gets the real sense that there is a regional history, which is the point as opposed to promoting the idea that Bengal and Baluchistan had the same history which is absurd.

Tombseye 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed another POV Gem:

"The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that it became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by people of Pakistan. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the South Asia took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Indian based governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. Persian Achaemenian Empire conquered ancient Pakistan and it remained part of Persian empire for more than two hundred years. Alexander the Great also conquered Indus satrapy, modern Pakistan, and did briefly cross into India but returned after his army refused to advance further into India. Ancient Pakistan remained part of the Hellenic world for next hundred fifty years. During the Arab rule, the territories of Pakistan were known as 'Sindh' and Indian territories were known as 'Hind'. The Arab dynasties ruled Pakistan from Baghdad in Iraq and from Damascus in Syria for more than two hundred years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.61.18.228 (talk • contribs)

acronym

surely, the acronym is a backronym, and the word was not "also captured in the Persian language", but rather built on it? dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Gupta Empire

-Sindh was not merely a tributary state. Most archaelogical evidence shows that the area now known as Sindh was an integral full part of the northwestern regions of the Gupta empire, without the tributary states. Most maps excluding the tributary regions also show the area around the southern Indus river as an integral part of the empire. -User: Afghan Historian