Talk:Pakistan/Archive 6

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

Communities of British descent

-In the demographics section, it mentions that there are communities in Pakistan of Arab, British, and Greek descent. Who exactly are these people of British descent? Does the reference refer to the Anglo-Indians? From visits to Pakistan, I was aware of a Eurasian population. From what I read, pure Europeans mostly left after 1947, and the few that stayed were mostly businessmen and nostalgic individuals who died out with the passing of time. Would omeone please clarify for me? I would really like to know. [[Afghan Historian 20:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]]

Ancient Pakistan

ok, i know im going to get alot of flak from what im going to say. the vast amount of the region known as pakistan today was only part of india for 500 years under the mughals and 100 years or so under the mauryans and british. but i do accept that the time pakistan was with india under the british and mughals more or less assimilated pakistan in 2 india. so the territory of pakistan lost its identity, so to speak. mind you i guess those 700 years were probably the most important years in pakistani history. final comment: someone here said something about pakistan "stealing" history from india(curious term there, stealing history, did they just pick it up and run away with it?), the opposite is actually true. pakistan is being sodomised by religeon and people dont like to know of a past when there was no islam, many pakistanis "give away" the Harrapan history to india becuase they were idol worshipers and they also dont like to admit theryre the birthplace of some other religeons. if anything pakistan would probably "steal" mughal history from india becuase they were muslims (Join the Move the Taj Mahal to Lahore group!) . conclusion: pakistan is being sodomised by religeon, pakistan has only been with india for about 700 years, im going to get a lot of critism. i just dont see why people dont listen to other peoples opinions and try to balance it out rather than staying narrowminded. Aarandir 11:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan is just 60 years old,Live with it

Do you actually believe in the muslims have pakistan as their homeland crap ??? ................India has more muslims than pakistan and the indian history ( of muslim,buddhist,hindu or sikh dominance) is just that.......it's INDIAN history..........India is the homeland to the subcontinet's muslims who still live in greater numbers in India than they do in pakistan...and as for pakistan identifying itself with mughals......PLEASE....not that crap again,India was ruled by muslims then and it's still being ruled by a muslim president ,a beloved man called APJ Abdul Kalam now........... Pakistan does not own all the muslims in the reigon if anything it has a quantitively inferior population of muslims to india..live with it.......India even has the mosque of jama in new delhi,the darul-ul-aloom and the ajmer sharif compared to pakistan's well,NOTHING is muslim symbolic holy places..............................the history of indian muslims is meant of indian muslims and not for pakistanis who fled india but can't wait to lie to the world that their nation is more than 60 years old.......Freedom skies 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. You're very smart. But we're not implying that all the Muslims in the region live in Pakistan. More Muslims do live in India than Pakistan, but Pakistan WAS made as a homeland for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. Obviously, not all went there, but that's why Pakistan exists. And yes, Pakistan does have a number of holy places, like some of the biggest mosques in the world. Oh, and India AND Pakistan are 60 years old. Both. Didn't BOTH get their independence from England 60 years ago? And, in fact, Pakistan got its independence on August 14, compared to India's August 15. OH! I JUST GOT SOMETHING! Doesn't that technically make Pakistan OLDER than India? :) Anyway, I'm not gonna actually go by that statement because I'm not sinking that low. The area we now call India wasn't united as a single county until after 1947, because the Europeans had to get out. Somewhere around the 1960s. And in the course of its history, it never was united until that time. Even at its biggest point, some area in South India or Assam or what not wasn't united with the rest of the country. India's name itself comes from the Indus River, which now flows almost entirely through Pakistan. Pakistan was the birthplace of Mahayana Buddhism, the sect that most Buddhists follow today. And Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro are in Pakistan. So, sorry, but we're keeping our stand.
Live with it. Stallions2010 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Quote India even has the mosque of jama in new delhi,the darul-ul-aloom and the ajmer sharif compared to pakistan's well,NOTHING is muslim symbolic holy places. So what? Saudi Arabia has the two Muslim holy places that matter above all the others - Makkah and Madinah. The Jama Masjid and all the mosques in India, Pakistan and the rest of the world are just places of worship - it doesn't make Pakistan any less Muslim if Pakistanis can't worship at the Jama Masjid. Plus applause to Stallions2010 for pointing out the blindingly obvious - India is actually a day younger than Pakistan. Green Giant 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing .The term India comes from "Indica" coined by alexeander's advisor Magesthanese.India existed as "Bharatvarsha" which dates back to at least 5500 years(citing from the written records at the temple of abhimanyu,India).Pakistan is just 60 years old and the idea of "Bharatvarsha" predates even islam.

Pakistan has to get over the sick mindset that it actually contributed to the begining of any religion or civilization;all it did was take a limited group of muslims ( with the majority deciding to stay in india) and form a newer nation which had no existance before the british left india.

On one hand pakistan could'nt wait to get a few muslims out of india while the rest chose to reject the theocratic state and on the other hand you can't wait to steal the history of indian muslims and even the period which predates islam.

Buddhism ( whose history pakistan tries to steal) DOES NOT give any credit to pakistan whatsoever for anything;and rightly so.And since one of the pakistani guys said something about trying to steal mahayana buddhism's history.You should read the buddhist sacred text ( available freely in india) or the panchantantra which states "In India he lived;In India he explored".That's how old india is.....just because Jinnah severed the part of india which was amongst it's oldest and formed a new nation 60 years ago does not mean that the history of those reigons lies with the newformed nation.IT LIES WITH THE NATION WHOSE NAME THE REIGONS BEARED WHEN THE PERIOD YOU CALL HISTORY NOW WAS IN THE PRESENT TENSE.

Pakistan also has to get over the British Raj complex that the gora sahibs seem to have given it.India existed before the Gora sahibs,See Alexander vs. Porus where Magesthenese coined the very term used to identify the distinct nation.

Pakistan's inception was when the british left india,India's is ,however as old as some of the oldest civilization's in the world.

So,conclusion : Pakistan is just 60 years old,India is older than the advent of the british rule itself of which's end gave birth to pakistan.The history of indian muslims is meant for indian muslims and the paksiatnis can have all of their 60 shameful years of history but are not welcome to try and steal indian muslim history.

also, If you would have asked babar where the hell is pakistan ?? he would probably have given you his best sword in the rear.But hail him as the king of India and you're likely to be in for a good fortnight or so. Freedom skies 06:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL...that's funny. I see that you blindly accuse Pakistan of everything. Without proper research. How is Pakistan trying to steal Buddhism's history? Is it simply because that it EXISTS? Because Mahayana Buddhism originated in Pakistan, which Pakistan itself can't help? You're a funny person. Obviously you don't want Pakistan to be a nation. Sorry to break it to you, but it's not gonna change.

And I'm not Pakistani. I'm an American of German and Polish descent, a convert to Islam by choice. By the way, try not to get too excited when you type. I know you want to get your ideas out fast, but your typing errors annoy many. :) Stallions2010 00:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, Indica is a reference to a small portion of the Punjab. As Arnold Toynbee explained, to the ancients, 'India' was a little province that in modern times was applied to what Muslims called Hindustan (east of the Indus), but which the Persians and Greeks knew as western Punjab. The rest is all a result of modern nationalism and has no bearing upon reality or even history. Stallions is correct in that a local history reflects the country that exists in the region in question. In fact, without the British there would be no country called India most likely. A number of Indian academics also point to this same misinterpretation by modern nationalists. This same problem comes up with some Persians who insist that the history of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan is 'theirs' Romanian claims over neighboring regions along with countering Hungarian and Moldovan claims. It's really not the point. Regions have histories and honestly what was going on in India while the Persians arrived or when the Mongols took much of the region? something else. You can't claim history and you certainly can't claim something that most likely your ancestors did not live through or even knew about most likely. Tombseye 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

-OK, Lets not fight anymore. I do agree that Pakistan was pretty much an integral region of ancient India and was only recognized as a separate country and identity and gained it 60 + years ago. But it's different regions have some regional history, as do all regions of India.(look at South India, or better, Assam) But there is some amount of unity behind all the cultures of the subcontinent. I'm not advocating the idea of Pakistan was wrong. We are probably closest if not identical to the people of India and, to some extent, eastern Afghanistan. And, India has the third largest Muslim population in the world, but Pakistan does beat it as the second Muslim population, however only by a few million, and with the population rates now, it's very likely India will beat Pakistan in the future. But yes, at current, India has one of the worlds largest Muslim populations but a little smaller than that of Pakistan, in terms of numbers. If both stayed together 60 + years ago, interestingly, today, we would have India being almost 50% Islamic!!! That would be a surprise and probably the largest Muslim population, bigger than Indonesia. Well there you have it folks. And just so you know, I'm not saying integrated India was right. My viewpoint on partition is of no importance right now. -User: Afghan Historian

User:Freedom skies try to avoid using pejorative terms like gora sahibs. Green Giant 00:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well,a few Pakistanis have been trying(and failing miserably) to steal the history of Mahayana Buddhism which originated before the birth of the pakistani nation itself and it did so in India.Do your research this time and find out ONE SHRED of buddhist sacred text that says anything about any sect of Buddhism originating from Pakistan and back up your hollow arguments of Mahayana Buddhism being born in a 60 year old nation..........and don't sound so gleeful about the existance of a nation which tends to get chopped like a birthday cake every now and then losing areas like Bangladesh,Siachin and ceding large parts of it's land to China........ and about the spelling mistakes sarcasm attempt;i don't exactly care.Try living with them......Freedom skies 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy. Well Mahayana Buddhism does emerge in what is today Pakistan so what's your beef? You can't claim things in history and nor can you claim them especially if your ancestors weren't involved anyway. We all agree that Pakistan didn't exist, but the region did and the events took place in the region. As for the other comments, is that what this is really about, your rage towards Pakistan? Tombseye 19:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

you just don't get it do you ??? pakistan DID NOT exist at the time of the Mahayana Buddhism,stop hedging the facts.........The demography,culture and everything was different at the time of the formation of Mahayana Buddhism in India(the concept of pakistan did not even exist);it was INDIA not some 60 year old nation that made the conditions suitable for the existance of Mahayana (or the development of it's parent religion)...........and the fact that the geography of the sect does fall in the newfound (60 years old) nation DOES NOT automatically give a few misguided zealots the right to steal the history of a religion which existed in a whole different demographic altogather .......can you imagine an entire prominent sect of buddhism taking birth in violently islamist pakistan of today ?? ...............it did'nt happen,simple...........the religion was born in a different (and more pluralistic and favourable) condition (not to mention time frame) altogather before the massive exchange of population (at the time of partition) altered the entire demographic of the reigon resulting in massive change in the people of the newfound nation (of pakistan) and the people who inhabited the reigon at the time of the birth of the sect of Mahayana...the people of pakistan formed a different demographic altogather but some of the more misguided ones could'nt wait to go and try to steal the history of a religious sect which was set in a different demography,timeframe and nation altogather..............mahayana arose before the reigons were forcibly made to be all-muslim and the demograpy altered mercilessly bringing on the map the new state of pakistan which wanted to change the demography + geography of some reigons of india but could'nt wait to steal the history of the reigons when they existed in pluralistic,multicultural and secular times...........it's a fact.live with it...pakistan(with it's demography) is NOT responsible for mahayana,the religious sect predates the birth of the nation.........mahayana existed in a tolerant,pluralistic and multicultural India where new religions still are formed and accepted ..........live with it Freedom skies 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are asking people not to accept reality, but what you see as reality. You too can accept the fact that regions have histories and that if you travelled back in time, you wouldn't find people who identified themselves as 'Indians'. It's a MODERN nation-state like most nation-states. Hell, England took centuries to develop and even with the Greeks there is debate as to whether the modern Greeks are exactly the same as the ancient Greeks given the numerous name changes and that's a tiny region compared to the large greater India you are referring to. In fact, it's much easier and viable for small regions to have a collective history than large modern nations like India, Russia, etc. As for your political interpretation, Pakistan is actually secular run, but has a large population that favors Islamic government and supports violent acts in some cases. You appear to morphing how people are today to the past. Equating the what you see as a peaceful Buddhism and modern Pakistan being contradictory is meaningless. What does that have to do with anything? Most people in the world are autochthonous and as such the history of a region is the history of the people living in whatever region. History doesn't belong to anyone or any nation and least of all to someone who has no ancestral connection to the people in question. And actually, if you would go back and read history, you'd learn that Hindus actually forcibly converted Buddhists in a large-scale pogrom after Ashoka. Violence and religious conflict do not simply adhere strictly to one religion or another. There is a nationalist version of Buddhism in Sri Lanka for example and there have been armed separatists in Tibet and Indochina. Your personal feelings aren't relevant and your proposed methodology is not viable as most historians are now concentrating on regional histories in general. You can either join the 21st century or live in some mid-20th century nationalist dreamworld. Tombseye 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
When Stallions2010 pointed out that India and Pakistan are less than 60 years old, it was a correct statement because the two countries both became independent at that time. In order to fit Freedom Skies pipedream, India would have to have existed continuously as a single political entity for several thousand years without being broken up at various times into numerous smaller states and without being ruled by a foreign power, and then for Pakistan to have become independent from India. If you can prove that such a scenario actually took place then nobody would dispute your assertions. Take the time to work through this:
A - Neither country has continuously existed for thousands of years but both gained independence in 1947
B - When they became independent, Two-Thirds of the Muslims of British India became part of Pakistan
C - India does not form 99% of South Asia's population or it's area - it forms about three-quarters of the area and the population
D - At independence, Pakistan formed between 20-25% of the area and the population
E - Events such as the Indus Valley civilisation took place in both countries
F - Places like South Asia did not develop in complete isolation from the rest of the world - even the Indus Valley civilisation had external contacts in places such as modern Iraq
G - Therefore both India and Pakistan can claim the inheritance of South Asian history and cultures
Quit worrying about Pakistanis stealing history because the history belongs to both countries. Green Giant 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


well,once again you go on a streak attempting to try and make sense of your own twisted version of history and even addding bizzare humorous lines like "if you travelled back in time, you wouldn't find people who identified themselves as 'Indians"[ even if i did do as the crazy scientist did in Back to the Future;I would find Magasthenese being enchanted by a distinct land he called INDICA,I would find Akbar as the undisputed ruler of Hindustan,I would find the great epic battles of mahabharata centered around Indraprastha in Bharatvarsha(India in Hindi) and I would find the monk Bodhidharma practicing Indian Martial Arts and travelling to Shaolin and transforming the temple giving rise to the chinese martial arts..................y'know contratry to what you might try and pass out as the truth the entity called India existed in a glorious civilization with a distinct pluralistic culture and identity of it's own and so it says in the sacred texts of buddhism,the epic battles of mahabharata,the works of the mughal empire and the on the stone outside the shaolin temple...........it's a fact,try living with it .The country is old and did exist in a massive form through milleniums of history and not just the after the british left it...... even before they conquered india they formed THE EAST INDIAN COMPANY(if India did not exist before then .why form the east india company ?? why not call it the-many-states-who-don't-have-an-identity-of-their-own company ???).........................so the idea of india not existing as a seperate country until after the partition is;well,absurd.....as for pakistan i can't seem to find it either in the works of the mughal empire,the stone outside of the shaolin,the buddhist sacred texts,the mahabharata or any ancient works.......why can't anyone find it ?? because it did'nt exist....simple............],if you would go back and read history, you'd learn that Hindus actually forcibly converted Buddhists in a large-scale pogrom after Ashoka(well,y'know that's so stupid in so many ways........i'll save myself some time and just direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India),"Pakistan is actually secular run[with all due(I'm sure) respect ..WTF ??.......Pakistan is an islamic state which had a seperate electoral system for other religions,imposed the sharia law,had Zia try and transform the state into an an islamist one and backed terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir( which they promtly banned after the US did;before then they were the favourites on the Mujahideen Coffee shows on PTV and later on the very same groups get well;banned),There is a nationalist version of Buddhism in Sri Lanka for example and there have been armed separatists in Tibet and Indochina[ WHA ???????? ?????? the F**K........where do you pick up these facts ?? The struggle for independence in Tibet is a legitimate and completely nonviolent one,this struggle against the PRC differs from the palestinians as this one does not involve kids blowing themselves up,women calling jewish boys in chatrooms to kill them or terrorists hiding in relief camps ;the tibet struggle is unprecedented in it's nonviolence and that's why people jawaharlal nehru,bill clinton and steven segal back it......and about the LTTE WTF ??? since when is the armed group under prabhakaran Buddhist ?? if anything the people they lead an armed struggle against (the sinhalese) are largely buddhists.your ignorance is not even funny now)] ..........and my personal favourite bizzare line "You can either join the 21st century or live in some mid-20th century nationalist dreamworld."( easy there,what is the 21st century history writing style according to you ?? attempting to try and say that INDIA did not exist before the british came ?? say that Magesthenese's Indiaca,Mahabharata's Bharatvarsha and Mughal period Hindustan are words we should all forget about because some 60 year old nation has some sympathisers trying to distort India's history taking advantage of an open source wikipedia ???..............................It's like this;and try hearing it for good this time...India existed at the time of Mahabharata and Pakistan DID NOT...........the reigons of which's history you are attempting to hijack belonged to a seperate INDIA at the time................these are facts;try living with them .......................................................................................................


As for the green giant guy..well very specifically here are my replies

A - Neither country has continuously existed for thousands of years but both gained independence in 1947 - Uh,I'm afraid Not....India existed at the time of Mahabharata,The time of Magesthenese,the time of Mughals and after the partition.pakistan is some 60 years old.Slightly younger than my grandfather.


B - When they became independent, Two-Thirds of the Muslims of British India became part of Pakistan ..........hm..intresting.........the muslims of india chose india as their homeland and pakistan did try(and still does try) to steal the glorious history of Indian muslims.what i know is India is still the home to the muslims of the subcontinent.

C - India does not form 99% of South Asia's population or it's area - it forms about three-quarters of the area and the population...who said India had 99% of the population,maybe a newbie or someone very,very ignorant.
D - At independence, Pakistan formed between 20-25% of the area and the population well,we know about pakistan's facination with getting chopped in half every now and then.what more can I say ??That's Pakistan for ya.
E - Events such as the Indus Valley civilisation took place in both countries well,we know Indus Valley civilisation took place before 60 years.
F - Places like South Asia did not develop in complete isolation from the rest of the world - even the Indus Valley civilisation had external contacts in places such as modern Iraq-agreed
G - Therefore both India and Pakistan can claim the inheritance of South Asian history and cultures - Not,Pakistan can say "Modern Day Pakistan" formed some 60 years ago has reigons which when under a multicultural india with a different demographic had this history.India,on the other hand; can claim a pluralistic,multicultural history.

Quit worrying about Pakistanis stealing history because the history belongs to both countries. --------again;this is my personal favourite of the green giant guy.I'll quit worrying right after i add a rightful "Coincides with indian history" bracket to the ancient era....because it happened in india and a 60 year old state is trying to hijack it the least they can do is accept that their version coincides with the actual,real Indian one(which actually happened). .................Thank You Freedom skies 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep arguing over an issue that most of us here are not agreeing with you on, especially since you keep making it your own personal matter (i.e. India's multicultural etc. and thus can claim a history outside its borders). If we want to be really accurate, what we're talking about is the history of the Punjab, Sind, the NWFP (i.e. Afghanistan), and Baluchistan. While the eastern provinces can be identified with Indian culture, the western provinces cannot. You're conflating too many arguments into an attempt at formulating a monolithic and continuous history that frankly does not exist. Tombseye 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither the republic of India nor the republic of Pakistan existed before 1947. There has never been a continuous entity called India covering the whole of South Asia. Live with that fact. On the two-thirds figure, remember that Pakistan had an eastern wing with a larger population in 1947 than it's western wing. The Muslims of India you allude to were the one-third who stayed in India.
One of the recurring mantras is that someone like Babur would have recognised India but not Pakistan. What he would say if you asked him about the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India? Quite probably he would skewer you with a sword for talking gibberish or for threatening his reign as Padishah-i-Hind. It works both ways, nobody from before the twentieth century would recognise either modern India or Pakistan. Green Giant 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


well,well,well.......what's happening here ?? why the short paragraph answers ?? running out of humorous lines like there have been armed separatists in Tibet and You can either join the 21st century or live in some mid-20th century nationalist dreamworld already ?? i'm kinda begining to miss that strategy compared to the one in which you put words like "monolithic and continuous" in my mouth(I'm curious.where exactly did I say those exact words?? )................see,the thing is that India existed at the time of the Mahabharata and even encompassed areas of modern day Afghanistan in that era (Ghandari was from Ghandahar/Kandahar) which kind of does predate the idea of the durand line,see ?? this is strictly in response to (I quote)"If we want to be really accurate, what we're talking about is the history of the Punjab, Sind, the NWFP (i.e. Afghanistan), and Baluchistan. " .If you talk about the history of these reigons you'll see them acknowledge the Hindusahi at the time of India and the Indian chapels at bamiyan,Bagram,Khonduz..yes these chapels are phenominally old and curiously enough they talk of a land called "India/Bharat"(exact specific name)........so,bharat existed with it's name and kings buliding structures in that reigon.hmm,gives one food for thought,eh ??...................INDIA existed before 1947,just go read the stone outside of the Shaolin,the chapels in afghanistan,the buddhist sacred works,the mughal era and the mahabharat era.......India was known as Indica by the visionary Magesthenese,but somehow Shaolin,Magesthenese,Lord Gautam Buddha and everyone from Mahabharat failed to mention Pakistan....how silly of them ?? or was it because it did'nt exist ??..............................................India existed before 1947,just read any of he above mentioned works and find out and pakistan did not;Try living with it......Pakistan is a recent creation;and slightly younger than my grandfather..........it has areas which fell under the milleniums old history of India and that's it.........................................................................As,droll as the last two replies were there was one good line from the green giant guy "One of the recurring mantras is that someone like Babur would have recognised India but not Pakistan".................well,greengiant guy,I hate to be the one to break it to you but Babur never heard of a place called Pakistan in his life whether you like it or not............if you called him the king of pakistan he would have your head because he was the king of a country which actually existed at that time,India( as you pointed out yourself he was the "Padishah-i-Hind" not some "President General" of Pakistan).................and the age of India kind of predates the concept of Sovereignity, Socialism, Secular ethics and Democray so you putting into my mouth that a constant "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India" existed really does show your desperation.....................................................The geographical boundaries did change and India did occupy several states but the country with it's heart at Delhi traces it's history back to the times of mahabharata when Delhi was called Indraprastha.........the land is ancient and was called by it's present name Bharat/India(indica) ....live with it.............Freedom skies 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To Freedom skies: Pakistan is a country, it is not an alien civlization neither have Pakistanis abandoned any of their heritage. The Mughals, the Buddhists and the Sikhs who are prominent in Pakistani history are all part of Pakistani heritage. I am from Peshawar and to this day we have Balahisar Fort there which was built by Ranjit Singh. The history of Pakistani state starts from 1947, the history of the Pakistani people goes back as far as it can. Your attempt to monopolize the history and culture of the subcontinent is a crazy one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.36.67 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. And Freedom Skies, I respect your opinions, but it's amazing how stubborn you are. None of us really care what you think becuase we're all teamed up. Who do you have to back you up? Don't say "the entire sensible world" or something like that, or get someone here just for this purpose. Most of us (actually all except you) agree that Pakistan has history predating sixty years, and so what does it matter what anyone says? Stallions2010 22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dari

In the language section, it mentions that Dari is spoken in Pakistan. However, the link to Dari goes to a disambiguation page, which list 2 or 3 languages named Dari. One from Afghanistan and one Persian language. If someone who knows fix the link so that it goes to the article that this article refers to. Pepsidrinka 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The link now points to Dari (Afghanistan) Green Giant 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Rascism!

"There is also a sizeable communities of Africans" for gods sake i hate it when people think africa is a country! its not respect that! its a whole bunch of countries! cant you be more specific as to what types of africans? its as vague as saying "pakistan is a country of asians" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarandir (talk • contribs)

Changed it to East Africans but can't be more specific than that yet. Green Giant 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Middle East vs Greater Middle East

The Middle East is a term used more often than Greater Middle East although both are vague in their definitions. This is why I changed the Greater Middle East to the Middle East in the introductory paragraph. Green Giant 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

However, the Middle East, in common usage, does not usually include Pakistan. How about rephrasing it to say: It is sometimes considered to be a part of the Middle East, which would be more correct and accurate.

Arun 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that might be a better way to go as the usage varies. The Greater Middle East is used by the G8 and various universities and thinktanks to denote a contiguous area with an Islamic background and some common historical and cultural currents that end roughly at western Pakistan. Tombseye 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, one point here would be that parts of Pakistan are contiguous with Central Asia. Problem with the wording will be that someone else will come along and find it disagreeable. The overlap usage also denotes regional variation not unlike Turkey which is Eurasian for example. Similarly, the usage here would be that while the eastern provinces are South Asian and by extension the west since it's part of the country, the western provinces more accurately represent a connections to the Middle East and Central Asia and thus the term overlap. At any rate, it's a tough call as to which way to go. Tombseye 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think its best to stick with Greater Middle East. Perhaps, instead of wikilinking just Middle East, we should pipelink Greater Middle East and have it point to Middle East. I say this because, saying Middle East is just wrong as it isn't part of the Middle East per se, but some other more general area of the world. On the Middle East page, there is a picture of the Greater Middle East countries in addition to the Middle East countries. Perhaps we should just link to the image instead. Pepsidrinka 21:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should just stick with the original rendering rather than make more changes. The 'Middle East' itself is a vague term and some countries such as Egypt and Iran don't quite share as much as say Iran and Afghanistan and Egypt and North Africa for example. The usage is common in academia due to varying studies of culture history and language. Thus, for example, the Pashtuns who live in an area from Pakistan to northeastern Iran speak an Iranian language related to Persian and are largely linked to the region. Greater Middle East makes more sense because it also encompasses North Africa, something I agree with as if the region is vague and not quite geographic then the academics who include it in their studies are on the right track. Tombseye 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
One note, only eastern Pakistan is on the subcontinent (see Indian plate) while the rest is on the Iranian plateau that oddly corresponds to the Iranian languages of the west. Tombseye 21:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
What about perhaps dropping Middle East in favour of Southwest Asia or West Asia seeing as the other two regions are South Asia and Central Asia? Green Giant 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought of that myself in which case we'd say that Pakistan is found in South, Central, and West Asia, but that might prove confusing to people. The Middle East article explains its usage as to what the Greater Middle East is and refers to, while the Central Asia article shows why parts of Pakistan are considered Central Asian and then we have the eastern provinces which are geographically and linguistically South Asian. What about how it is written now? With Indian subcontinent linking to the Indian plate etc.? Tombseye 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Had a look at the changes Pepsidrinka and Tombseye made and I vote in favour of the text as it is now (including the Greater Middle East). Green Giant 22:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan as a Middle Eastern country?

I have never heard of Pakistan ever being considered a Middle Eastern country. The only time I may have heard individual Pakistanis asserting such a thing is usually in the context of trying to dissasociate Muslim majority Pakistan from Hindu majority India. The two countries, other than the fact that they have two different religious pluralities, are historically, culturally, linguistically and anthropologically insepreable (to the heart ache of Pakistani Muslim and Hindu Indian fundamentalists).

"Greater Middle East" is just another term in an even more forceful attempt to try and incorporate Pakistan into the Middle East, and dissasociate from India. Prior to the partition, India, Pakistan, and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were all one country, although with many religions. Muslims were scattered all over the place, as were Hindus. It was the exchange of populations that eventually created Pakistanis, East Pakistanis (Bangladeshis), and Indians.

What about the independant ethnic goups within the Indian sub continent? Punjabis for example, may be Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or other. One Pakistani (of Muslim Punjabi extraction) has more in common with a two Indians (a Hindu Punjabi and a Sikh Punjabi) culturally, anthopologically, and linguistically, than with another Pakistani (Muslim Pashtun) for example.

Even in physical geography, Pakistan does not overlap into the "Middle East", it lies almost entirely in South Asia (the Indian sub continent). What small part of Pakistan may lie outside of South Asia is to be found in Central Asia. The other regions that comprise the Middle East are the Levant and North Africa. Typically the people must be Semitic, whatever their religion. Of course there is Iran, an Indo-European people, but their classification is based on actually geography (some of Iran lies on the Arabian Plate, and they classify themselves as Middle Eastern), and then there are the Kurds, but it is they that live inside the region "of" the semitic people. If the people themselves aren't semitic, then the country in which they live must at least overlap into the areas classified as Middle Eastern. Pakistan does not qualify on any of these levels.

If [Muslim Malay majority] Indonesia were somewhat closer to the Middle East, I'm sure there would also be some alleging it was a part of the Middle East as well (and don't think there aren't those few that insist that it is), in the attempts to distance itself from [Christian Malay majority] Philippines. Being a Muslim majority country does not a country Middle Eastern. And I'm sure we all know that Islam is not the only religion of the Middle East either. Al-Andalus 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC).

Actually, in various publications there is mention of the overlap of the country. In the Universal Almanac, Pakistan is described as North Indian in the east and Iranian in the west (alluding the Afghan-Baluch peoples). In addition, the Iranian plateau is a geologic formation that takes up roughly half the country while the Indian plate takes up mainly the eastern provinces. My rationale, as someone who has travelled to Peshawar and other parts of the country, along with others is that this is a country that overlaps. The western provinces aren't South Asian as they are populated by Iranian speaking peoples and the history is one of overlap as well. Although it is quite clear that over 2/3 of the population are Indo-Aryan speakers and so its main link as a South Asian country is the most important, but the western provinces require some mention. The explanation at the Middle East and Central Asia articles extrapolate on this concept and the usage as it is applied. In various academic departments Pakistan (or its western portion) are discussed as with the major empires and historical events, but specifically regarding the Iranic population of the west. Thus, the overlap regional appellation. Tombseye 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with many definitions of regions like the Middle East is that people attempt to create a fixed and visible boundary for them. If you were to travel westwards from anywhere in north India towards the Mediterranean, you would find a gradual almost imperceptible change in the language, dress, customs and mannerisms of people. There would not be a single point where you could say that you had definitely crossed over from South Asia into the Middle East. The only definite change you could pinpoint (as one example amongst thousands) is that the people of Beirut are susbstantially different from the people of Delhi in terms of language and customs etc. However, you might be hard-pressed to find substantial differences between people in Lahore and Delhi. So we can only be vague about the definition of where Pakistan lies - the text as it is now is probably the best way to do this. Green Giant 07:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
"If you were to travel westwards from anywhere in north India towards the Mediterranean, you would find a gradual almost imperceptible change in the language, dress, customs and mannerisms of people." This is also true for the entire earth. If you were to travel westwards from say eastern China towards western Europe, you would also find a gradual and imperceptible change in the language, dress, customs and mannerisms of the people. However, there are set political boundries to regions, and Pakistan does not fall or overlap in the Middle East. Yes, it overlaps in a common area with Iran, and Iran is Middle Eastern, but Iran is Middle Eastern not because of the area in which it ovelaps with Pakistan, but because of the area which is inside the Arabian Peninsula. Iran is Middle Eastern and Central Asian, Pakistan is South Asian and Central Asian. It's the Central Asian part that Iran and Pakistan have in common, this does not make Pakistan a part of the Middle East by extension.
The major factor for people trying to associate Pakistan with the Middle East is because of the fact that it is a Muslim majority country. However, this should not be a factor, or what would be of Indonesia for example? Add to this the fact that Islam itself is merely one of many religions with origins in the Middle East (even though today most of the Middle East is Muslim).
Let's put religion aside. Were Pakistan not a majority Muslim country, there would be no debate as to its South Asian reality (even accounting for the western quarter inhabited by the Indo-Iranian speaker, which, by the way, still isn't in the Middle East). The factors behind the push is in trying to disassociate from their non-Islamic South Asian origins (a facet which is at the very least down-played, dismissed, or even denied). You can see this in government policy. Much of Pakistan's identity is a fabrication. The identity of those who are today called Pakistani would not exist without India, but would still exist if (as an example)tomorrow they all converted out of Islam. Al-Andalus 14:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
I agree entirely with your point on religion, Al-Andalus. It is true that there are some who would deny that Pakistan has ever been influenced by the regions to it's east, in much the same vein as some in India would deny the whole Aryan invasion theory. The example of travelling westwards was not mean't to indicate a unique situation - it happens everywhere, for example the Polynesians who travelled huge distances across the Pacific Ocean, yet retained strong cultural links. However, the political borders of most modern countries do not take into account geographical, linguistic or cultural boundaries although political policies can reinforce differences on two sides of a border. It is safest to say that Pakistan has been influenced by all of it's neighbours especially India but it cannot be denied that there are influences from the Middle East and Central Asia as well. Green Giant 01:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with most of that. However, Pakistan has not been influenced by India. Pakistan's origins is India, then on top of this foundation you have the external influences from the Middle East and Central Asia. What is of the millions of Muslims still in India? Those who opted not to become Pakistani in the exchange of populations, and are still spread throughout the country. As a matter of fact, there are almost as many Muslims in India as the total population of Pakistan. If tomorrow those Muslim Indians moved to Pakistan (as how most modern-day Pakistanis became Pakistanis in the first place, previously being Muslim Indians), does that make the newer Muslim Indian immigrant to Pakistan also miracoulasly inherit a Middle Eastern connection? What of Bangladesh (East Pakistan)? Where is their Middle Eastern connection? One branch of a pre-partition Indian Muslim family might have gone to West Pakistan and the other to East Pakistan, neither with roots or connections to the Middle East, but the one who ventured west all of a sudden has an historic connection to the Middle East? Al-Andalus 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

-You know what Al-Andalus? I agree with most, if not all of what you are saying. As I am a Pakistani, I often view Pakistan as an essentially South Asian/ Indian subcontinent country, however with strong Iranian/Central Asian influence in the western frontier. I myself am a Pathan/Pashtun whose ancestors settled old Muslim India centuries ago (my family claims during the Durrani invasion.) Yet Indo-Aryan overall. The culture of Lahore, and Karachi is no different from the North Indian culture of Delhi, Lucknow and Amritsar. In fact, after some continued reading on the Balochistan province and from my overall travels to my homeland, I have come up with this identity of Pakistan. It is my belief that Pakistan, as the former Northwest India, is Ancient India's cultural northwestern extension and, to some extent, crossroads. As Afghanistan is an Iranian country with marginal Indian influence and a strong Turkic minority, Pakistan is an Indian-derived nation with some Middle Eastern influence and a strong Iranian-speaking minority that arose as a result of CENTRAL ASIAN and NOT MIDDLE EASTERN influence. Most of the Iranian peoples that invaded South Asia, excluding the Persians, were from Central Asia and the Iranian languages were for the most part based in the southern part of this region. And as for Balochistan, many make the mistake of grouping these people with the rest of Pakistan and claim that this whole area has a common cultural history of its own, separate from India. In reality, the Baloch populated area of this region was as distinct and cut off from Punjab and, to some extent Sindh in the same way it is cut off from far away Bengal! The Baloch were traditionally an Iranian people settling on the fringes of both India and Iran that were grouped into the British India political grouping by the British colonial cartographers. They are also a recent people who came to this country only within the last millenia so they are not part of a long Iranian dominion in the region but a recent introduction who ended up in ( or intruded into) a predominantly Indo-Aryan and Dravidian region,( it is believed that the Dravidian Brahui arrived sometime before the Baloch). The region of the Northwest Frontier Province was also traditionally and Indo-Aryan cultural stronghold and was traditionally the center of an ancient Indian Buddhist culture that merged with that of Alexander's Greeks to form the Gandharan art school that extended into Afghanistan. The Pashtuns migrated into this region during the Muslim invasions. This region held one of Ancient India's most ancient and advanced cities, Taxila, where one of the worlds oldest universities existed. Yet the Pashtuns and the Baloch came and form a strong Iranian-speaking minority here. The modern Pakistani Pashtuns were regarded by the Afghans as living in "Hind" at the time before Partition. Pashtuns were strongly influential in much of northern India (both Pakistan and modern Northern India). And even if, as Iranian peoples they are distinct from Indo-Aryans and Dravidians, it must be remembered that the area traditionally known as India was never ethnically homogenous. If you want to know something, much of Northeastern India is populated by Mongoloid tribesman related to the Burmese, Tibetans and Thai and more distinct and cut off from mainstream Indo-Aryan and Dravidian cultures than the Iranian Baloch and Pashtuns who had much influence with the Indo-Aryans and were related to them (both Indo-Aryan and Iranian peoples descend from a common racial stock 3,000 years ago.)Shouldnt they be regarded as living in the Far East or South East Asia? No, Indian see them as much a part of India as any one of their own kith. If anything, the entire subcontinent/South Asia, can be split up into different cultural, racial and linguistic zones. Pakistani and Indian Punjab, Delhi, Kashmir, and Uttar Pradesh can be thought of as one cultural zone, being an area where Hindustani was and is spoken(despite national attempts to purify language on both border sides), a Delhi sultanate was based here and where people are racially akin and have a common culture, flowing into the Afghan culture of the NWFP. The area of Bihar and Bengal form a timezone where Buddhism and Hinduism thrived together and Afghan Nawabs ruled. Bengal includes both West Bengal and Bangladesh. The area of Sindh, Rajasthan, and northern Gujarat form another culture zone where Muslims and Hindus clashed and made peace forming a common culture here. Balochistan and NWFP are border regions that are part related to the others but linguistically distinct and are edges of the Iranian nation that dominates southern Central Asia and the eastern Middle East, in the same way Tripura and the other northeaster provinces of India are border regions of India with cultural bonds but are linguistic extensions of southeast Asia. Islam was the Middle East's main contribution. Overall, I see Pakistan as a part of the greater Ancient Indian nation that is culturally both Hindu and Muslim. I dont think Pakistan and India should merge together but I think if the Arab states can find cultural ties between each other strong enough to have so close relations, I think India and Pakistan can use their common cultural heritage to become strong cultural and political allies, if they can solve their differances, which they can, albiet with a lot of work. -[[Afghan Historian 21:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)]]

Now if somehow you could transfer Afghan Historian's essay into the main article, you'd be laughing all the way to the Leeds (Yorkshire saying). Green Giant 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

-What did I do wrong? -User: Afghan Historian

Nothing, was just agreeing with what you said :P Green Giant 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)