The Case for Pakistan as a Civilizational State

[Master Chief]

Ancient India is the Indus region. That is what India meant in ancient times. Land of the Indus region. That's what ancient Greeks called the Indus land.

Modern "India" is not the Indus region; hence not ancient India. Just as Alexander was from Ancient Macedonia, now a Greek province.

He was not from today's Republic of Macedonia, which claims the name.

But unlike self-hating Pakistanis, Greeks are very much proud of their heritage and very protective of it.

Despite being, devout Orthodox Christians, they still acknowledge their pre-Christian ancestors. Same for Italians. Proud Catholics, but proud of their pre-Christian Roman civilization.

Not so for Pakistanis. As a result, another self-loathing population has taken up our identity and heritage.

We should have fought to protect it since our independence. But we still can.

If i may suggest, you and @peagle , you're both correct from different perspectives.

Pakistan is the true "ancient India" as described originally by Greeks/Persians. However that name has been appropriated by the nation lying to Pakistan's east, perhaps irreversibly.

Hence, it probably is a good idea, in one sense, to regard the ancient land here as "ancient Pakistan" before referring to it as "the true ancient India". I suppose it is actually both at the same time.

Nehru wanted to falsely appropriate the word "India" from its true legacy, so it is a reasonable suggestion to let Nehru have his cake and eat it.

Hard to achieve in practice of course but certainly warrants careful and due consideration.

 

[PakistanLVR]

Thank you all for contributing to this thread. I didn't partake in the earlier conversations because I did not want to say anything incendiary that would take away from my core message.

I do however want to add one thing about Alexander the Great and his battle against our ancestor, Porus. I've noticed this copium by the indians to shift the conversation to an apparently even "bigger" empire with more elephants call Nanda Empire that made Alexander fearful and hence why he chose to withdraw from the contiguous lands of Pakistan.

Modern, Contemporary (born August 15th 1947) India nationalism naturally finds the Nanda > Maurya story attractive. Magadha was centered in what is now India; shortly afterward Chandragupta Maurya overthrew the Nandas and created an enormous empire. Saying “Alexander turned around because he feared the massive Indian empire waiting for him” therefore fits neatly into a national story of an ancient unified India resisting foreign conquest.

The region was politically and genetically fragmented. Porus ruled a kingdom in the Punjab; Ambhi/Taxiles ruled Taxila and allied himself with Alexander; various other kingdoms and tribal polities existed across the northwest; and the Nandas ruled Magadha far to the east. There was no central “Indian” government commanding Porus, Taxila, and Magadha, nor a unified army defending a common Indian nation from Alexander.

Ancient South Asia was not a genetically homogeneous population corresponding to a modern “Indian people.” Ancient-DNA and population-genetics research indicates substantial regional structure produced by different proportions of ancestry related to ancient Iranian-associated agricultural populations, indigenous South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, Steppe pastoralists, and—in some regions—East/Southeast Asian-related ancestry. Those mixtures varied considerably by geography and community, and later endogamy further strengthened population differentiation.

That point is particularly relevant when projecting today's national identities backward. The Indus/Punjab/Gandhara northwest, Gangetic north, Deccan, northeast, and southern peninsula had different demographic histories. Political fragmentation and genetic population structure aren't the same phenomenon, but neither supports imagining 326 BCE as a homogeneous modern Indian nation simply awaiting Alexander.

https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2024/12/agathocleia-the-greek-queen-who-ruled-northern-india/

 

[Malcolm Reynolds]

the hard work that goes into deciding who should your ancestors be ? of course other than who they were.

 

[SilentWatch]

@Musings bhai advice, how do I open a similar thread but focused on the next 25 - 50 years for Pakistan under the same nation state concept as here, note this wont be a peace loving piece but more as a war hawk i.e. advocate for economic real world indian targets be hit in sindoor 2 vs the typically hardened military targets that I as civilian analyst cant opine on, that would be out of scope, but the best data centres and economic hotpot's that hurt long term economic war calculus for india.


dont want my next thread banned...

 

[El Sidd]

Hafeez Mahmood Shirani.

Now what, you'll ask for more. It seems you dislike Your fictional narrative of history being refuted so you are moving the goalpost. What of those quotes I posted? I can even post a couple of Bharati sources. A third one has gone off-line.

There's no evidence in that link. All it says that Ghaznavid invasion of Punjab may have given rise to Urdu but provides no historical documentation but pure speculation.

 

[Master Chief]

the hard work that goes into deciding who should your ancestors be ? of course other than who they were.

"But saar!, why have you rejected your Harappan roots saar and chosen to start history at Qasim saar this is vy Pakijjtan is not native but India ijj native saar!"

 

[ThunderCat]

There's no evidence in that link. All it says that Ghaznavid invasion of Punjab may have given rise to Urdu but provides no historical documentation but pure speculation.

That conclusion didn't come from nowhere. This whole thing: "I don't want to believe it came before the Mughal Empire, so I won't believe it" doesn't count as an argument.

You are confusing a pet given name "urdu" with the language itself. I already posted quotes in this same thread. I also mention Hafiz Mahmood Shirani.

Prove to me that they are wrong and you're not. They are researched the subject matter. You clearly have not.

 

[ThunderCat]

If i may suggest, you and @peagle , you're both correct from different perspectives.

Pakistan is the true "ancient India" as described originally by Greeks/Persians. However that name has been appropriated by the nation lying to Pakistan's east, perhaps irreversibly.

Hence, it probably is a good idea, in one sense, to regard the ancient land here as "ancient Pakistan" before referring to it as "the true ancient India". I suppose it is actually both at the same time.

Nehru wanted to falsely appropriate the word "India" from its true legacy, so it is a reasonable suggestion to let Nehru have his cake and eat it.

Hard to achieve in practice of course but certainly warrants careful and due consideration.

No. The solution is to distinguish ancient India and the artificial "India."

This is the problem with Pakistanis. We are willing to let them steal everything, including our national language.

Pakistan is our civic identity. India would be our geographical identity. Allowing them to take the name allows them to create a confusion.

India comes from Sindhu/Sindhia. Did our ancestors call it that?

Greeks refuse to let Macedonia keep the name without a compromise.

The compromise today is that Former Yogoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is distinct from ancient Macedonia which is Greek.

Nehru can suck it up. They took the name and might still keep the name provided we educate the world a distinction in meaning.

Even the country Saudi Arabia is distinct from the geographical area of Arabia.

Despite ethnic commonality, I doubt Arabs states of the Arabian peninsula will allow the Kindgom of Saud to simply call itself "Arabia."

FYI "india" does have an alternate proper name which is Bharat. Even if we use "india" in English, we must distinguish the two.

 

[ThunderCat]

I do however want to add one thing about Alexander the Great and his battle against our ancestor, Porus. I've noticed this copium by the indians to shift the conversation to an apparently even "bigger" empire with more elephants call Nanda Empire that made Alexander fearful and hence why he chose to withdraw from the contiguous lands of Pakistan.

Modern, Contemporary (born August 15th 1947) India nationalism naturally finds the Nanda > Maurya story attractive. Magadha was centered in what is now India; shortly afterward Chandragupta Maurya overthrew the Nandas and created an enormous empire. Saying “Alexander turned around because he feared the massive Indian empire waiting for him” therefore fits neatly into a national story of an ancient unified India resisting foreign conquest.

 

[Master Chief]

No. The solution is to distinguish ancient India and the artificial "India."

This is the problem with Pakistanis. We are willing to let them steal everything, including our national language.

Pakistan is our civic identity. India would be our geographical identity. Allowing the to take the name allows them to create a confusion.

India comes from Sindhu/Sindhia. Did our ancestors call it that?

Greeks refuse to let Macedonia keep the name without a compromise.

The compromise today is that Former Yogoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is distinct from ancient Macedonia which is Greek.

Nehru can suck it up. They took the name and might still keep the name provided we educate the world a distinction in meaning.

Even the country Saudi Arabia is distinct from the geographical area of Arabia.

Despite ethnic commonality, I doubt Arabs states of the Arabian peninsula will allow the Kindgom of Saud to simply call itself "Arabia."

FYI "india" does have an alternate proper name which is Bharat. Even if we use "india" in English, we must distinguish the two.

If this is indeed the will of the council, then Gondor shall see it done.

 

[ThunderCat]

the hard work that goes into deciding who should your ancestors be ? of course other than who they were.

The hard work Bharatis go into claiming them. Of course we probably know why.

 

[El Sidd]

That conclusion didn't come from nowhere. This whole thing: "I don't want to believe it came before the Mughal Empire, so I won't believe it" doesn't count as an argument.

You are confusing a pet given name "urdu" with the language itself. I already posted quotes in this same thread. I also mention Hafiz Mahmood Shirani.

Prove to me that they are wrong and you're not. They are researched the subject matter. You clearly have not.

No one has yet come across any physical evidence that this language existed around 1026AD. Speculation is not research.