The Case for Pakistan as a Civilizational State

[Distant_Observer]

we are very well aware of our ancestors, Gange-stani. In-face you ran 8 decades without any push-back and that's ingrained this really dishonestly revisionist history of my region. Don't worry, we are taking your lies apart systemically block by block

When there is thousands of years of evidence to show Indus as its own civilizational entity and its people unified into a state as a modern example, majority of non Pakistanis have also realised gangus and Indus are different.

After sniffing Epstein's butthole, Indians thought they could erase Pakistan ideologically, geographically and culturally by assimilating its legacy.

They didn't realise they lost the battle the moment Pakistan was born and when it went nuclear. The rest is just desperation. Revisionist hinduvita historians with their fabricated history and religion used as a precursor for civilizational ownership. Promoting radicalism within our communities to make our people become myopic about our history and reject it so they can claim it.

All hallmarks of their fatherland. They are just mimicking.

Lets just wait for Pakistani society to evolve and enter its renaissance period when it will start producing great works of art and culture. Then their insecurity will really start peaking.

 

[ThunderCat]

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

You keep asking for one requirement after another. There is sufficient linguistic research in Shirani's documented research. From Bailey as well as Bharati linguists.

First you ask for evidence, even after it's provided to you. Then you reject Bailey and ask for a local, despite already having quoted. I cite you Shirani, then you still insist on more.

Keep moving the goal post.

 

[ThunderCat]

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

Meanwhile your African cousins remind you of your roots:

 

[peagle]

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.

Sometimes a balance is appropriate, but in this case his logic is bat shyt crazy.
Little preoccupied for a bit, but i promise i will reply to his poor understandings. Usually I have an intention of replying but then forget about it , but this promise is to you.
I love the fact he is so passionate, but passion without logic and reason is pure stupidity.

 

[peagle]

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.

Bhai jaan , you're cute. But you're utterly and completely wrong.
I hope we will be able to have a reasonable discussion. Please allow me little time, as Arnold said, I'll be back.

 

[peagle]

Ancient South Asia

This is the only appropriate term to describe this region.

 

[Neojinnah]

When there is thousands of years of evidence to show Indus as its own civilizational entity and its people unified into a state as a modern example, majority of non Pakistanis have also realised gangus and Indus are different.

After sniffing Epstein's butthole, Indians thought they could erase Pakistan ideologically, geographically and culturally by assimilating its legacy.

They didn't realise they lost the battle the moment Pakistan was born and when it went nuclear. The rest is just desperation. Revisionist hinduvita historians with their fabricated history and religion used as a precursor for civilizational ownership. Promoting radicalism within our communities to make our people become myopic about our history and reject it so they can claim it.

All hallmarks of their fatherland. They are just mimicking.

Lets just wait for Pakistani society to evolve and enter its renaissance period when it will start producing great works of art and culture. Then their insecurity will really start peaking.

Forget thousands of years of proof. The last 1000 years alone debunk the claim that the Indus was it's own civilizational entity:
Mid 19th century - 1947: The regions which make up Pakistan were part of the British Raj
Early 19th century to Mid 19th century: Punjab was under the rule of Sikhs. KPK, Sindh, and Balochistan were under the rule of local clans/tribes.
16th to 18th century: Mughal rule which declined in the 1700s and lead to Sikhs, Afghans, and local vassals creating their own independent sovereign states
11th to 16th century: Delhi Sultanate rule in Punjab and KPK. Independent local rule in Sindh and Balochistan. Disruptions by Mongol incursions and local tribes resisting imperial rule.

Basically a hodge podge of competing elites, tribes, and clans of different ethnicities with different languages and histories. The opposite of a civilization. The largest and continuously inhabited major city of the region, Lahore, switched hands between imperial powers like the Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, Durranis, Sur empire, etc.

Indus Civilizationists need to rely on ancient history and pretend the last 1000 years didn't happen like Hindu fanatics to justify their theory.

 

[El Sidd]

You keep asking for one requirement after another. There is sufficient linguistic research in Shirani's documented research. From Bailey as well as Bharati linguists.

First you ask for evidence, even after it's provided to you. Then you reject Bailey and ask for a local, despite already having quoted. I cite you Shirani, then you still insist on more.

Keep moving the goal post.

These theories are not likely to gain any traction nor consensus.

 

[Master Chief]

Indus Civilizationists need to rely on ancient history and pretend the last 1000 years didn't happen like Hindu fanatics to justify their theory.

Not really an argument though. Ancient Rome was unified, then the italian peninsula was fractured and divided, then reconstructed and Italy is now, rightly, regarded as the inheritor of that legacy. Indus civilisationists need simply demonstrate an independently functional entity resided in the Indus Valley in a progenitor state. As far as we know, the Indus Valley Civilisation was the first civilised entity in those lands. It collapsed, was abandoned by the original inhabitants, who were then replaced by the jigsaw of different groups you have listed.

A progenitor nation state existed there and coterminous Pakistan now overlies it.

I see no reason why modern Pakistan is not the successor nation of the IVC.

The debate on what to regard that progenitor nation as in terms of nomenclature is wide open (ancient Pakistan, ancient IVC, ancient "India", ancient South Asia etc) but it is coterminous Pakistan.