The Most Shameful Diwali Celebration in India, Indians Completely Lost Their Senses!

Maarkhoor said:
Lols Urdu diary analyst from India ex foreign secretary and renowned Indian Hindu journalist.
Click to expand...
Pravin Sawhney is more Pakistani than many Pakistanis. He's Pakistan's man in India. That's all I have to say about him.
Maarkhoor said:
Urdu diary just compiled it videos and material from India and from Indians.
Click to expand...
I've seen the same type of videos from nationalist Indian creators. They use carefully curated, maliciously edited content to make points. I don't watch any of it.
 
Maarkhoor said:
They are becoming curse for the whole mankind somebody needs to send them back to vedic era.
Click to expand...

Well we can all go back to the vedic era, but Muslims did not exist in the vedic era and neither did Pakistan.
 
Jaeger said:
Well we can all go back to the vedic era, but Muslims did not exist in the vedic era and neither did Pakistan.
Click to expand...
What an awful history teacher you must have.

Pakistan certainly did exist in the vedic era. It was called Hindush, a Persian Achaemenid name given to its satrapy on the River Indus.

Alexander the Great conquered it, later also defeating Porus at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum).

The Nandas were the first somewhat cohesive and structured tribal entity that controlled land to the east of the Indus and this was only after the vedic era had ended.

The Nandas, Mauryans, Guptas or any other native empire of this eastern region never once called their territory "India". Not even once.

It was always "Bharat" or a few other quite varied and alternative sanskritised terminologies, but certainly not "India".

"India" is a simple corruption of "Hindush", which in turn ultimately derived from the name of a river, "Sindhu". No such nation as "India" existed until the subcontinent was unified as part of the British Empire, and even then, "India" was a colonial asset of christendom, rather than an independent nation state controlled by natives.
 
atmi_bum said:
Pravin Sawhney is more Pakistani than many Pakistanis. He's Pakistan's man in India. That's all I have to say about him.
Click to expand...
No he’s a patriot who speaks truth. Fortunately for Pakistan vast majority of Indians don’t listen to him, call him ‘Pakistan’s man’ instead & prefer to gobble up BS Modi feeds them via Godi media instead.
Was he ‘Pakistan’s man’ when he was warning India of PAF’s increasing EW capability well in advance of 🤡AF losing so many of its top of the line jets including Ra-fail in botched Sindoor?
 
Master Chief said:
What an awful history teacher you must have.

Pakistan certainly did exist in the vedic era. It was called Hindush, a Persian Achaemenid name given to its satrapy on the River Indus.

Alexander the Great conquered it, later also defeating Porus at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum).

The Nandas were the first somewhat cohesive and structured tribal entity that controlled land to the east of the Indus and this was only after the vedic era had ended.

The Nandas, Mauryans, Guptas or any other native empire of this eastern region never once called their territory "India". Not even once.

It was always "Bharat" or a few other quite varied and alternative sanskritised terminologies, but certainly not "India".

"India" is a simple corruption of "Hindush", which in turn ultimately derived from the name of a river, "Sindhu". No such nation as "India" existed until the subcontinent was unified as part of the British Empire, and even then, "India" was a colonial asset of christendom, rather than an independent nation state controlled by natives.
Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure what you are arguing here.

Your opening claim is that Pakistan existed in the Vedic era, yet the rest of your argument essentially establishes that the region was inhabited by people belonging to the Indic civilization, whether you call them Hindus or Bharatiyas. How exactly does that establish the existence of Pakistan as a distinct country or political entity in the Vedic era?

Also, a small history lesson: the Vedic period had ended centuries before Alexander ever set foot in the subcontinent.
 
Jaeger said:
I am not entirely sure what you are arguing here.

Your opening claim is that Pakistan existed in the Vedic era, yet the rest of your argument essentially establishes that the region was inhabited by people belonging to the Indic civilization, whether you call them Hindus or Bharatiyas. How exactly does that establish the existence of Pakistan as a distinct country or political entity in the Vedic era?

Also, a small history lesson: the Vedic period had ended centuries before Alexander ever set foot in the subcontinent.
Click to expand...
Of course it's lost on u what he is saying. If brains were sold on Amazon, I would order u one with prime delivery so it can get to u fast.

What he is saying is..Pakistan existed as a region...and so did its ppl...
...just like u lot claim India always existed...it's more like the region existed and its ppl.

What he is showing u..is that ur current nation's name and identity..is borrowed from Pakistan. It's Pakistan where ur identity as a Hindu(the name Hindu, Hinduism, Hindustan, India) all originate in what is today Pakistan. In fact looking back at Indus Valley Civilization a lot of scholars even think Hinduism has its roots in IVC(which is mostly in modern day Pakistan with some parts in modern day India and a few parts in modern day Afghanistan). As for the modern day state of India...it is a British colony that gained independence.

So u can quit masquerading as some ancient nation..while ur whole identity is borrowed from us. U get the point now?
 
Jaeger said:
I am not entirely sure what you are arguing here.

Your opening claim is that Pakistan existed in the Vedic era, yet the rest of your argument essentially establishes that the region was inhabited by people belonging to the Indic civilization, whether you call them Hindus or Bharatiyas. How exactly does that establish the existence of Pakistan as a distinct country or political entity in the Vedic era?

Also, a small history lesson: the Vedic period had ended centuries before Alexander ever set foot in the subcontinent.
Click to expand...
Read my post very slowly.

1. Where have I said Alexander invaded vedic era Pakistan?

I clearly said Alexander invaded Hindush. Hindush was formed in the vedic era by Achaemenids. Alexander invaded after the vedic era. I never said anything to the contrary.

2. The "Indic" civilisation seems a fabricated term to me. Kindly use the proper terminology - in this case, use "Indus Valley Civilisation", which is closest to what you say, but importantly, associates that region with the river Indus. I can understand why you have tried to tease the Indus out of that definition and reframe it as "Indic" rather than "Indus Valley", as your variant term redefines the entire phrase as something relatable to other parts of the "Indian subcontinent", but such gibberish simply won't fly outside of your Gangadeshi seminar group classes.

3. The Pakistan I refer to was indeed inhabited by the denizens of the Indus Valley Civilisation. They were in a region called "Hindush" by the Achaemenids, not to be confused with the word "Hindus", which is the term that describes people who adhere to the Hindu faith, irrespective of their location on earth. "Hindus" and "Hindush" are not interchangeable at all since they describe different things entirely. Moreover, "Bharatis" is not a term applicable to the Indus Valley Civilisation as they never called themselves that. Aside from the mythology of religious texts, it was first recorded as a localising term on stone inscriptions in Odisha.

4. As for Pakistan (its precursor forms: The IVC, later Hindush) being a political entity, it was precisely as much a political entity as Bharat was in the vedic era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 3, guests: 9)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top