Talk:History of India/Archive 2

Classification of Periods
Can't we classify the periods under the usual heads of Ancient, Medieval and Modern?

Yes, that would be wonderful--Today&#39;s mighty oak is just yesterday&#39;s nut, which held its ground 07:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Photographs
Can someone please put nice pictures of Chalukya and Rashtrakuta architecture. I see only Chola empire relatred pictures proliferated.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Please, somebody read the first sentence and rewrite it so that it makes sense. I would but I have absolutely no idea what that's supposed to mean. Foxmulder 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How come many of the images were recently removed?

---

Hmm, the new intro is a bit crappy isnt it?

---

Could you guys (and girls?) pretty pretty please learn proper english? Or ask a native speaker to check your grammar? --84.159.137.29 00:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Spurious edit
This edit (which was never reverted) looks like some kind of POV-pushing, but I don't know enough of the context to tell what the point is, or if there is any point. up◦land 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeh, ill change it now. Vastu 08:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Epic Age"
While cleaning up links to disambiguation pages, I created a stub article for "Epic Age," described on the disambiguation page as an era in Indian history. It is referenced from the Punjab region page as such, but I don't find it mentioned on this page, so it must be there under another name. Could someone with more knowledge in this era take a look at Epic Age and make it "right?" Thanks. John 22:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are the Achaemenids and Alexander the Great?
-Shouldnt there be separate sections, devoted to both the Achaemenid empire and the invasion of Alexander the Great? These were key events in ancient northern India's history, the former, as one of its first foreign military invasions and the second as the beginning of contact between both India and the West. After all, India was described by Herodotus as the Persian Empire's wealthiest province. The Jewel of the Persian crown, one could cleverly put it. At least, I think they should. -Afghan Historian 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]]


 * Well, it was mentioned in other sections, but yeah, it probably looks better as an era of its own, afterall, the Kushans, etc, got their own section. Vastu 08:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire now under Late Middle Kingdoms of India section
need discussion on this, if necessary...

Pizzadeliveryboy 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as a point of discussion, the Vijaynagara empire was formed later than those mentioned in the late middle kingdoms, around the time of the Delhi sultanates, which is why it was located there, even if the title wasnt perticularily fitting - but I guess it dosent really make too much of a difference. Vastu 08:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Article changes
I am unsure why it is worth showing a map of alexander's empire in an Indian history page, or why much more relevant pictures have been removed. This is afterall about Indian history, and going by the style of other articles, should not devote presious picture space to an empire that only interacted with India for a short time, and conquered outer fringes of north India, when that space could be more relevently devoted to something Indian. Vastu

Indonesia
Pizza, I changed Bali to Indonesia for the following reason - it is irrelevent that Bali was the first kingdom in the Malay area, since there has been a number of Indianised empires there, not least of which, the Srivijaya and Majapahit - in addition to this, we are talking about cultural influence on modern areas of the planet, dispite the deliberate use of the name 'Persia' instead of Iran, which is like the difference between 'Hindustan' and India - this gives the unmistakable impression that the only place Indian culture had any major effect on Indonesia is the modern island of Bali. Ill leave the rest to you, I cannot see why you would want to refer to the Bali kingdom instead of the modern nation of Indonesia. Also I cannot understand why you then didnt, under this logic, painstakingly describe the ancient kingdoms of South East Asia, instead of the modern political entities of Burma, Cambodia, etc, which include areas not limited to the extend of the Khmer Empire, etc... Vastu 11:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

IAM
Hi:

It is necessary to mention the existence of the Indo-Aryan migration as an accepted theory of how Vedic civilization began. I know this is a very volatile and sentimental (and hence controversial) topic, but there exists enough linguistic proof of the fact that there has been a migration from C Asia and the Cacausus, lying just to the west, into Iran and eventually into India. Which culture eventually dominated whom may be a topic of debate, but the fact that this phenomenon occured is indisputable.

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it accepted? Many scholars seem to challenge it. Like the guy who edited it said, mention it is a theory.  Vastu 08:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The theory is being used as a propaganda tool in India, so, sure, you'll find all sorts of polemics about it. If you look at it with a cool head, it's not a big deal. Nobody claims "mass migration", and much of Indian culture may well be rooted in the IVC, so nobody claims Indian culture was imported from Central Asia or anything. Just the languages had to get there somehow, didn't they? This may have been a tiny superstratum, like 5% of the indigenous inhabitants of Gandhara installing itself in say 1800 BC. The debate should be about how this linguistic influence manifested itself without dragging it onto political turf all the time. The Indus valley was invaded all the time, by Greeks, Persians, Sakas, etc. etc, why is this particular instance such a big deal? dab (&#5839;) 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are preaching to the saints here, but the reason so much fuss is probably made out of this is because there are still political parties, etc, that promote some kind of Dravidian/Aryan divide, even today, making it all the more important that people are correctly educated. Vastu 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the Vedas states the first Avatara originated in the banks of the river flowing in southern Karnataka. This is a clear evidence of Dravidians as the true successors of the Indus Valley Civilization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.124.63.196 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Durrani Empire
-Some mention of the Duranni empire and its incursions into India and Pakistan must be made in the Post-Mughal section. They were one of the key invaders vying for control after the death of Aurangzeb. They quarelled with the Marathas, Sikhs etc. They even occupied Indian controlled Jammu-Kashmir for a while -User: Afghan Historian


 * Yes, although many other invaders do not have their own sections, including the Huns. Vastu 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the information about Ahmad Shah Durrani is confused with Nadir Shah. For example, Koh-i-Noor was taken by Nadir shah (after his invasion of india). After the assassination of Nadir Shah in 1747 it came into the hands of Ahmad Shah. Bidabadi 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mahajanapadas
This period is perhaps one of the most important in asian or world history in terms of the literature, philosophy, religion and art that it produced - perhaps an attempt should be made to make sub-titles for some of the more powerfull kingdoms and republics, such as kuru, etc, to emphise this. Vastu 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

stub
A new stub - Template:India-history-stub may be used for suitable articlesPizzadeliveryboy 18:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro cleanup
I was pretty disappointed with the intro to this major and highly important article. User 59.92.48.53 added a large poorly-written chunk to the intro section that I deleted. I also tried to make the intro flow a little better from the Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization and tried to make it more NPOV. I've done what I can in a short period of time, but I believe some more work may be needed. I encourage others to help clean up the intro more.--Osprey39 02:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of BCE
This article uses the notation BCE. Originally it used BC, then someone put a few instances of BCE in, then someone thought let's standardise on BCE. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines which state that the preferences demonstrated in the first substantial edit should be adhered to. This is not the case here. The notation has been changed for whatever reason, political correctness or otherwise. I intend to revert this to BC, to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Please note, this article is about a country, not about a religion. Arcturus 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't changing it back just pointless, as both terms are acceptable? For example, if an article had British English spellings and some Americocentrist changed it all to American English or the other way around, it would still be a waste of time to change it back just to prove a point.--Grammatical error 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a fair point - there are plenty of better things to bother about on Wikipedia. However, not changing it would give carte blanche to editors to carry out wholesale changes across Wikipedia - BC --> BCE or vice versa, or AmE to BrE and the like, without fear of the changes ever being challenged. I'll leave it for the moment to see what other views surface. Arcturus 09:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The dating system can be changed if editors active at an article so choose. As this has arisen, we could take it as an opportunity to make the choice (rather than go with the accident of the first editor's preference). I support a change to BCE/CE, as the standard academic (and increasingly in moe popular non-fiction books) system in modern publications. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the reversion to BC from BCE per Arcturus and Mel Etitis. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the Wikipedia policy on date notation is not that it should never change, but that it should be consistent within the article. I think it makes more sense to use the BCE/CE notation for Indian history; it is already standard for articles on Buddhist history, and increasingly so for other non-western histories. Tom Radulovich 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

History of India and Republic of India

 * Article on History of India and Replublic of India gives information for India and 2050 and there is no information of Poverty and Hunger in present.


 * vkvora 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

For that we have Poverty in India. You can add a ==History== section to it. &mdash; Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Poverty and Mumbai Bomb Blast 711

 * Is there any relation between History of Poverty and Mumbai Bomb Blast 711.
 * vkvora 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan
Click here

The article above suggests that the majority of the scholary community no longer favour Indo-Aryan hypothesis, whether invasion or migration.

Should it therefore deserve to be treated as fact in the article anymore?

Vastu 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country

 * http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099
 * India 6th most dangerous country for kids: Poll


 * New Delhi, August 7: India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country for children in the world, according to a recent poll. Afghanistan, Palestinian territories, Myanmar and Chechnya were placed better than India in the poll conducted by Reuters Alertnet, a humanitarian news website run by Reuters Foundation, Rajya Sabha was told today.


 * During the survey, the website asked more than 110 aid experts and journalists to highlight the most dangerous places for children. The first five dangerous countries are Sudan, Northern Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Somalia, Minister of State (independent charge) for Women and Child Development Renuka Chowdhury said while replying to a written question.


 * The facts that have been taken into account for the poll survey include the children involved in armed conflict, the psychological trauma experienced by children caught up in violence, the children living in poverty and forced to work to support themselves and their families and malnutrition among children, the minister said.
 * vkvora 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How is this related to a vague history article? Vastu 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the 21st century, India is an emerging economic power and labelled as a modern great power. with vast human and natural resources, and a huge knowledge base. Economists predict that by 2050, India will be among the top three economies of the world. ::vkvora 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I still dont understand why you posted it. Vastu 07:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is Northern Uganda a country now?

Many unreferenced statements
This article is leaden with unreferenced statements. It just carries a list of "Further Reading" in the end and does not indicate which sources convey which fact. I am putting a unreferenced tag and will try to tag the unreferenced statements too. This is an important article and though it has a lot of content, it isn't encyclopedic. Shushruth 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use the reference tags when citing sources. Shushruth 03:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Chandragupta Maurya's pic
Looks like its been taken from the Amar Chitra Katha comic. Wouldnt it be appropriate to replace it with a pic of Ch.Maurya in battle fatigues or on the throne or something like that instead of an illustration where he is being taken prisoner(guess this is how the story starts in the comic.... aah.. nostalgia). Just a thought. Sarvagnya
 * If only one can find such a pic which meets wikipedia's upload criteria ! Shushruth 03:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The existing pic is scanned from the comic. If anybody has the comic, all we need to do is scan a different pic from the same comic.Sarvagnya
 * the use of a comic book rendering of a historical figure is inappropriate in an encyclopeadia, especially as used here -where its use is not particularly necessary, the likeness is not a contemporary one, the caption of "artist's impression" gives no inkling of how accurate this impression is and what it's based on. Doldrums 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Amar Chitra KAtha are generally ok sources. I believe I may have this one in my collection. Baka man  19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

recent genetic evidence
Most scholars today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE, although recent genetic evidence says the opposite occurred.If there's recent genetic evidence, then full citation should be readily available from reputable scientific journals. CiteCop 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.umassd.edu/indic/press/origin_pr.cfm


 * That's a press release about a conference and, according to Reliable sources, "material presented at a conference may not merit publication in a scientific journal."


 * Show me something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of a press release and you might have something.
 * CiteCop 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The independence movement sub -heading
I think Subhash Chandra Bose's name being mentioned and Mahatma's name being left out is not right. He was the leader of the movement and if somebody's name has to be mentioned,his has to be there.

Aryan Migration - Most scholars believe?
Do they? Several scholars have basically said that 'all IVC research prior to five years ago was flawed', and yet a source from 1989 (?!) is being quoted in favour of the AMT? Again, refer to a link above in which most scholars attending a Texas meet on the matter apparently no longer favour the Aryan migration. Vastu 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is deeply flawed
A disappointing article given the importance of the subject. Too much POV, not enough straight facts.

indian hijacking of Pakistan's history
It really seems that indians have a hard time excepting Pakistan for what it is or excepting the fact that Pakistan has it's own distinct history and culture.FOr Pakistanis who are loyal to our country this is a really annoying for us and has only created feelings of enimity towards indians.Which is not what anyone wants. http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/hijack.html

Historical sites from the indus civilization can be found in Pakistan such as mohinjidaro and not in india.

Please dont repeat the phrase "Pakistan didnt exist back then".Ive heard that too many times.This phrase is fit for india as well.Indians think their country existed back then,but fail to find the background of the countire's three main names(Bharat,India,hindustan)

This popular indian myth that Pakistan was once "a part" of india is a also a parallel to the popular Greek myth that Macedonia was and still is "a part" of Greece when in fact Macedonia has its own distinct culture,while Greeks continue to steal its history.Indians have been very successful in spreading this false myth to the rest of the world.If india was a country then why all these distinct cultures in one country?

Italy did not exist during the days of the ROman empire,but it doesnt mean Roman history is distinct from Italian history.Roman history is part of Italian heritage.

If indians dont have a history of their own,thats their problem it doesnt give them any right to go around claiming Pakistan's ancient hsitory as their own. If you'd like to learn more about ancient Pakistan visit http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/index.html

Thankyou.Nadirali 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * Pakistan did not exist back then--D-Boy 04:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to judge a history of a country from the time of it's full independance,then you may as well say Pakistan is older than india as Pakistan became indpendant on Augest 14th 1947,wheras India became independant on Augest 15th 1947.Nadirali 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

_____________________________________________________________

I completely agree with this. Indians are claiming the History of Ancient Pakistan, when in fact they have very little do with Pakistan. While Pakistan might not have existed, the Pakistani people always have, and they have always lived in what is now called Pakistan. Ancient Pakistani history belongs to the people of Pakistan. If Pakistan changed its name to Batman country tomorrow, its history should be called Ancient Batman history since the people are still the same.

I propose two ideas.

1. All references of History of the Pakistani people is removed from Indias history page 2. Or the article is renamed to Ancient Indo-Pak History, and it should be made clear where in this huge subcontiment the history belongs. India and Pakistan were both born in 1947. Before that, the whole subcontinent was known as British India. India was never one country. There was no One ruler for this subcontinent so its WRONG to group the entire subcontinent history as one. And the fact that Modern India took the name of what was the name of the subcontinent means nothing. If Germany decides to call itself Europe tomorrow, it doesnt get to claim the history of Ancient Europe.

Please think about it. If you want an article for the history of the entire subcontinent, you will be referring to 1.6 billion people, and no 1.6 billion people cant claim Indus Valley belongs to them. To narrow it down, IVC belongs to Pakistanis, or Pakistani Punjabis and Pakistani Sindhis if you want to be specific.

Comment was added by Unre4L


 * See also User_talk:Dbachmann. This problem would simply disappear if people would remember to say Republic of India when they refer to the Republic, and Indian subcontinent when they refer to the region. India should be a disambiguation page, otherwise there will be no end of this confusion. The IVC doesn't "belong to Pakistanis", that's silly. Its archaeological remnants do, but not the historical culture "belongs" to no contemporary people. dab (&#5839;) 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Then by your logic,your saying that the history of Rome "doesnt belong to Italians",but to the rest of Europe and the medditerenian.How silly is that?Nadirali 06:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Because nobody understands the ancient harappan texts, there is no way to read the texts as of yet. The cultural history is obviously extinct, but their direct descendants are the people of Pakistan. Through time, they have been mixed with Arabs, Persians, Huns, Moguls, Afghans etc. The Indians purposely use India to describe everything in the subcontinent. The use of the term Ancient India is no longer correct as India is now a modern country. This has to be renamed or the misunderstandings as well as Indian abuse of the term will keep going on. Comment was added by Unre4L

"India" should not be an alternative name for Pre-British South asia.That would be like giving "china" the alternative name for olden day east asia.Nadirali 16:28, 29 November 2006 Pakistan evolved into what it is today from the indus,just as Iraq evolved into what it is today from Babylon,not from Iran(UTC)Nadirali
 * you will maybe be surprised to realize that China is indeed the article on the region, not on the People's Republic. I am suggesting no more and no less than parallel treatment for India. dab (&#5839;) 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please. China, Korea, Japan, south east asia all have independent histories. It would have been okay to name the south asian subcontinent India IF Modern India hadnt claimed the name. Modern India has nothing to do with the River Indus apart from the name they have stolen. Keep the name, but let Pakistan keep its history. I dont see why you guys are so keen on claiming the history of Pakistan, when 98% of your population has nothing to do with Pakistan. I am being serious on this one. We need to correct this article, and I would really like some unbiased person to do this.

Truly, All that history that involves the Pakistani people, regardless of what they were called back then, still belongs to the people of Pakistan, hence it should known as ancient Pakistan. Comment was added by Unre4L


 * There is no such thing as Pakistani people, no such thing as Pakistani history (before 1947), the country called "India" has the name Bharat or Hindustan, India is merely the western name. Baka man  23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. This seems to be an interesting topic. I understand your nationalistic sentiments but one must understand that certain historic events which took place in areas which now lie in modern-day Pakistan have had an influence on India's culture and history in general. Therefore certain historical topics lie within the scope of both Indian and Pakistani History projects. For example, the Harappan civilization had an important influence on both India's and Pakistan's history and culture so it is not wrong to include that article/topic within the scope of the Indian History Project. Also, the Indus Valley civilization lied in both modern-day India and Pakistan. See Lothal. --Incman|वार्ता 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, several citizens of India, especially those who migrated to India from Pakistan during the Partition of India share the same history with most Pakistanis. --Incman|वार्ता 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if Mongols formed a significant part of the Chinese population and had a considerable effect on Chinese culture, China definitely had every right to lay claim over Mongol history and heritage. Let me give you a better example of Tibet and China. From the very tone of your argument I can notice that you are being driven more by passion and nationalism rather than intellect. Topics related to Afghan, Pasthun and Baloch culture and history definitely lie outside the scope of the Indian History project. However, to a certain extent topics related to Sindhi and Punjabi history do lie within the scope of the concerned project because it overlaps with Indian history in general. Anyways, there is absolutely no question that any topic related to the Indus Valley civilization lies within the scope of the project. As a matter of fact, most of the dwellers of the Indus Valley civilization, i.e. Dravidians, are found in southern India. So culturally modern-day Pakistan has nothing to do with Harappa and Mohen-ja Daro. So how can Pakistanis claim the Indus Valley civilization as a part of their heritage? Anyways, I find this discussion absolutely unnecessary and unintellectual. --Incman|वार्ता 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First it's claiming that Pakistan was somehow "part" of India.Now the new excuse is that the two countries exchanged populations.What's the next excuse?


 * Well, I thought of not taking part in this conversation anymore but your argument above changed my mind. "Sindhis are Pakistanis" and I come from Mars! Dude.. there are so many Sindhis living in India. Do you even know what you are talking about? Sindhis ruled IVC?! Huh? I am curious.. where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Before I found this argument amusing.. now I find it hilarious. I think you misinterpreted my prev comment and to some extent it was my fault. Nevermind, I don't find this argument interesting anymore. And finally, it is easy argue.. would it be too hard to have an endless discussion on why Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall? I just don't understand why are you creating such a big issue? Anyways, I am officially ending this argument so there is no need to reply. But that doesn't mean I lost this argument.. I just don't wanna take part in it anymore. Good bye and good riddance. --Incman|वार्ता 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You "outsmarted" him?? Maybe in the bizarroworld of the Islamabad Propagandaministerium but not here. Hkelkar 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sectarian historical revisionism in Pakistan's schools:

The subtle subversion in Pakistan: Should give an adequate explanation to Nadirali's delusional historical denials and revisionist tirades.Hkelkar 09:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) School Books That Teach Children To Hate- in Pakistan:
 * 2) Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc:
 * Nevermind Kelkar. Nadirali can't even spell Jupiter and reference correctly. Just read this sentence: Sindhis are both Aryan linguistically and genetically.They ruled over the indus before the Aryans came,but since they are mixed with Aryans,they ARE aryans. It just doesn't make any sense as it contradicts itself. Wonder from where he got this crap. No point wasting time on this guy. --Incman|वार्ता 09:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Seperatist"[sic]. Right. You mean the ULFA that split into two, with one half calling itself the "surrendered" ULFA and running after the other half? The Bible Thumpers of the NLFT who have all but surrendered in a hanky of a state? This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore (Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS). .Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/India.html A paradise indeed Nadirali 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali http://indianterrorism.bravepages.com/


 * Yeah, right. "Geocities". Some random Pakistani pseudo-ethnocentrist hate site is apparently as reliable as PBS. lol. Hkelkar 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are some more WP:Reliable Sources for you:

India:
 * 1) Look out, world: Here comes booming India
 * 2) The rise of the Indian Economy
 * 3) India's economy growth accelerates
 * 4) India rising
 * 5) India and China will be economic giants
 * 6) IHT
 * 7) be afraid, be very afraid
 * 8) Evil Laugh!
 * 9) Sure, we've got a long ways to go, but unlike a certain "Land of the Pure", we actually vote for our leaders.

Pakistan: Here's your "honer killings"(hope it includes your treatment of "second class citizens" or "the un-touchables" in the world's poorest "democracy"): http://atheism.about.com/b/a/057179.htm http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/archives/04_0112_in_wrights.htmNadirali 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
 * 1) Losing it's fight against Islamic fundie-whackos
 * 2) No Democracy in Pakistan
 * 3) Honor killings in Pakistan
 * 4) Poverty Bomb in Pakistan (no pun intended for Osama)
 * 5) Pakistan fibs about poverty figures
 * 6) Pakistan, a country of particular concern for violation of religious freedom
 * 7) and many many more... Hkelkar 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I call the pot calling the kettle back. Let's not talk about rampant Ashraf/Ajlaf Caste discrimination in Pakistan, also Leach, Edmund Ronald (November 24, 1971). Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan (Pg 113). Cambridge University Press. [What about women in Pakistan being gang raped by upper-caste people http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/31/pakistan.gang.rape/]

What about the "Mujahirs", eh? The most victimized by riots and pogroms in Pakistan? How about the Ahmadiyyas? Assaulted, women raped, massive sectarian riots in Lahore against them, simply for being "heretics"? Full scale hatemongering against minorities in Pakistani schools and madrassas (over 2/3rd of Pakistani madrassas are run by Deobandi fundamentalist Muslims, teaching hate ahead of math).
 * I never said that India was perfect. Only a fool thinks that. But, at least we are a democratic republic, widely acknowledged as such by civilized countries all over the world, and we work to solve our issues, and our free press keeps it all in the open so that the problems are well-known. On the other hand, Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

lol at Nadirali.... Sindhis come from Pakistan?.... I'm a Sindhi too thru my maternal lineage... My folks didnt come from Pakistan, they came from Sindh! Pakistan IMHO is an artifical construct cobbled together from parts of India and Afghanistan. Its not Wikipedia's problem if you (Pakistani nationalists) are so confused about your identity...  अमेय आर्यन DaBrood&#169; 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian?  Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law.  They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them.  they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls.  I think education is the key to solving this problem.  that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

Some more perspective:

Abuse of History in Pakistan: Bangladesh to Kargil: by Yvette C. Rosser Pakistani nationalism is characterized by ironies and contractions. Its ideology and national mythos have not been substantiated by its historical realities. In the last fifty-two years the vision or ideal of Pakistan, as a secure homeland where the Muslims in the subcontinent could find justice and live in peace, has not been realized by the citizens. There is a shared experience of disappointment and dissatisfaction among the populace that has not abated since the restoration of democracy in 1988, and in fact the feelings of betrayal and a collective mental depression have increased dramatically in the last decade. This intellectual fatalism and depression about the state of affairs is not something new, as can be seen in an excerpt from the book, "Breaking the Curfew, A Political Journey Through Pakistan" published by a British journalist, Emma Duncan, where she wrote, and I quote,"[. . . .] many Pakistanis I talked to seemed disappointed. It was not just the disappointment that they were not as rich as they should be or that their children were finding it difficult to get jobs; it was a wider sense of betrayal, of having been cheated on a grant scale. The Army blamed the politicians, the politicians the Army; the businessmen blamed the civil servants, the civil servants the politicians; everybody blamed the landlords and the foreigners, and the left and the religious fundamentalists blamed everybody except the masses.The shared feelings of betrayal and disappointment have increased exponentially.Pakistan brutally suppressed all intellectual freedom during the reign of the Islamist zealot "Zia-ul-Haq".Once "democracy" (ahem!) was restored, the level of corruption certainly did not decrease, the practice of fomenting regionalism which was practiced by General Zia increased, promises of a better future rapidly died as the political parties fought a propaganda war for their ascendancy instead working for the good of the country. The often disenfranchised polity was once again dismayed and depressed by the inability of their officials to focus on the needs and priorities of Pakistan.Now that there are no military governments to "fight", they have none but themselves to blame for the plight of their country.Pakistan's delusions of "Unity through the Islamic Ummah", or whatever was quickly dispelled with the Bangladesh Liberation War. Even today the central government operates under the assumption that Pakistan is a unitary entity. The Pakistani military and bureaucracy are still grappling with the problems that the contradictions inherent in the Ideology of Pakistan continue to create within the varied cultural landscape of the nation. In order to facilitate this type of propaganda, they advocate massive campaign of historical revisionism. Denial and erasure are the primary tools of historiography as it is officially practiced in Pakistan. There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. There is no other correct way to view the historical record. It is, after all, since the time of General Zia-ul Haq, a capital crime to talk against the "Ideology of Pakistan." In contemporary Pakistani textbooks the historical narrative is based on the Two Nation Theory. The story of the nation begins with the advent of Islam when Mohammed-bin-Qazm arrived in Sindh followed by Mahmud of Ghazni storming through the Khyber Pass, 16 times, bringing the Light of Islam to the infidels who converted en mass to escape the evil domination of the cruel Brahmins. Reviewing a selection of textbooks published since 1972 in Pakistan will verify the assumption that there is little or no discussion of the ancient cultures that have flowered in the land that is now Pakistan, such as Taxila and Mohenjo-Daro. In most textbooks, any mention of Hinduism is inevitably accompanied by derogatory critiques, and none of the greatness of Indic civilization is considered—not even the success of Chandragupta Maurya, who defeated, or at least frightened the invading army of Alexander the Great at the banks of the Beas River where it flows through the land that is now called Pakistan. These events are deemed meaningless since they are not about Muslim heroes. There is an elision in time between the moment Islam first arrived in Sindh and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
 * 1) Pakistani education systematically wipes out all references to the history of Hindus in the region (much like the Nazis did to wipe out the history of Jews in Europe, remember the famous speech by Goebbels?)

Rather succinct description of Nadirali's views I should think. Hkelkar 02:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can recycle all that trash posted,but considering the lifetime it would take,I think I'll pass on and do something more worthwhile than argue with a bunch of......Nadirali 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * Ehh.. who started this argument? --Incman|वार्ता 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys did.I just made the points and the arguments came along with you guys.Points made,arguements dead.Nadirali 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nice to see you guys want to compare Pak with India. This still doesnt make any difference to the fact that IVC belongs to the Pakistani people, hence Ancient Pakistani History. Nobody cares if some Pakistanis moved out before partition. You are way in the minority and you cant claim or make anyone cry for you. There are a lot of Hindus in Pakistan and they proudly call themselves Pakistani. If you dislike Pakistanis so much, then stop scavenging their history.

So you think Pakistan has problems. I am sure half of the Indian population would love to be able to vote, and starve every night aswell as not having access to clean water. Democracy must also work for all the baby girls you guys kill every now and then. Not to mention how you surpress most of you population because they are untouchables Indian Democracy ZindaBad.

Unre4L

GOOD ONE!!Nadirali 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
 * Lol.. as if Pakistan is the haven next door. --Incman|वार्ता 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unre4L and Nadirali, would be consider me to be a Pakistani? My grandparents are from Peshawar and Rawalpindi but were kicked out after the partition. I'm just wondering whether you'll call my family as Pakistani living in India or Indian. Please answer my question. Thank you GizzaChat  &#169; 05:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnically you are a Pakistani. But its up to you whether you want to be called a Pakistani or Indian. A more political correct term would be Indian Pakistani. The reason why Pakistani history is being hijacked is because of people in your situation. But I am sorry to say that you account for less than 0.2% of Indian population, therefore, the 99.8% of Indian people cannot claim Pakistani history. But to summarise you are a Pakistani living in India. If you want to be called Indian, you are throwing your Pakistani identity away yourself. Unre4L

I parcially agree with user:Unre4L.If your grand parents did infact come from Peshawer as you claim,then yes technically you are at least part Pakistani by descent.But if you're not comfertable being called a Pakistani,that's perfectly understandable,as you were not born and raised in Pakistan,and the country may be an alien society for you. I feel sorry for those who were forced to leave Pakistan to escape religious discrimination or lack of job oppertunity.I believe they should be given the right to return by the government if they can prove their Pakistani ancestry. I must say the term "particition" is very misleading,indicating that South Asia was a "nation" before 1947.It should be specified as "partition of Punjab and Bengal".I hope that answers your question.Nadirali 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Really? Nearly all of my maternal-Sindhi side of family was murdered during Partition. My granddad was kicked out of Karachi with nothing more than a suitcase by his "Pakistani brothers", so much for Sindhi Muslims whining about Punjabis now.

Pakistan I repeat is an artifical contruct. Nation states come and go. Pakistani history beings from 14th August 1947, to claim otherwise is nothing short of historical revisionism.

I must say the term "particition" is very misleading,indicating that South Asia was a "nation" before 1947.It should be specified as "partition of Punjab and Bengal".I hope that answers your 

It doesnt matter what you think. Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources, no cerdible book or a scholar calls it as such.

 अमेय आर्यन DaBrood&#169; 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

''would be consider me to be a Pakistani? '' Yes Gizza, you are infact all of us are cosidered Pakis by some just as you'd call me a bloody pom !  अमेय आर्यन DaBrood&#169;</b> 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People who think India existed prior to 1947, read this.

http://www.pakhub.info/art002.php

Mistaken Definition of Ancient India

We have all seen the term Ancient India before. On first thought you would think it applies to the Ancient History of India. Well, you are wrong. This term applies to the Ancient History of South Asia.

For decades, Indian historians have written the history books according to their own liking. And because of Pakistanis being ashamed of their non-Islamic past, their jobs had been made so much easier. To understand what has happened in the region, you have to be open minded. Everything written here is backed up with facts, logic and common sense. The logic applied to this argument makes sense.

Before India became an English colony sometime in 1800's or perhaps earlier, there was no such thing as India that we see today. The subcontinent was very much divided into many parts ruled by various dynasties. After independence in 1947, many of the states in the subcontinent were united into two single countries. The Republic of India and Pakistan. The Republic of India was not supposed to claim the name 'India'. This was a political agreement broken in 1947 which has lead to a lot of confusion in modern times. India, just like Pakistan was born in 1947. Prior to this, the region which is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was known as British India. When the region was partitioned, Republic of India claimed the title of 'parent state' of British India, as they received the larger land mass for their country. Along with this title they also claimed the History of the region which was British India in ancient times.

This region was only ever united when Britain invaded. Prior to that, the region was scattered with dynasties. Logically, it doesn't make sense that India can claim the history of people and land which never belonged to them. The old argument of 'Pakistan not existing prior to 1947, therefore there is no such thing as Ancient Pakistan' is flawed. The same logic can be applied to India. There was no such thing as a country, India prior to 1947, and prior to the 1800s; the South Asian subcontinent was never united in anyway. So the current definition of Ancient India is flawed. Ancient Indian history is the history of Republic of India in Ancient times. This doesn't include any region outside of their own borders.

Therefore, grouping the history of the entire South Asian subcontinent, which has never been united prior to the 1800s and passing it on to a country which came into existence in 1947, doesn't make sense. Indian Historians have ignored these arguments and pretended that India has existed for 1000s of years.

Let's talk about Indus Valley for example. The region in question is now located in Pakistan. The people of the region have always been living there. However the history of the region is claimed by India, who is in absolutely no way related to the Pakistani people, neither have they ever had claim over the land which is now Pakistan. Indus Valley settlements are located all over Southern Asia. These include, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, northwest India, and of course Pakistan. However, the Main IVC cities, aswell as the majority are in Pakistan. The main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The Indus Valley history should be called Ancient Pakistani. Any history which took place in what is now Pakistani should be known as Ancient Pakistani history. This includes the Kushun empire aswell.

The Pakistani identity is being stolen because Historians hide the fact that South Asia has never been united prior to 1800s.

It is incorrect to even label IVC as Ancient South Asian history. South Asia is home to 1.6 billion people, which is way too broad to describe the people of Indus valley, which is now Pakistan. Sure this is no harm in mentioning the settlements outside of Pakistan (India, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir), however one has to remember that Pakistan is the home of it.

User:Unre4L


 * Lol im not reading some blog. Look at WP:RS. We are under no obligation to read some nn blog written by some random nationalist. Baka man  02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Most of your evidence is based on what your fellow countrymen make up. You dont want to read it because it will shatter everything you believe in. I am really angered by your wreckless reply. You are basically saying you have no obligation to listen to anyone, and you will make up Indian history as you feel fit. Thx for confirming what I really thought you guys were doing. User:Unre4L


 * Shatter what I believe in? I'm not even Indian, i'm American. Isnt what were doing obvious? We're obviously "hijacking Pakistani history" with our "revisionist Hindutva nonsense" and engaging in "cultural imperialism" of "Pakistan's glorious ancient pre-Islamic past" (though thats not the impression one would get from Pakistani textbooks, which say other things about Hindus and But (pronounced as "boot")). "wreckless" lol, IVC is an early Hindu civilization, and if Pakistan was so concerned about its "glorious pre-Islamic past" why the rampant Persecution of Hindus and destruction of Hindu temples? Makes no sense. Baka man  03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mughal Empire
On all the pages that I have read so far, the Mughals are referred to as being outsiders, like the British. For example, on one page the terms "Mughal Era" and "British Era" are used.

The British never called India, home—--for them home was always England. Also, many Britishers came here because they were failures or penurious in England, many more came for the adventure. After coming here, they more often than not, looted the country, and generally looked down on the "natives".

The Mughals, on the other hand, lived in and called their home, the India of those days. It is true that the first Mughal came as a conqueror, but on discovering the charm and beauty of this land, stayed on. They did not serve for a year or two just to loot the country and then leave. In fact, many of our treasures today trace their origin to the Mughals. Art, architecture, and the performing arts—--all benefited by their contribution. Many Greek and Chinese historians have recorded these facts. To deny their dynasty and their empire is to deny a part of Indian history.

Dr. Uma 07:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Dr. Uma Sheth


 * Perfect, I agree word-by-word with your point. Unfortunately, not just in Wikipedia, but in most writings we see them as outsiders. If that be the case, all humans are "outsiders" to India, since we all came from Africa at some point or the other! -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, mugals symbolize imperialism, persecution, and cultural eradication.--D-Boy 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The result of propaganda, no doubt. I don't think there is an objective reason to call the Mughals more imperialistic than the Maurya or Gupta Empires. It is a possible position to reject all imperialism, but to feel patriotic pride for certain historical empires, and hold anti-imperialistic misgivings towards others seems inconsequent. dab (&#5839;) 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * may be--D-Boy 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Dab, the Mughals had no great love for India. Bear in mind that Mughal Emperors calle d themselves "Badshah", (with wet-dreams of being "Padishah") rather than "Shah", which was reserved for Persian emperors, to whom they always considered themselves subservient. They clearly had a strong Persian fetish. They emulated their language, their customs, even their sexual practices, in courts. Only Akbar was an integrationist, and the exception among the Mughals rather than the rule.Babur, himself, was worse than Macauley in his pejoration and hatred for India. Witness this extract from the Baburnama:

Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks This illustrates the medeival Persian ethnocentrism of the Mughals quite adequately.Hkelkar 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Dab, Kelkar puts it correctly. No matter what Comrades from JNU tell the world, most Indians see Mughals as essentially a foreign imperial power. <b style="color:#FF9933;"> अमेय आर्यन DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree wholely on this assessment. Mugals were basically rapists and plunders of india.   India was much better off without them.--D-Boy 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are odd exceptions to what you said D-Boy like Akbar. But yes the region's current political dilemmas can be traced back to the troubles that both the British and Mughals caused. Besides, India's downfall took off much earlier since the start of Kali Yug. Anyway despite all of what has been said above the article still has to adhere to WP:NPOV, so we can't depict the Mughals as savage beasts who came to steal our wealth. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They were religious zealots, plunderers, and (apart from Jahangir and Akbar) genocidal maniacs descended from an army and a group of people that invaded India from central asia. Baka man  23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)