Hinduism is fiction created by the British

By Pankaj Mishra Author http://souljerky.com/articles/invention_of_hinduism.html THE REMARKABLE quality of this transformation is partly shown by the fact that there was no such thing as Hinduism before the British invented the holdall category in the early nineteenth century, and made India seem the home of a "world religion" as organised and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam. The concepts of a "world religion" and "religion" as we know them now, emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, as objects of academic study, at a time of widespread secularisation in western Europe. 

The idea, as inspired by the Enlightenment, was to study religion as a set of beliefs, and to open it up to rational enquiry. But academic study of any kind imposes its own boundaries upon the subject. It actually creates the subject while bringing it within the realm of the intellect. The early European scholars of religion labelled everything; they organised disparate religious practices into one system, and literally brought into being such world religions as Hinduism and Buddhism. Not only Hinduism, but the word Hindu itself is of non-Brahman origin. It was first used by the ancient Persians to refer to the people living near the river Indus (Sindhu in Sanskrit). It then became a convenient shorthand for the Muslim and Christian rulers of India; it defined those who weren't Muslims or Christians. 

Modern scholarship has made available much more information about the castes, religious sects, folk and elite cultures, philosophical traditions and languages that exist, or have existed, on the Indian subcontinent. But despite containing the world's third largest population of Muslims, India is still for most people outside it, a country of Hindus; even a "Hindu civilisation" as it featured in Samuel Huntington's millenarian world-view. The persistence of such labels in the West is not just due to ignorance, or to some lingering Christian fear of unconvertible heathens. 

Perhaps, the urge to fix a single identity for such diverse communities as found in India comes naturally to people in the highly organised and uniform societies of the West, where cultural diversity now usually means the politically expedient and hardened identities of multiculturalism. Perhaps, people who themselves are defined almost exclusively by their citizenship in the nation-state and the consumer society cannot but find wholly alien the pre-modern world of multiple identities and faiths in which most Indians still live. 

Certainly, most Hindus themselves felt little need for precise self-descriptions, except when faced with blunt questions about religion on official forms. Long after their encounter with the monotheistic religions of Islam and Christianity, they continued to define themselves through their overlapping allegiances to family, caste, linguistic group, region, and devotional sect. 

Religion to them was more unselfconscious practice than rigid belief; it is partly why Indian theology accommodates atheism and agnosticism. Their rituals and deities varied greatly, defined often by caste and geography; and they were also flexible: new goddesses continue to enrich the pantheon even today. There is an AIDS goddess which apparently both causes and eradicates the disease. 

At any given time, both snakes and the ultimate reality of the universe were worshipped in the same region, sometimes by the same person. Religion very rarely demanded, as it did with many Muslims or Christians, adherence to a set of theological ideas prescribed by a single prophet, book, or ecclesiastical authority.

This is why a history of Hinduism, no matter how narrowly conceived, has to describe several very parochial-seeming Indian religions, almost none of which contained an evangelical zeal to save the world. The first of these—the Vedic religion—began with the nomads and pastoralists from central Asia who settled north India in the second millennium BC.

 It was primarily created by the priestly class of Brahmans who conducted fire sacrifices with the help of the Vedas, the earliest known Indian scriptures, in order to stave off drought and hunger. But the Brahmans who also formulated the sacred and social codes of the time wished to enhance their own glory and power rather than propose a new all-inclusive faith; they presented themselves as the most superior among the four caste groups that emerged during Vedic times and were based upon racial distinctions between the settlers and the indigenous population of north India and then on a division of labour. 

 A NEW RELIGION WAS also far from the minds of the Buddhists, the Jains and many other philosophical and cultural movements that emerged in the sixth and fifth centuries BC while seeking to challenge the power of the Brahmans and of the caste hierarchy. People dissatisfied with the sacrificial rituals of the Vedic religion later grew attracted to the egalitarian cults of Shiva and Vishnu that became popular in India around the beginning of the first century AD. 

However, the Brahmans managed to preserve their status at the top of an ossifying caste system. They zealously guarded their knowledge of Sanskrit, esoteric texts, and their expertise in such matters as the correct pronunciation of mantras. Their specialised knowledge, and pan-Indian presence, gave them a hold over ruling elites even as the majority of the population followed its own heterodox cults and sects. 

Their influence can be detected in such Indian texts as the Bhagavad-Gita which was interpolated into the much older Mahabharata, and which, though acknowledging the irrelevance of ritual sacrifices, made a life of virtue, or dharma, inseparable from following the rules of caste. At the same time, India remained too big and diverse to be monopolised by any one book or idea. Today, the Hindu nationalists present Muslim rulers of India as the flagbearers of an intolerant monotheism; but there was even more religious plurality during the eight centuries of Muslim presence in India. 

Sufism mingled with local faiths; the currently popular devotional cults of Rama and Krishna, and the network of ashrams and sects expanded fast under the Mughal empire. Medieval India furnishes more evidence of sectarian violence between the worshippers of Shiva and Vishnu than between Hindus and Muslims. In the 18th century, the British were both appalled and fascinated by the excess of gods, sects, and cults they encountered in India.

 It was a religious situation similar to the pagan chaos a Christian from the eastern provinces of the Roman empire might have encountered in the West just before Constantine's conversion to Christianity. As it turned out, like the powerful Christians in Rome, the British in India sought and imposed uniformity. 

There were intellectually curious men among them: a judge called William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal, whose amateur scholars began in the late 18th century to figure out the strange bewildering country the British found themselves in. Jones, a linguist, confirmed the similarity between Sanskrit and Greek. 

Another official, James Prinsep, deciphered the ancient Indian script of Brahmi, the ancestor of most Indian scripts, that the British found on pillars and rock faces across south Asia, and threw the first clear light on the first great patron of Buddhism, Ashoka. A military officer called Alexander Cunningham excavated the site near Benares where the Buddha had preached his first sermon. 

These days, there is a common enough presumption, which was popularised by Edward Said's Orientalism, that much of western scholarship on the Orient helped, directly or not, western imperialists. Some people take it further and assert that any, or all, western interest in India is tainted with bad faith. IT WOULD BE TOO simple to say that this great intellectual effort, to which we owe much of our present knowledge of India, was part of a colonialist or imperialist enterprise of controlling newly conquered peoples and territories.

 What's more interesting than the by now familiar accusations of Orientalism is how the assumptions of the earliest British scholars mingled with the prejudices of native Indian elites to create an entirely new kind of knowledge about India. These scholars organised their impressions of Indian religion according to what they were familiar with at home: the monotheistic and exclusive nature of Christianity. 

When confronted by diverse Indian religions, they tended to see similarities. These similarities were usually as superficial as those found between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But the British assumed that different religious practices could only exist within a single overarching tradition. They also started off with a literary bias, which was partly the result of the mass distribution of texts and the consequent high degree of literacy in Europe in the eighteenth century. They thought that since Christianity had canonical texts, Indian tradition must have the same. 

Their local intermediaries tended to be Brahmans, who alone knew the languages—primarily Sanskrit—needed to study such ancient Indian texts as the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. Together, the British scholars and their Brahman interpreters came up with a canon of sorts, mostly Brahmanical literature and ideology, which they began to identify with a single "Hindu religion."

The Brahmanical literature, so systematised, later created much of the appeal of Indian culture for its foreign connoisseurs, such as the German romantics, Schopenhauer, Emerson and Thoreau. The strange fact here is that most Indians then knew nothing or very little of the hymns, invocations and liturgical formulae of the four Vedas or the philosophical idealism of the Upanishads that the British and other European scholars in Europe took to be the very essence of Indian civilisation. 

These Sanskrit texts had long been monopolised by an elite minority of Brahmans who zealously guarded their knowledge of Sanskrit. It was these Brahmans who educated the British amateur scholars. So they studied earnestly the canon of what they supposed to be ancient Indian tradition and managed to remain mostly unaware of the more numerous non-textual, syncretic religious and philosophical traditions of India—for example, the popular devotional cults, Sufi shrines, festivals, rites, and legends that varied across India and formed the worldview of a majority of Indians. But the texts provided the British the standards with which to judge the state of contemporary religion in India. 

Since few Indians at the time seemed capable of the sublime sentiments found in the Bhagavad-Gita and the Rig-Veda, "Hinduism" began to seem a degenerate religion, full of such social evils as widow-burning and untouchability, and in desperate need of social engineering: an idea that appealed both to British colonialists and their Brahman collaborators who had long felt threatened by the non-Brahmanical forms of religion that most Indians followed. 

It was equally convenient to blame the intrusion of Islam into India for Hinduism's fallen state, even the caste system, and to describe Hindus as apathetic slaves of Muslim tyrants: a terrible fate from which the British had apparently rescued them in order to prepare their path to a high stage of civilisation. These ideas about the Muslim tyrants, Hindu slaves and British philanthropists were originally set out in such influential books as History of British India, written by James Mill, a Scottish utilitarian, and the father of John Stuart Mill. Such books now tell you more about the proselytising vigour of some enlightened Scots and utilitarians than about Indian history.

The confused Pakistani diaspora by Ali Eteraz

This article has been modified from it's original version to avoid misconceptions and inaccuracies but the full credit still goes to the author.

The Pakistani diaspora is significant, around 7 million people, and contributed almost US$8 billion into the economy last year. It is composed by and large of people who only retain a connection to Pakistan via their families. Once the recipients of the remittances pass away, or as is more often the case, themselves leave Pakistan, the financial connection is severed. At this point, the Pakistani migrant takes his place in the new country, even if it means being a second-class citizen. If he is in the West, he usually defines himself as a ‘Muslim’ or ‘South Asian’ or sometimes even an ‘Indian.’ He then ceases to have a meaningful relationship with Pakistan.

This depressing state of affairs is due to the identity struggle within Pakistan itself. Pakistanis abroad don't know who they are or how they should relate to Pakistan because they don't know what it means to be Pakistani. One of the principal identity-markers that Pakistanis abroad have turned to is to re-define themselves as ‘Muslim’. This has been especially true after 9/11, but pre-dates that event as well. It has been disturbing to watch and experience because no other diaspora from a Muslim majority country makes their national identity subservient to their religion – not even the stateless Palestinians. While everyone else seems to take pride in their particular national histories – even when there isn't much to be proud of – people in the Pakistani diaspora seem to run away from being associated with their country's past.

As a result, Pakistanis exceed all others in becoming attracted to romanticist readings of the past – the sort extremist religious teachers are more than happy to offer up. Another popular trend among second-generation Pakistanis in the West is the denouncing of independence as a mistake. Since Pakistanis never bother learning about their country's history they delusionaly believe it was a 'part' of India. These people live in a fantasy world where 60 years of conflict with another state can be overcome in a singular moment of sublimation. What's illuminating is that Bangladeshis never talk about joining India or West Pakistan in such a manner.

Indeed, the Pakistani diaspora is in a difficult place. It cannot actively participate in the discussion about Pakistani identity, but it also cannot progress until this issue is resolved. Guidance must come from Pakistan itself. There are some signs that this has started. Recently a federal minister began rolling out all sorts of incentives for Pakistanis in the diaspora. These include an overseas pension trust, a plan to protect expat properties back home, waivers of service charges and custom duties, special treatment in housing and college admissions, and finally, honorary seats in the various legislative houses. The aim would be, in the words of the minister, to "grant VIP status" to the expats. This minister's attempt to include the diaspora is worthwhile, however, the entire scheme is built upon preferential treatment, which only further enhances class differences and hierarchy between Pakistanis. It also assumes, wrongly, that simply because they have money, Pakistanis in the diaspora have a good idea about how to improve Pakistan. A political or legislative solution is neither sufficient, nor, given rampant cronyism, ideal. It also creates the danger of politicizing the overseas communities and splintering them based on political preferences.

The focus at the moment has to be on culture and identity. The promotion of Pakistani arts, music, literature, cinema, poetry, and fashion is of the essence. And the answer does not lie with the venal fashion shows that are put on at sumptuous diplomatic residences, inviting only a few elite expats. Outreach has to be done within expat communities – Dubai, Bradford, Brooklyn. Scholarships should be given to traveling street-theatre artists. Films should be subsidized. Poetry, especially translations, should be promoted and put on popular websites. Instead of becoming a censor-state towards pre-Islamic culture and lifestyle, Pakistan should promote freedom of expression in these issues. Engagement with Pakistan's culture will give adrift Pakistanis around the world a sense of belonging. Effort has to be made to connect Pakistani expats to Pakistan, not via their families, but via the idea of Pakistan itself – via Pakistaniat. It is this sense of confidence that will make Pakistanis want to invest in Pakistan perhaps even return and engage in nation-building. The few successful diaspora activists that I have met have either been motivated through national emergencies such as the earthquake, or they have emerged from a cultural awareness group that was ready to do more. The first time I met Bilaal Ahmed, the founder of IMPAK USA, a service group that sends volunteers to Pakistan, was at the Philadelphia screening of the Pakistani film Khamosh Pani.

Further, as I have previously documented elsewhere, the only meaningful political lobbying group ever formed to lobby the US government, namely Pakistani-American Public Affairs Committee (PakPAC), grew out of a fun-loving social organization for Pakistani doctors, who initially came together to invite poets and singers from Pakistan. There are lessons to be drawn from this. Most people think ‘diaspora’ only when they run into a Pakistani on foreign soil and want to ask about the nearest place to find chicken tikka. Diaspora is, actually, the barometer by which one can judge the health of a nation. The feeble state of the Pakistani diaspora speaks volumes.

The myth that Islam is the unifying factor for Pakistan

Many people press the argument that since Pakistan is a multi-lingual country and to a certain degree multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, that it will not survive as a single state unless Islam is enforced as a unifying factor.

This argument is absurd and seriously flawed.

There are alot of Muslim and non-Muslim countries that are multi-lingual and multi-ethnic and they have managed to survive without any religion as a unifying factor. In some cases most notably in Britain, religion is one of the key dividing factors between the Germanic English and the Celtic Irish aside from slight difference in ethnicity.

The same can be said for Pakistan, with rival Shia-Sunni conflicts tearing up the country's religious infrastructure.

The same can be said for India, in which religion has contributed to the country's inter-conflicts such as those between "hindus" and Sikhs or "hindus" and Muslims or "hindus" and Christians.

Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the north African Arab states are all multi-lingual and Islam has definitely not contributed to their unity. Neither have their governments tried to use Islam as a common unifying factor. In the case of Iran, it has just led to more tensions between the Shia majority and Sunni minority.

The same again can be said in the case of Pakistan. With the Shia minorities resisting Sunni-state control.

Other arguments have also been laid in favor of embedding religion into the state rule such as:

-The Bangladeshis abandoned the Pakistani state because they saw themselves as Bangladeshis first then as Muslims.

-Pakistan was founded as a separate homeland for the Muslims if not Islam why not become a part of India?

To answer the first argument, the reason why the Bangladeshis chose to gain independence from Pakistan was not because of their alleged un-Islamic sentiments, but because they felt they were being cheated (as do many ethnic minorities of Pakistan today) along linguistic and cultural rights. They resented Undri (or Urdu) being the national language at the expense of their native Bengali.

In addition their political rights as Pakistani citizens were neglected such as the lack of presence of Bengalis in the Pakistani military.

The tension between the Bengalis and the Pakistani state reached a climax when the victory of the Awami league in the elections was not respected.

After all this unfair treatment, the Bengalis revolted. It had nothing to do with their preference of ethnicity over religion.

Additionally Bengalis are much more different to the rest of Pakistan culturally, geographicly and racially. Not that it makes them "inferior" or "less worthy" but it makes no sense in being once state especially with a giant enemy in between always adding more to the problem.

To answer to the question if not for Islam why 'create' Pakistan in the first place?

This question is based on alot of misconceptions. Firstly the Pakistan region or the Indus region was never a 'part' of a country called 'India' which never really existed.

The name "India" was brought by the British to Southern Asia and imposed into the local population. It was the British who unified this multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic region into one single state.

Even today this country calling itself "India" has no common identity be it linguistic, racial, cultural or religion.

The nation of Pakistan has existed for atleast nine thousand years from what records show . The Indus valley Civilization spread over most of Pakistan. It's nationhood can be evident even further as it's main cities spread over various provinces of the country as the map above shows.

Indeed Pakistan is a very unique country for it's region and most of the world. It's people lived share a common ancestry and lived together for thousands of years. They speak closely related languages almost all belonging to the Indo-Iranic subfamily of Indo-European. In addition they have caucasianoid skulls and common R1A genetic markers (with Kashmiris having the highest percentage of R1A genes) all evidence of a common ancestry.

The same cannot be said for other country's in the region such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and especially India.

India is one of the last countries in the world to see itself as a single-identity state. It's people do not have a common language family. The main language families in India are Indo-European, Sino-Tibetian, Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian- all unrelated to one another as far as linguists can tell.

The people today known as "Indians" are also racially diverse. Though they have mostly Caucasianoid skulls like Pakistanis, a large and very significant percentage of the have Mongoloid skulls particularly in the north Eastern areas. Also Australoid skulls can be found in the southern areas of the country.

So to conclude it all "Indians" are no more of a people than "Americans" or "Canadians."

Coming back to the myth of Islam being the unifying factor- it is clearly false. The people of Pakistan lived together for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Islam. They share a common ancestry as do the languages they speak today.

As stated in an earlier post, even the non-Indo-European speaking populations; the Hunza, the Brahuis, the Baltistanis do not stand out much genetically.

This is more than enough reason to unify the country without bringing in religion.

If Islam is everything what Pakistan is about why was Jinnah then a secular man then?

The answer comes back to the same conclusion, Islam is not a unifying factor for Pakistan or it's identity.

Let's also not forget the British opposed the idea of Pakistan becoming an independent state, contrary to what is falsely preached by many.

The British wanted a single puppet state that they could use as a proxy in the region as opposed to having to deal with multiple states.

There are differences between Pakistani tribes and ethnicities. This is the process of evolution. Cultures, races, languages evolve due to independence from one another. But the similarities are far greater than the differences.

But those who blindly chant that Balochis, Sindhis, Punjabis, Pakhtuns, Kashmiris are all different are illiterate in the fields of linguistics, anthropology and race and should not be taken seriously.

Mistrust exists between Pakistani ethnicities due to political imbalance which is wrongly dominated by the Punjabi population. It is not because one is slightly culturally and linguistically different from the other.

And it's these imbalances that should be dealt with through justice, not by highlighting minor differences between Pakistani ethnicities or imposing religion on the state and the masses.

Afghan means only Pashtun?? Hold on!

Alot of pseudo-historians amongst Afghanistan's Pashtuns as well as their Indian-Brahmin partners in the propaganda war against Pakistan like to portray Afghanistan as a mono ethnic state consisted entirely of Pakhtuns, that "Afghan" is simply another word for Pashtun.
Anyone with brains knows this to be entirely wrong.

Afghanistan is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic country with Pashtuns being only 42% of the population. "Afghans" are simply a people who share a common nationality, much like "Americans", "Canadians" or any other.

The people who inhabit the present-day landmass known as "Afghanistan" are called Afghans. 42% of these people are Pakhtuns, 27% Tajik, 9% Hazara, 9% Uzbek, 4% Aimak, 3% Turkmen, 2% Baloch and 4% other.

This is clear proof Afghan and Pashtun are not the same. Pashtuns are just a percentage of the Afghan population.
If Pashtun is an equivalent for Afghan, then Fars/Persian is an equivalent for Iranian, Punjabi is an equivalent for Pakistani and so on.

The agenda behind the Afghan=Pashtun lie is to take away the NWFP from Pakistan and give it to Afghanistan. By this contrast the fascist, intolerant Karzai regime and their predecessors the Afghan royal family should have released the Uzbek populated lands of Afghanistan to Uzbekistan. The Turkmen populated lands to Turkmenistan, the Tajik occupied lands to Tajikistan.

Also by this contrast the Indian Brahmins should allow the people of the Bengal state of India to re-unite with Bangladesh as well as handover their Punjab state to Pakistan as Pakistan's majority population is of Punjabi speaking background.

Afghanistan has tried to steal Pakistan's western provinces ever since the departure of the British while at the same time maintaining it's illegal existence and occupation on Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen and Hazaara lands.

Let us not forget the Afghan state was illegally carved out of lands inhabited by Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaaras, Turkmens whom ever since have sought to unite with their ethnic brotherin living across artificially constructed borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan respectively.

Because the fascist Pashtun regimes of Afghanistan have refused to accept the Durand line and have waged several wars against Pakistan in an attempt to steal Balochistan and the NWFP, Pakistan in turn got involved in Afghan politics and aided the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaraas and the Turkmens in their mission to break away from the illigal state of Afghanistan.

Coming to racial and linguistic lines, Afghanistan is clearly an artificial country and can be broken into two main racial groups:
Caucasianoids (mainly Pakhtuns, Tajiks, Baloch) and Mongoloids (mainly Uzbeks, Hazaaras and Turkmens).
Clearly Mongoloids and Caucasianoids are of two completely different origins.

Along linguistic lines "Afghanistan" can once again be divided into two main linguistic groups. One being Indo-Iranic the other being Turkic.


The Uzbeks and Turkmens fall into the Turkic grouping. The Tajiks, Pashtuns and Baloch fall into the Indo-Iranic grouping (though Tajiks have heavy Turkic/Mongoloid racial infleuence). The Hazaaras, though Indo-Iranic speaking are actually of Turko-Mongoloid origins like the Uzbeks and the Turkmens so they too fall under the Turkic grouping.

A few facts about the Pashtuns whichever side of the durand line they live on:
-They are caucasianoid, like the rest of Pakistan clearly showing a common origin with most of Pakistan than with other populations in Afghanistan.
-The majority of them are from the Pakistani side of the border.
-They are Indo-Iranic speaking, like the rest of Pakistan.
-The Pashtuns being Caucasians do NOT share a common origin with the Mongoloid/Turanoid Uzbeks, Hazaras or Turkmens.

So racially and linguistically the facts show the Pashtuns are more Pakistani than "Afghan" though the Pashtuns of Afghanistan will never accept this.

Pakistani Pashtuns on the other hand mostly remain indifferent to the issue of the Durand line. They are also scattered throughout Pakistan in search of a better life and can be found in Pakistan's industrialized areas such as Karachi where they have more oppertunities. This would not be possible in Afghanistan which is completely war torn, thanks to the ignorence of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan.

Solution to the Durand line problem and Afghan civil war:
The ruling Pashtun elites from Afghanistan need to come out of their ignorance and face reality instead of pretending they are the only ethnic group inhabiting Afghanistan.
They cannot hold on to the lands they captured to carve out Afghanistan in 1747, at least not without fueling another long, bloody civil war costing many of their own lives. The Turko-Mongoloid populations of Afghanistan will not leave as the Pashtuns want them to. They lived in the area for centuries much before the Pashtuns occupied them to carve out "Afghanistan." They will not suddenly move out after all these centuries.

And despite Tajiks being ethnicly closer to the Pashtuns, the Pashtuns have also refused to accept them as Afghan. Likewise the Tajiks have in turn have resisted Pakhtun imperialism and hegemony.

Clearly, the non-Pakhtun majority of Afghanistan are there to stay and are as "Afghan" as the Pakhtuns. Afghanistan's Pashtuns will have to clearly accept what is not theirs. Baluchistan and the NWFP are going to remain with Pakistan. Pakistan has a legitimate claim to them along racial, linguistic and historic lines. After all many pre-historic civilization in Pakistan (particularly the Indus Valley Civilization) contained both regions.
Afghanistan can only prosper if the Pashtuns accept that they are not the only ethnic group living there and stop claiming lands that do not belong to the Afghan state-unless they are willing to loose territory in return.

Instead they should share power with the non-Pashtun majority to defuse tensions and promote unity. It also may perhaps discourage Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks from joining the neighboring Stans and Pakistan is likely to stop backing their separatist ambitions in return provided the ruling Pashtun elites abandon their falsified claims over Pakistani lands.

The possible consequences of continuous Pashtun Afghan imperialism and seeking partnership with Brahmin Hindutva fascists:

-Pakistani nationalists in turn would continue to seek an alliance with Turkic and Tajik nationalists and try to break up Afghanistan once and for all. This has been seen in the past few decades long before the Afghan civil war erupted in the late 1980s.

-Pan-Turkic movements in Turkey and thought the former Soviet Union seek to break away Turkic inhabited areas in Afghanistan and emerge them into "South Turkestan"
They are most likely to gain Pakistani state backing in the future should Afghanistan's Pashtun elites continue to align themselves with Brahmin Hindutvas and continue to lay false claim on what is rightfully Pakistani territory.

Conclusively another bloody, larger and regional conflict may be underway in the coming future, involving allot more than just Afghan Pashtuns elites and the Pakistani government should the Pashtun elites of Afghanistan seek the wrong path and get other parties or entities involved in another pointless and preventable conflict.

War is not in the interests of any state or ethnic group and must be the last measure taken in a situation of conflicting ambitions between states and/or ethnic groups.

To learn the whole truth regarding the Durand line please click the following link:
http://pakistanipatriots.blogspot.com/2009/11/afghan-pakistani-border-is-settled.html

A Pashtun Afghan. His first hand look clearly gives away his Caucasian skull & genetic stock:

An Uzbek "Afghan" note despite his dark brown complexion his Turanoid origins are obvious in his Mongoloid face:

Do the the "Afghans" pictured above look like they could be of the "same race?"

Pashtun fascists brutally murder Uzbeks for challenging the continuing imbalance of ethnic power in Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA9pEkGEeNQ

A demographic map of Afghanistan. A little outdated, but all ethnic groups shown on the map still exist today and less than 50% are Pashtuns/Pakhtuns:

More rebuattal to Indian propaganda.

A rebuttal to another Indian illusionist who tried to discourage a moderate like General Kayani with his lies.

View from the other side Col (r) Harish Puri

Tuesday, April 14, 2009Dear Gen Kayani,
Sir, let me begin by recounting that
old army quip that did the rounds in the immediate aftermath of World war II: To
guarantee victory, an army should ideally have German generals, British
officers, Indian soldiers, American equipment and Italian enemies.
A Pakistani soldier that I met in Iraq in 2004 lamented the fact that the
Pakistani soldier in Kargil had been badly let down firstly by Nawaz Sharif and
then by the Pakistani officers' cadre. Pakistani soldiers led by Indian
officers, , he believed, would be the most fearsome combination possible.
Pakistani officers, he went on to say, were more into real estate, defence
housing colonies and the like.
First off since when did Pakistani soldiers serve in Iraq? Are you sure this "Pakistani soldier" you met was not a mirage from the heat you suffered there?
As I search for defence housing colonies on google, the first previews I get in the search space are:
-Defense colony New Deli (279,000 results)
-Defense colony Deli (5,15,000 results)
-Defense colony (4,590,000 results)
-Defense colony Banglore (340,000 results)
All these are Indian cities that come up when searching for defense colonies. Are Pakistani generals so interested in defense colonies as opposed to Indian ones that the name of Indian cities get the highest searches and results on the Internet?

As I look at two photographs of surrender that lie before me, I can't help
recalling his words. The first is the celebrated event at Dhaka on Dec 16, 1971,
which now adorns most Army messes in Delhi and Calcutta. The second, sir, is the
video of a teenage girl being flogged by the Taliban in Swat -- not far, I
am sure, from one of your Army check posts.
It is not difficult to analyse why an army which bravely fought 1000 miles away from it's base, surrounded and outnumbered by enemies during a civil war lost. Pakistan could easily have played a similar foul game and done the same during the 1962 Indo-Chinese war and celebrated a "courageous victory." The favor for 1971 could have been returned by lending support to the Sikh militants and establishing an independent Khalistan.
Regarding your special interest in the flogging of the girl in Swat may I ask where your army or even police is during the daily persecution of dalits and the satti practices of widows?
The surrender by any Army is always a sad and humiliating event. Gen Niazi surrendered in Dhaka to a professional army that had outnumbered and outfought him. No Pakistani has been able to get over that humiliation, and 16th December is remembered as a black day by the Pakistani Army and the
Pakistani state. But battles are won and lost
- armies know this, and having
learnt their lessons, they move on.
No army is professional when it fights without honor. Outnumbering it's opponents and attacking during the enemies weakest points. Pakistanis have moved on from the mistakes of the 1971 war but Indians seem to be hell bent on this as if cheating during a war is something to be proud of. I would be ashamed as an indian to see my compatriots taking pride in such dishonesty.

But much more sadly, the video of the teenager being flogged represents an even
more abject surrender by the Pakistani Army. The surrender in 1971, though
humiliating, was not disgraceful. This time around, sir, what happened on your
watch was something no Army commander should have to live through. The girl
could have been your own daughter, or mine.
And what of the thousands of women killed in India by Satti? Could they too not be your daughters?

I have always maintained that the Pakistani Army, like its Indian counterpart,
is a thoroughly professional outfit. It has fought valiantly in the three wars
against India, and also accredited itself well in its UN missions abroad. It is,
therefore, by no means a pushover. The instance of an Infantry unit, led by a
lieutenant colonel, meekly laying down arms before 20-odd militants should have
been an aberration. But this capitulation in Swat, that too so soon after your
own visit to the area, is an assault on the sensibilities of any soldier. What
did you tell your soldiers? What great inspirational speech did you make that
made your troops back off without a murmur? Sir, I have fought insurgency in
Kashmir as well as the North-East, but despite the occasional losses suffered
(as is bound to be the case in counter-insurgency operations), such total
surrender is unthinkable.
Is it? When a joint NATO force cannot even tackle the Taliban in Afghanistan and is considering negotiations? And yet you can sit there and expect a single country like Pakistan to face up to the Taliban? Another Indian tactic of twisting facts to suit their own propaganda machine.
It is said your army does not want to kill their own people so why did it not hesitate during 1971 to kill so many Bengalis?

Or is it that the Bengalis were never considered "your own" people, influenced as they were by the Hindus across the border? Or is that your troops are terrified by the ruthless barbarians of the Taliban?
Bengalis are certainly distinct being geographically far and culturally too despite their common Indo-Aryan language.
Why is an Indian so interested in the Bangladeshi genocide? Obviously to deflect the genocide your army has carried out against Sikhs and Dalits all over India being persecuted even until today.

Sir, it is imperative that we recognise our enemy without any delay. I use the word "our" advisedly - for the Taliban threat is not far from India's borders. And the only force that can stop them from dragging Pakistan back into the Stone Age is the force that you command. In this historic moment, providence has placed a tremendous responsibility in your hands. Indeed, the fate of your nation, the future of humankind in the subcontinent rests with you. It doesn't matter if it is "my war" or "your war" - it is a war that has to be won. A desperate Swati citizen's desperate lament says it all - "Please drop an atom bomb on us and put us out of our misery!" Do not fail him, sir.
We Pakistanis know our responsibilities very well and are committed to stopping them whether army or civilian. How about you as an Indian for once give up your obsession of trying to look "better" than Pakistan and do something to protect your country -already living in the stone age- from fanatics like Bajrang Dal which your army shamelessly and openly provides training and support for.

But in the gloom and the ignominy, the average Pakistani citizen has shown us that there is hope yet. The lawyers, the media, have all refused to buckle even under direct threats. It took the Taliban no less than 32 bullets to still the voice of a brave journalist. Yes, there is hope - but why don't we hear the same language from you? Look to these brave hearts, sir - and maybe we shall see the tide turn. Our prayers are with you, and the hapless people of Swat.
Pray for your own impoverished 'country' which is far worse than Pakistan and any other country by world standards, then come to pray for Pakistan.

The New York Times predicts that Pakistan will collapse in six months. Do you want to go down in history as the man who allowed that to happen?
Newspapers can predict anything they want, they are not reliable sources. Defence and politcial analysists are the ones to consult and Zaid Hamid also make 'predictions' but most are never true. May I also add that you wrote this classic piece of nonsense around the same day your "professional army" lost 7 troops at the hands of Kashmiri rebels. Is 60 years not long enough for your "professional army" to quash a few rebels like bugs? Was your loss so humiliating to them that you run away from it and want to point fingers at Pakistan to deflect these losses?

Pakistani Identity by Sonia Ansari

Note: Since this article is not written by Sonia Salim of all credit goes to her. A slight modification has been made to avoid misconceptions/confusions.

“An Ancient Connection”: The Indus River, the Silk Route, the Grand Trunk Road, and the Makran Coast.
By Sonia Salim

The need to conduct a research on the Pakistani identity is important because it is necessary, and it compels continuity. It is necessary because as a relatively new state in this world, Pakistani’s are in a constant struggle with how they see themselves; more succinctly put, what does it mean to be Pakistani post 1947?

What is the Pakistani identity? With atleast a 5000-year-old history, the Pakistani identity is historically constituted, not just a product of the last century [Ahsan, 1996]. This identity is indeed rich with an indigenous culture, traditions, and language, separate and distinct from a specific "Indian" or Arab, or Turko-Mongol, or "Afghan" identity. The problem at hand is that most Pakistani’s at present do not appeal to their ancient history when confronted with this identity crisis. Most nationalist campaigns only appeal to the recent events that lead up to 14 August 1947. Thus a research conducted on the Pakistan Identity needs to reveal the historical stories and events, which made us who we were yesterday, who we are today, and will continue making us tomorrow. There is a need to inculcate a feeling of surety and confidence by imparting knowledge on being “Pakistani” which appeals to all prehistoric, pre-Islamic elements and entities too. These elements form a large part of being Pakistani, which is often forgotten.

Knowledge is power, and such power can dissipate any confusion amounting to how Pakistanis behave, or think, and not be told how they should be doing so. Of course, an historical account is a story of evolution, slow change; of change that has roots imbedded in Pakistan’s present area.
“History reveals the truth above politics and diplomacy” [Dani]. This area is known as the Indus valley pre-historically, and at present too. The Indus valley owes its being to the River Indus, which has its source in Tibet. This river cuts through the Himalayas and the Karakoram mountain ranges in the north, and runs through all four plains, south, i.e. N.W.F.P., Punjab, Balochistan, and Sindh. This river is the heart of Pakistan since time immemorial, binding and connecting the whole of the area, the Indus valley historically, or Pakistan, presently. These names can be used interchangeably. The River’s veins or tributaries run through all the four provinces, providing at once life, and subsistence, and hence a common civilization.

This important fact predetermines the formation of Pakistan. It immediately distinguishes this land mass from the rest of British India, pre-independence, and before any other invading foreign influence that the centuries have brought this way. This fact cannot be reiterated enough, and is often forgotten in light of Pakistan’s political instability, and hostile relations with India [Fairley, 1993]. This fact must be instilled in every Pakistani head and heart, and must precede any other notion on being Pakistani.

“In pre-history, Pakistan was one of the lands where civilization was born” Rahmat Ali. The River Indus, the Ancient Silk Route, the Grand Trunk Road and, the Makran Coast, will form the skeleton of this project. Infrastructure is one of the significant causes of development, which is why I wish to study the formation of the “Pakistani Identity” using the latter two historical routes, and the coast, in addition to the River. So far, having gone through a period of texts on Pakistani history has revealed repeatedly that the Archimedean point of our history for nationalists and textbook writers starts with the advent of Islam in 711 C.E.

This is because Pakistan at present is an Islamic Republic, and for present day nationalists, this fact is what wholly, and solely makes us “Pakistani.” The pre-Islamic era is ignored and not considered as intrinsic, or is some how “Indian” or “Other”. This project seeks to inform the readers that the Indus region was a prosperous and organized, more than what it is today perhaps. And this fact is just as much a part of being “Pakistani”. Our history is multilateral, not unilateral. Professor Dani says, “A country like Pakistan has deep roots in history, going much further back than the time when the new name “Pakistan” was applied in 1947” [Dani, Ancient Pakistan vol 1].

This fact makes it significant to include all the four possible trade routes during the ancient period as far back as the third millennium B.C.E. The Indus civilization is thus as important as the Egyptian civilization as a landmark of history in terms of organized, systematic living. The Indus civilization had clean and functional cities where a metropolitan culture evolved, and hence a modern lifestyle which bared no equivalence in any other civilization. One could deduce that this civilization was one of the harbingers of urbanization [Samad, 2000].

Briefly, the kind of modern urban lifestyle that the Indus civilization enjoyed was that of 10 m wide streets and lanes, public drainage and sewerage systems in houses, sectors dividing residential areas from the craft industrial sites, the agricultural farms, and public buildings. There is no evidence of palaces or castles, hence no monarchy, rendering it an absolute republic governed by the people. Each city was a city-state. The language they used was unknown though some theoroize without proof it could be Dravidian based, probably belonging to the Brahui group spoken in West Baluchistan, Iran and Southern Afghanistan [Samad, 2000]. In retrospect, it is hard to believe that an ancient civilization is being discussed. It seems more modern and civil than what we are at present.

The Indus River being the Archimedean point of our civilization, will thus form the foundation of this project. Primarily, this river distinguishes us from India, Central Asia, and China as an entity. Therefore, it repels, and renders this area sovereign. Secondly, however, it is also this river that attracted many invaders, religions and international traders, to seek the riches of this region, and to flourish. Alexander the Great, Genghez Khan, and Muhammad Bin Qasim are but a few of the prominent invaders who fought many Indus heroes to resist their invasion. The spread of Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Sufism mark the varying influences on this region, and demonstrates how significant a region it is on the world map. The project will start with an in depth discussion of the Indus River, and its civilization. There is a vast collection of literature available on this region, highlighting its significance in history. The two capital cities of the Indus Empire, are known as Moenjodaro and Harrapa. The first is located in the province of Sindh, the second in Punjab. These were both pre-Buddhist civilizations and extremely sophisticated to say the least. The rest of the Indus civilization was / is present day Pakistan, and extended to the Indian cities of Rajasthan, Haryana, Cutch, and Kathiawar. This civilization was thus spread over vast and varying landscapes, from mountains, plains and deserts [Ahsan 1996, Samad 2000]. There are thousands of sites all over Pakistan bearing evidence, and affirming that we are primarily the Indus Civilization, over and above anything else. “We are not an imported civilization, or culture” [Samad 2000]. This point cannot be reiterated enough, and is the whole raison d’etre of this project.

An in depth and thorough study on how we lived 5000 years ago can reveal how our habits, behavior, likes and dislikes, and basic nature, began and have evolved. Such as, were we nomadic or stationary? Liberal or chauvinistic? Feudal or capitalist? Or an amalgamation of all of the above? What was the economic, social and political system of that time, and what have we at present acquired from it? How we were socially organized? What language did we speak? What were the causes of change, evolution and, adaptation? How does an Islamic republic at present supersede our pagan past? These are the main questions that the project will seek to answer.
Similarities can be drawn, to demonstrate that “Pakistani” is synonymous with the “Indus citizen”.

The Ancient Silk Route is the second focus of this project. This route is one of the oldest paths and means of international trade, and probably the first form of globalization. A study of which is an essential aid to answering the above questions. It will help in seeing how this magnificent trade route influenced the culture of the Indus citizen, once it has been established what the Indus citizen was like in the beginning. The Indus region was part of the silk trade route. Hence what knowledge did this route impart and how did it change, and evolve the Indus citizen; its economic, political and social system? Did the Indus region flourish because of this route? Did the Indus citizen benefit from this route?

The Ancient Silk Route began in Xian in China and ended in Venice Italy. This famous route connected East Asia, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean for trade in silk from China to glass from Venice. Along this extensive path, other goods were exchanged according to what each region had to offer, and international migration began. The Silk Route thus, definitely influenced culture and helped in the development of the Indus civilization, as well as many others along the way. Perhaps it is because of this route that we harnessed a tradition of looking to other traditions, such as that of Central Asian, Indian, or Chinese, to confirm our own? Thus it will be important to look at what all was transmitted because of the trade route, such as knowledge, ideas, religion, people, as well as goods [Grotenhuis, 2001].

The Grand Trunk Road connects Kabul in Afghanistan to Calcutta in India. Its purpose in ancient times was as a channel for the import and export of trade between India, Central Asia and the West too, just like the Ancient Silk Route, but the goods were not specific, like silk for glass. Nor was it as vast as the silk route. It stretches across the Indus region 2000Km’s to the west coast of India. The Grand Trunk road was also a road intended for travel regardless of trade, and it still exists and is used today. The Grand Trunk road was given its name by the British, however it was primarily called “The Royal Road”. Contrary to popular belief, this road was first constructed by Chandra Gupta during the Mauryan era 300 B.C.E, not Sher Shah Suri. The latter helped reconstruct it in the 16th century, as he recognized its fundamental importance to the flourishing of the region. The British also recognized this road’s importance, and had it completely metalled to make it suitable for wheeled traffic. Up until then, this road only ran from Kabul to Delhi. The British extended it from Delhi to Calcutta.

The Grand Trunk Road has a rich history in itself, and deserves to be studied just because of that. It has obviously played a key role in the development of the Indus region, and beyond. It is where cultures have met and created that unique Pakistani Identity. A study of it will reveal how [Sarkar, 1998].

The Makran Coast located along the provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan, made them maritime coastal states open for trade and invasion. This project will only focus on the Makran coast as a sea gateway to trade for the Indus civilization, before the advent of Islam, formally, and hence before the invasion of the Arab Muslim General Mohammed Bin Qasim in the 8th Century. Both these provinces were intrinsic to the Indus civilization, as Moenjodaro, one of the capitals was situated here, in between these two provinces. Baluchistan at the time was known as Gedrosia, which is a Persian word. Thus, its location was either described as West Baluchistan, or in Sindh. Presently though Moenjodaro is formally placed in Sindh. Thus, the Makran coast served as a trading post for one of the most important capitals, as well as the rest of the region. There were five main trading coastal cities spanning the length of the entire coast. These cities were crucial for trade to the inland cities of the civilization, as well as development all around. They served the purpose of being trading stations or post, supplying goods to the entire Indus river valley.

The flow of goods went back and forth; imports were sent north, and exports were sent south to the coast. With the increase in trade, the importance of the coastal cities grew, which led to their expansion in size, and complete urbanization. More land was cultivated in the vicinity which led to industrialization. The coastal cities supplied fish and seafood and shells inland.
The ancient coastline of the Indus civilization stretched much farther east than it does at present. Of course, the passage of time and history has redrawn the borders of civilization. At present the Pakistani Makran coast stretches 600 Km. It also has a visually distinct race from the rest of Pakistan that boasts of Arab/African features, rather than Indo-European. Were people transmitted along the sea trade route from Oman and Persia, and Africa? If they were, did they come as slaves, or as traders? Alexander also traversed this region. Are the Makranis a natural part of the Indus civilization? The Makran coast thus deserves special scrutiny on this point [Kenoyer 1998].

There are many aspects to the Pakistani identity. But once it has been determined prehistorically, it could be interesting to see how it is portrayed and perceived at present. Therefore I think a prologue would be essential to see how we have evolved, and reinforce that we are not an imported culture. What is Pakistani at present, or who is the contemporary Indus person? One such way to view the contemporary Indus person would be to look through the lens of contemporary Art, such as the Pakistani film Industry from 1947 till present. But that of course will require a whole separate proposal, once this project is complete.

Pakistanis' ignorance to their roots.

It is common for Pakistanis to look back to their history starting in the 7th century AD when their ancestors were first exposed to Islam during Muhammed Bin Qasim's temporary presence in Sindh. Instead of looking back even further to their roots -which predate Islam- they identify with the invading nations and rulers who were mostly Islamic. They (Pakistanis) go even further and fall under the delusion to believe these rulers as their "ancestors" (though there was minor race mixing with invading Arabs, Persians, Turko-Mongols and the local population, the majority still remain the same). 

According to many Pakistanis, these supposed "ancestors" of theirs "brought civilization" to present-day Pakistan and the rest of Southern Asia. Before that there was no civilization there, at least from what they think. Even those such as Zaid Hamid continue to carry the typical false slogan that Pakistanis have carried for generations that "we 'Muslims' ruled over the Indians for a thousands years and gave them civilization." To really know who these 'Muslims' were (almost as if the word has a racial or tribal meaning) it is important to look into the history of these 'Muslims' who did indeed rule Pakistan and the rest of South Asia and if they really did bring civilization. The first Muslims who stepped foot into Pakistan were the Arabs led by Muhammed Bin-Qasim, though it is believed they were not able to establish a firm control over the natives and were later driven out.

 Looking at Arab history, culture, ethnicity, linguistics it should be obvious to most people that Arabs are certainly not the ancestors of present-day Pakistanis. It does not take an anthropologist or a historian to point this out, but common sense. If one is still not convinced, then he/she is free to research Arab history, culture, genetics, linguistics. After all in the modern age of technology there are so many free resources out there to be used anytime whenever desired. The second Muslim rulers of Pakistan were the Ghaznaviods. The general historic consensus is that they were a Persian-ruled dynasty but with an army consisted of Turko-Mongols. The Persians originate in the Fars province (Persia) of present day Iran while their army of Turko-Mongols were mostly of Altaic origins in present-day Mongolia and Siberia. Like the Arabs, the Ghaznavids's background can be further researched and from what is known, and they surely did not share a common origin with present-day Pakistanis. 

 Next came the Ghurids, another Persian-led force. What is known about their linguistics is that they were an Iranic-speaking people like the Persians (search Iranic languages to fully understand the meaning of the term) just like most of Pakistan's western populations the Baloch, the Pakhtuns. But, linguistics does not necessary coincide with genetics! Take the Iranic-speaking Hazaara in Afghanistan. Just by looking at them, their Altaic/Turanoid origins become very obvious. Even recent genetic findings suggests that Pakhtuns and Baloch, though Iranic speaking share common genes with the Dardic speaking Kashmiris. Coming back to the Ghurids, the theories are that most of them originated along the Afghanistan-Tajikistan areas. These areas are not part of present day Pakistan, nor are their current inhabitants Pakistanis. 

 After that came the Mughals (a corruption of the word "Mongol"), another empire like the Ghaznavids ruled mainly by Persians, but with a mainly Turko-Mongol army. It is common for Pakistanis to claim to be of Mughal descent. Unless they're willing to call the present-day Turko-Mongoloid peoples of the former USSR and Mongolia their 'cousins' despite their different Mongoloid skull structure -as opposed to the Caucasoid skulls of most Pakistanis - or their Altaic languages -as opposed to the majority Indo-European languages of Pakistanis, then they should stop calling the Mughals or any other foreign Muslim empires their "ancestors." 

Instead Pakistanis should wake up and learn more about the history of their country and their people! Given the basic insight to these invading empires, they certainly were not the ancestors of Pakistanis. In fact the British who were the last invading empire also shared something in common with Pakistanis as well! 1) They were Cuacasianoid by skull type like most Pakistanis. 2) They too spoke an Indo-European language (English.) Based on this should Pakistanis start claiming British ancestry now!?! Or that the British Raj was somehow a 'Pakistani Empire'?? Also note there have been many intermarraiges between Brits and Pakistanis and continues even today as there is a huge Pakistani community in Britain. This does not make the majority of Pakistanis of British descent, just a small handful. Likewise the same can be said for other invading empires. 

 Another common trend for Pakistanis is to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as "Indian" or "South Asian" or "desi." Many brainwashed, Indianized Pakistanis, like the Islamists, always like to always associate with the other. Pakistanis who have a Pan-South Asian mindset wish for their pre-Islamic history which spread mostly and were based in Pakistan to be known as "Indian" or "South Asian". The truth is most ancient civilizations based in Pakistan did NOT spread over South Asia! "Desi" is a term popular amongst Pan-South Asians. It is used to refer to Dravidian, Dardic, and Indo-Aryan speakers. But strangely enough it does not apply to Iranic speakers (ie. Balochis, Pakhtuns) despite Iranic speakers in Pakistan sharing common linguistics, genetics with Indo-Aryan and Dardic speakers. (Search Indo-Iranic languages). The word "desi" has no scientific acceptance in modern-day anthropology or linguistics. A Dardic-speaking Kashmiri has no linguistic relation to a Dravidian speaking Tamil. Dravidian languages belong to a completely different and un-related language family than Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages. Dardic and Indo-Aryan along with Iranic are part of the Indo-Iranic family of languages. What's more is that genetically the Dravidians lack R1A genetic markers that are least found in Southern India (though some sources state Tamils have a significant R1A contribution than other Dravidian speakers; suggesting genetic contributors in their gene pool coming from more northwards) while Dardic and Iranic-speakers in Pakistan have it the most. 

So clearly "Desis" are no more than a people of an imagination based on ignorance, pseudoscience and false political propaganda. Pakistan's new generation face an identity tug of war between Islamic Mid-Easternization and Indianization. The problem is that Indian propaganda has reached even western historians; who are often manipulated & used to promote false historic propaganda created for political agendas. But today some are starting to question Indian pseuodo-history. Such as the terms "partition of India" or the "ancientness" of so-called "Hinduism." Many are even coming to the realization that these ideas were merely invented by the British. "India" and "Hinduism" did not exist prior to the 18th century. 

If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Bhuddist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian or any other would have mentioned this phenomenon. Contrary to popular myth the history of "India" and "Hinduism" are works of fiction! Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as "hinduism" instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of "hinduism!" The republic of "India" was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the Peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (mainly Hyderabad, Goa, Junagara and then later on Kashmir, which triggered war with Pakistan) were invaded by military force.

 Pakistani people on the other hand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC. The maps showing the Indus Civilization -one of the oldest in the world- spread all over Pakistan. Most of the IVC's map coincides with that of Pakistan's present day map. It's main cities Harrappa, Mohinjadarro are also situated deep within Pakistan in various provinces. Many Indian propagandists and Pan-'South Asian' Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was "one nation" as strictly defined, modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today. 

Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as "proof" of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilizations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations. Most Muslim countries/nations are proud of their pre-Islamic history and don't use their religion as a subsitute for their identity. Not even the stateless Palestinians! Egyptians are proud of their pre-Islamic and pre-Arab civilizations. Even the Catholic Italians are proud of Roman civilization, despite that it was not a Christian civilization till much after. Despite that the modern-day Italian state was established only in the 18th century. It's time Pakistanis do the same! Before 1947 

Pakistan did not have it's present-day name. But neither did India before the 1800s or Italy before the 1800s, neither did Afghanistan before 1747. But now that these are the current names of the lands and the people, they are used to apply to the same land and people in prehistoric times. The same logic can be applied for Pakistan.

 It is time the new generation of Pakistanis not make the mistake of their forefathers and learn about their roots which predate Islam by thousands of years. It should be passed on forever by each generation instead of being given away for free to history thieves eager to steal it. 

 Here are some basic facts on Pakistanis: -They are mostly Caucasoid by skull type. -They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Lashkari ("Urdu") and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo-Iranic language spoken around the second milliniea BC. Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic or even Indo-European, however it's speakers are not that genetically distinct from the rest of Pakistanis. -They are geographically located around the Indus river. -They formed a single civilization/nation from the days of the Indus Civilization from 3000BC till today. -They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry. Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected!

 Even the non- Indo-European speaking populations - mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically. A brief analysis of a study at an American university on Pakistani genetics: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=447589