Talk:Pakistan

Welcome to the Pakistan talk page.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Contradictory statements

Look at these two sentences as they appear in the article

The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories.

Second sentence indirectly implies that Gangetic Valley and Indus Valley were ruled together for long periods by the states which were based in one or the other river valley. So it contradicts the premise that Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities.

This is what we get when a state searches desparately for a nation. :-)

I will leave this para as it is for it surely gives Pakistanis something to think about the identity crisis they are facing.

Sisodia 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I would agree that this wording creates a lot of ambiguities about the ancient past that are largely speculative and needs to be reworded. It also some sort of power relations that are too connected to the present. Lastly, Pakistan does have an identity crisis as it has an Indo Muslim east and an Afghan-Iranian west with religion being the only component that unites them. That and borders drawn up by the British. As for searching for a nation, every country on earth does that. Pakistan does have a regional history as the historical currents of its region are theirs. That's how it is for every country on earth. Tombseye 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Pakistan ??? with all due respect WTF ??

Someone please modify the so called ancient pakistan thing written in the article.Pakistan is 60 years old and the history they try to steal is of India. True the reigons fall in pakistan eg.Sindu Valley(Indus Valley) etc. but the history of these reigons predates the idea of partiton and even the birth of Islam so a thing as "ancient pakistan" does not exist. Modify it.Or i will.Freedom skies 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Pakistan and not India. The area that is pakistan now has its own history too. So leave the article as it is.

Uh,the idea is to remain neutral and tell the truth.You seem to be doing neither.Before partiton the concept of pakistan was unheard of.Pakistan only has a 60 year history and you should tell the world like it is. I'll make it simple so even you can understand ..see ??......If you asked Babar "Hey! Does Pakistan rock or what ??".He would have gone "Pakistan .What the F**K is that ??".So much for your ancient Pakistan theory.The reigon at the time which you call ancient did not fall under the nation state of pakistan(pakistan did not even exist then,neither did jinnah).It was india and if you try and lie to the world and say the state is that old then i'll have to take an hour off my schedule and fix the mistakes which you made.Freedom skies 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article already says that the history overlap with India and even other countries made before India like Iran and even that Pakistan was once part of india. If we want to remain neutral the article should be about Pakistan not for India. Go edit the india article.

Go edit the India article ....even other countries made before India like Iran......?? WTF have you been smoking ??...anyways i guess you can't afford the good stuff.......Listen,the article is for pakistan no one is disputing that so stop crying foul over that....my problem is a thing as ancient pakistan does not exist.Ancient india existed but pakistan is just 60 years old and what you call "ancient pakistan" was a reigon of india at the time so it does'nt even deserve a mention.Why mention india's history and say pakistan was there but it was just ancient......pakistan is just 60 years old if you want to give a history of the reigons falling under the 60 year old state of pakistan then you must do it neutrally and truthfully.Otherwise i'll have to......just be truthful and tell it like it is.these reigons were a part of india when they were ancient and then a newly formed state came into being approx. 60 years ago.......saying the history overlap with India is hedging the truth and trying to underhandedly steal another country's history.Freedom skies 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

i worked about 2 hours to bring material for the new pakistan page to find it relatively suitably edited...........i did add a heading line though ,just in order to avoid confusion.Freedom skies 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say neither existed really. the modern nation-states claim vast territories as a collective when in fact there is no collective. There are numerous regional histories and to more accurate, Pakistan falls into two regions, one Indic and one Iranic. South Asia is a more accurate term simply because it refers to a region rather than an entity that was invented in the 19th century when the British named their new colony India. In fact there are lots of cases of new nations claiming historical continuity. When, for example, did the Azeris start calling themselves Azeris as opposed to simply Turks? Also, this question came up with a region like Moldova. Linguistically close to Romania, some say identical, but with some regional variations that Moldovans believe constitute their 'separate' identity. the modern nation-state has an interest in promoting its territorial integrity and that includes its claims to borders and a history that corresponds to said borders. However, these borders are often porous and Pakistan is no different in this regard. More accurately, Pakistan's eastern provinces relate to India, while the west relates to Afghanistan in the modern sense. Stretching back further we are alluding to modern perspectives with varying degrees of accuracy and nationalism.Tombseye

Sorry my friend, but you are completely wrong when you say both did not exist. India has always existed as a separate nation since last five millennia. Freedomskies has put it quite accurately and humorously. Babur, if asked whether India rocks or what, would have said “Yah man, it sure does”! Only difference is that he would have understood the word Hind instead of India. (And, probably would more likely have replied, no man, Hind sucks big time. He wrote so in his memoirs! Quite a bit of racist he was. Anyway that is beside the point.). Alexander when led his army into India more than two thousand years ago, knew he was entering into India, and not into some undefined collection of kingdoms. On the other hand both Babur and Alexander would have failed a quiz question on Pakistan.

Pakistan was not just renamed or discovered in 1947. It was created in 1947. It did not have any existence prior to that. India was just transformed into a sovereign republic from its prior status as a British colony. This is a huge difference. Sisodia 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're missing the point here. 'India' as we know it did not exist. The region has been constantly changing. The reason most people support the view that they have an older history is because of modern nationalism. I've read the Baburnama and he actually wasn't too fond of India except for gold and other sources of wealth. Hind was a vague term used by outsiders to denote a region that they largely didn't explore themselves. And it's borders vary. Sometimes it's west of the Indus and sometimes it includes the Indus. Alexander actually separates the region as well. One part is Gandahara, another part India (the Punjab), and another part overlaps onto Gedrosia. This usage of 'India' is then later applied further. I agree that there was no 'Pakistan' at any rate until 1947, but I don't agree that it didn't have its own regional history that didn't include Hind/India. Just look at the events that involved the region and did not involve modern India. British India is what was partitioned, not India. If the British had not arrived, it's not difficult to contemplate a bunch of countries in South Asia with Afghanistan taking back its territories in the west. Tombseye 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Too many external links?

Does any one agree with me that this article has too many external links? Many of the links seem to be pointing to completely commercial websites. I propose to remove all but the Government website links. Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Not particularly excessive for an article about a country. For example, the article global warming has way more. They are relevant to be included somewhere, so if they could be for example moved to some article concerning the media in Pakistan, that would be okay, (as long as this article links to it and mentions it). -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

I understand that too many external links may be bothersome atleast in appearance but it depends on other users whoo look up this article for information and reference and might find certain external links useful which you may not and if you remove them,then searching is made a little bit more difficult.Remember its an encyclopedia and it helps to find resources right from one place.--Usmanreddy 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, see WP:NOT, which states Wikipedia is NOT Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, an encyclopedia is not a repository for all links, search engines like Google are available for the links/directories. Wikipedia is never meant to be the one-stop-shop for external links on any topic. --Ragib 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you argue that Pakistan is only 60 years old the same argument would apply to india. Before this it was under British rule. The argument does not hold water.

Map caption

I removed the caption of the location map, which commented on the view of the Government of India on the map's inclusion of Kashmir. Adding non-standard comments like this can start edit wars on both India and Pakistan's top level country pages, because both sides can add similar comments to each other's location maps. Also the issue is well discussed in the article on Kashmir. Thanks. --Ragib 19:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the comment removal has been reverted by Hemanshu, would you care to discuss it rather than reverting it? Thanks --Ragib 19:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hemanshu (talk · contribs), this is *NOT* fair at all, you have not bothered to discuss anything here, but are continuing to revert the page. As an admin, you should have come to place your arguments here. My point was clear.... unless you can come up with a non-nationalistic reason why any Pakistani should not place a similar caption in the map in India, the caption you are putting here is POV. Thanks. --Ragib 19:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

For making it clearer, I place my arguments here:

• The statement placed there by Hemanshu (talk · contribs), is "Map shows area of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan as part of Pakistan. The Government of India considers the complete state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India.". My question is, the Government of Pakistan has the opposing view, so do I see such a statement in the map of India in the country page?

• The statement is POV in the side of India, because it states the words "occupied". Well, that may or may not be true (I'm not to judge the comment), but the Pakistan Govt certainly doesn't agree. I looked up other country level articles, NONE of them had an explanatory note from an opposing country pasted into the location map.

• Placing such statements in the top page of a country and especially using that is certainly flame-baiting. Sure, Indian's may have that view. But Pakistani's have the opposing view. I really don't see the reason for making a non-standard addition, which has the above issues attached to it.

I would expect Hemanshu to reply to it, which he is not bothering to do so far. Please come to this discussion rather than saying what you believe is true ... others may not have your point of view.

Thanks. --Ragib 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As a temporary compromise, I have converted the caption in question to a footnote, and placed the footnote-reference beside the map. --Ragib 20:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Labakkudas

I feel Pak should better be moved into Middle-east rather than South Asia. It is obvious that Pak is the odd man out in South Asia whereas it gels with Middle-east in all matters comfortably... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labakkudas (talk • contribs)

IMHO, Pakistan is far more similar to other South Asian countries than Middle Eastern countries. Anyhow, it's not up to us to "move" countries into regions. We're describing the geographical categorization that exists in the real world: geographers consider Pakistan to be in South Asia. If in the future the consensus-opinion among geography scholars changes then the article can be changed to reflect that. FactNTact 05:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, jus because it is Muslim does not mean it belongs in the ME. Would that also make Bangladesh in the ME, and the Muslims of India and Sri Lanka Middle Eastern? Pakistan is in the Indan subcontinent and in common with other S Asian nations does not benefit from natural resources as its main source of income. It's economy is based in agriculture and has a strong industrial base in Karachi. How exactly is it like any Middle Eastern country, besides religion? Only people who have very little knowledge of Pakistan would make a statement like that. Fkh82 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dont know where you got that from Pakistan has been part of South Asia ans is still a part of it. I understand its religion might be inclined to the Middle-East but I think thats about it... Modern day Pakistan was the birthplace of the Indian civilzation. It was also part of the Moghul empire and later British India. Almost all middle-east countries are desert lands rich in oil. Pakistan, on the other hand, relies on agriculture and industry. Somehow I can't see your point about Pakistan being the "odd man".

More realistically, Pakistan is both Middle Eastern and South Asian as well as Central Asian. It can be broken into three parts: the NWFP can be either Mideastern or Central Asian, the northern Areas Central Asian, the Punjab and Sindh are South Asian, but have had shared thousands of years of history with the Mideast and Central Asia, while Baluchistan is pretty much Mideastern. These regions all overlap in Pakistan in ways similar to Turkey's situation or that of the Caucasus where it is European culturally and Asiatic in some ways as well such as geographically although the line between Europe and Asia is clearly artificial. As for being the birthplace of Indian civilization, that is true to some extent, but a lot of activity and civilization formation took place along the Ganges rather than the Indus which was constantly coming under western attacks starting with the Aryans onwards. Culturally, Pakistan is Iranian in the west and North Indian in the east and nationally the two overlap in various capacities although the Iranian influence is more considerable in the east as opposed to Indian influence in the west, although Indian movies are popular. Also, academics often put Pakistan in two or more regions without worry as that is what is realistic. Tombseye 09:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

WTF ??? Modern day pakistan was the birthplace of Indian civilization ??......i knew that pakistan had a poor education system but this is just too bad even for a pakistani..... The demographics of the reigon were different and the reigon predates both the idea of partiton and the the religion of islam.The people who settled in the reigon where pakistan's Indus valley is now situated were Indians,unpartitoned and undivided.The concept of pakistan was non-existant at the time and so it remained till the 20th century.Pakistan only has about 60 years of history before that the history is all indian until a mass transfer of population and formal begining a a new state.See the good thing is that this is wikipedia,read any well respected neutral source and you'll see that pakistan only has 60 years of history befor that it was INDIA.Freedom skies 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming Pakistan was the birthplace of Indian civilization. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote to better understand what I wrote. Secondly, 'Indians' is a British term from the 19th century. Lots of Indian historians relate this fact. This is the case with a lot similar examples all over the world. Modern nation-states have all changed. Indians in this case would, I assume, mean people who spoke Indo-Aryan languages and that's true in eastern Pakistan, while western Pakistan is at the very least a border-land of Iranian and Indo-Iranian origins. I'm not Pakistani so I'd appreciate it if you'd try to not get personal. well, the good sources you're referring to neglect to mention the millennia of history that for example engulfed where Pakistan now exists and not India such as the Durrani Empire, the various Persian Empires, the Ilkhans, Greeks, etc. It's a regional history we're talking about, not a national one. Tombseye 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

-Actually, Tombseye, you're a little off. The area known today as Pakistan was ruled by the Achaemenid Persians as "Hindustan" or India. And, in most geographical groupings predating partition, the region was known as part of India. The culture practiced by most Pakistanis is identical to the culture of the North Indians, particularly the Muslims. As to the Iranian culture in the west that differentiates it, India itself is a diverse place and different cultural currents occured in different regions. Whole regions of India have cultural influences unique to them that separate them from the rest of the country. The area known as India was and is never culturally homogenous throughout. Pakistan is no more different from the rest of North India than South or Eastern India is. The Iranian languages, though they now dominate the western areas, are actually a bit recent. The Baloch arrived in the first millenium after Christ (circa 1000 AD), prior to which, the region was populated partially by Dravidian-speakers, as academics have written. The Pashtuns also only spread into the north west frontier region as a result of migration in the past millenium. Before that, the area was the center of a mixed-Greco-Indian Buddhist civilization. Also, just because languages in a region are Iranian doesnt mean they signify Middle Eastern influence in a region. It is true that one of the most well-documented Iranian languages, Persian, is Middle Eastern, but, for many centuries, Iranian languages were also more or less concentrated in southern central Asia. In fact, Iranian languages were historically found mostly in central Asia(Parthian, Scythian, Sogdian, Bactrian, Kamboja, Alani) and only two Iranian languages, Mede and Persian, were historically found in the Middle East. In the modern era, however, most Iranian tongues are located in the plateau in the Middle East, ( the most notable Iranian language other than Persian in the Middle East being Kurdish) and the Turkic languages pushed out the older Iranian languages out of most their Central Asian stronghold. So the Iranian influence in the are today known as Pakistan was more of a Central Asian brand. And, the Iranian influence in eastern Pakistan was part of Islam and was mostly through an Indic prism. Also, the Baloch and the Pashtuns practice a culture that cant necessarily be called "Middle Eastern" but Central Asian, especially the Pashtuns. Middle Eastern influence does exist in the region, as it does in India. Historically, only four mid-eastern political units dominated the region today called Pakistan: the Achaemenid empire, the Sassanian empire, the Selucid empire ( very briefly), and the Ummayad empire. Opposed to this, 10 political units have kept it united with the rest, or part of the Indian subcontinent: Gandhara, the Mauryan empire, the Indo-Greek kingdom, the Indo-Parthian kingdom(separate from the Parthian empire), the Indo-Scythian kingdom(s), the Kushan empire, the Hindu Shahi kingdom, the Delhi sultanate, the Moghal empire, and British India. These units united the area with both the Indian subcontinent and/or Central Asia. Overall, this region today known as Pakistan was in the past, Northwestern India, a crossroads between South and Central Asia with some Middle Eastern cultural currents (via Islam) through an Indic prism. So, I guess I would classify Pakistan as a South/Central Asian region with some Middle Eastern influence. This is the "Afghan historian" from the Afghanistan thread, just so you know. And I dont and wont discourage you from differing. -"Afghan historian"

Actually, I'm not off. The Punjab was ruled as Hindush, which in modern translation was applied by the British to all of South Asia through the Greek as India. Secondly, Pakistan is a border-land like Turkey, while the eastern provinces share the closest relationship with corresponding adjacent regions. There is no national identity. It all comes later. the same is true with modern Iran and its relationship with ancient Persia. everyone was not a Persian in Iran then and they aren't today. The Baloch are recent, but the Pashtuns are not actually. In addition, the languages in many of these western areas are Indo-Iranian and thus show a gradiation point. Greco-Indian is a modern term as well. A more accurate view would be Graeco-indo-iranian in terms of languages and cultures in the region. The 4 entities you mentioned constitute over nearly 1000 years. I'm not sure that's inconsequential. The Indian subcontinent geologically ends at the Indus river and the brink of the Hindu Kush mountains. Also attaching Indo to everything misleads people into thinking the Scythians were Indian when they were actually Iranic and the Kushans were Tocharians and the Hindu Shahi kingdom was based in Kabul where the majority population was Iranic and buddhist. Lastly, you have to ask yourself why is this region different and a nation-state? The easy answer is that its political events of the 20th century, but the other view is that nation-states form because of history. The region is different enough that people wanted to have a country and if its based upon religion or language then that's the way it is. Yeah, you're the 'Afghan' history who seems to talk more about the Kambojas than about Afghans I know just like the other guy. Tombseye 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what afghan Historian ?? That was the most beautiful rebuttal i've heard in a long time...I could'nt have said it better myself even if i switched from engineering to taking history.Freedom skies 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon/unsigned message section

how about you talk about the thousands of human rights violations commited every year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.150.41 (talk • contribs) August 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Balawaristan" — a term seldom used neutrally

Google search results for Balawaristan and related terms

Term(s) searched for	Hits found by Google
"Northern Areas" Pakistan	73600
Gilgit	108,000
Baltistan	21,200
Balawaristan	977
Balawaristan -"National Front" -BNF	529

A Google search on the term Balawaristan, even after attempting to exclude the National Front ( Balawaristan -"National Front" -BNF ), still yields results that are mostly related to separatist/nationalist groups or movements, or to discussions about them. I know of people native to the Gilgit area who had not heard of the name Balawaristan until recently. Conclusion: Balawaristan is not a widely-used term, and its use is linked to separatism/nationalism. Criticforaday 22:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "Balawaristan" seems to me to have emerged only recently, when it was chosen for a minor separatist movement. Althought they have a small web-presence, I have never heard of them in Gilgit itself.

Hindi?

I just read the language section of the article - it has no mention of Hindi. I have never been to Pakistan, however, I have met and known quite a few Pakistani people. I have always commmunicated with them in Hindi. At times, the urdu "tehzib" gets into the conversations, however, the common language is definitively Hindi. So, why does the language section omit Hindi? Or is it true that there is Hindi is not as popular to recieve an independent mention? doles 15:15, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

:) Once i also thought like this. but Linguists think of Hindi and Urdu as the same language, the difference being that Hindi is written in Devanagari (Devanāgarī) and draws vocabulary from Sanskrit, while Urdu is written in the Persian script and draws on Persian and Arabic.WiseSabre 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible. Both are the outgrowth of the Hindusthani language; the difference being that Hindi has more Sanskrit words while Urdu has more Arabic/Persian language words. But I think in Pakistan, almost no one speaks Hindi in particular. doles understood Urdu speakers the same way as an Urdu speakers would understand a Hindi speaker. :) Thanks. --Ragib 17:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Bahut khoob! Shukriya/dhanyavad! I learnt something new! So is there a wikipedia article that could be spell this for ignorants like me? doles 19:29, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Try Hindustani language for starters. Urdu language and Hindi are currently under attack by an editor who just can't accept the idea that Hindi and Urdu are one language at heart. --Skoosh 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pakistanis do not like anything to do with "Hindu" or "Hindi" or "India". Hence they will not like to say that a Pakistani speaks Hindustani, they would rather say that a Pakistani speaks a Pakistani! Little realising that the word "stan" comes from the Sanskrit root "sthal, sthan" meaning a place. The very word Pakistan has Sanskrit root which is anathema for a Pakistani.

While your first point may be valid, I am curious about your second comment, that "stan" comes from Sanskrit. Then why does Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan etc are named so? For what I know, those places are quite far away to be under the influence of Sanskrit. One thing that may be true is the pervasiveness of the Indo-European language family, of which Sanskrit is a member. --Ragib 08:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit is one of the earliest attested member of the IE language family! Ragib you might want to read up on the wikipedia page on Sanskrit!! And your contention that Afghanistan is very far away from the influence of Sanskrit? You must be joking or your reading of the wikipedia itself is very very poor or you do not want to admit that you are more Indian than Arab. Taxila or rightly Takshashila was a seat of Sanskrit learning and is located near Rawalpindi just off the NWFP. Also "Kandahar" [Corruption of word sanskrit Gandhar] near where the Bamiyan Buddhas of 4th century CE were destroyed by the Taliban is in the very heartland of Afghanistan. Note that Gandhar is mentioned as a vassal state in Mahabharata.

Actually, 'stan' is a Persian derivative for land of and is not Sanskritic in origin. You might want to look up the Avestan while you're up talking about Sanskrit. The Iranian languages are as old if not older than the Indo-Aryan tongues actually. Nor is the etymology of Kandhar at all settled at it being a corruption of Gandhar as the number of still unproven theories include it being a localized version of Alexandria. You also do realize that the Mahabharata is about as 'factual' as the Bible since much of it may simply be legends and folktales right? Names that sound similar does not equal unequivocal proof either. And for the record, this has nothing to do with the Arabs.Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-"Afghan Historian" speaking, Tombseye. Here, I'm going to agree with you, finally. Whoever said Pakistan comes from Sanskrit is deluding themselves. The root "stan" does exist in Sanskrit, however, as its an Indo-Iranian language but in a different form and the Sanskrit version of the root was definetley not the root from which "Pakistan" comes from. "Stan" is Persian. The word "Pakistan" itself, however, is not Persian, instead, it comes from the Urdu word meaning "land of the pure". Interestingly, it's also a kind of acronym for Punjab, Afghanistan, and Kashmir, I think. I'm Pakistani, I would know this. But, Tombseye, linguists have already demonstrated that Indo-Aryan languages are older in recorded form than Iranian languages. And, the Mahabharatha is not the only source of evidence about Gandhara. The Persian Achaemenids themselves referred to the region as Gandara in their inscriptions. Whether Kandahar is Gandhara or not is still doubtful, although I believe it is so, based on what I've studied. The Bible, despite being a religious work, has been used by scholars to reconstruct the ancient Middle Eastern political situation plenty of times, many times with some amount of accuracy. The Mahabharata might just as well be a similar case. The Indo-Aryans/Ancient Indians were not particularly good with record keeping so they often combined fact with fiction to create their stories and recount history. Already, we've used the Rig Veda to reconstruct much about the early lifestyle of the ancient Aryan-speaking peoples, with some accuracy. There might very well be grains of truth in the mass of legends and myths that is the Mahabharata. I wouldnt discredit it entirely, at least, not yet. -"Afghan Historian" (My real name is Khalil, however, if you want to know, Tombseye)

And funnily, Pakistanis do not also like Punjabi. Eventhough 48% speak punjabi and only 8% speak Urdu in the entire of Pakistan, they call Urdu as a national language!! What about Sindhi, Balochi, Brahmi and Pashtuni?

Depends who you talk to. Punjabis increasingly prefer Urdu that is true. There is no Pashtuni, but there is Pashto among many other languages and dialects. Urdu was chosen as a 'neutral' language and it is the lingua fraca so to speak. I can guarantee you though that the Pashtuns do not prefer to speak Urdu over Pashto. Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm overlooking the personal attacks, but you still haven't answered the question, why do central asian states like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have something in Sanskrit as part of their names? Also, you can drop the aggressive stance, I was just curious about the similarities, and asked a question. Any clear answer to that would definitely enlighten me. I have read Mahabharata and know about Gandhar being mentioned there, but the question was about the central asian nations and other places having "stan" as a suffix. As I said, I'm still curious about how this prefix ended up in central Asia. Nothing wrong in enlightening me, I may not know a lot of things in the world, no need to bite me for that. Finally, my ancestors definitely lived in South Asia for at least a few thousand years, Bengal being a melting pot of the local natives, aryans, arabs, persians etc. No need to launch any attacks on that, too. By the way, please sign your messages. Thanks. --Ragib 07:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay the list is now down to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan :-) So you do accept the fact about the "influence" on Afghanistan. Now Afghanistan was at the cross road of the silk route. One of the route led all the way from the heartland of presend day India to Europe. Naturally linguistic influences followed all the way into Europe. Buddhism travelled via the silk route into China. So there you go the influence of language and religion. That is why Sanskrit is called the root of IE language family. Also note that just as Takshashila was an eminent University of that time, Nalanda university in present day Bihar rivaled it. Coming to your contention of making a personal attack - I was geniunely surprised initially by the lack of reading. And when did Indian subcontinent became South Asia? When the partition took place? That is the problem with Pakistan, trying to reinvent new roots since they do not have yet come to terms with their own roots. And regarding anonymity, I will choose to remain anonymous as long as wikipedia allows me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.198.33 (talk • contribs)

No one hear is, including Ragib, is going to claim that Pakistan is inventing 'new roots', but are you willing to admit that Pakistan is an Indo-Iranian nation as well? The entire western area is composed of Iranian peoples. The reality is that the region that is today Pakistan is a borderland where things overlap. Secondly, you are incorrect as to the origins of 'stan. It is ancient Iranian, not Indic. As for the influences upon Afghanistan, yes indeed there is influence and the majority was probably Buddhist when the Arabs first arrived and the Kushan era statues were even more unique in that they also show the last vestiges of Greco-Bactrian influence there. Lastly, South Asia is a better term because a large chunk of Pakistan sits on the Iranian plateau which is not geologically in the subcontinent. Also, Sanskrit is NOT called the root of the IE family. It is an offshoot and is one of the earliest known IE languages that were written etc. as is the case with ancient Greek, Latin, and Avestan which all show affinities with each other and Sanskrit. THAT is the reality that any academic Indo-European studies professor will attest to. Religious influence does not always equal language. Otherwise, where are all the Aramiac speaking Christians in the world?Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You can be surprised to any fact, that's up to you. If I gain some information by asking you a question, that's my advantage, not my audacity or my loss. As I said, you don't have to bite someone to make a point, simply answering my question is enough. Regarding my mention of South Asia, the region is alternatively named so. See SAARC and many other similarly named organizations, and US/UK and other govt agencies/offices on the area. You are also free to find problems with other countries, that's your problem. As for anonymity, Wikipedia talk page etiquette asks you to leave comment signatures, you can leave signature/date stamps by ending your messages with ~~~~. Anyway, thanks again for enlightening me with some information, I'll check the relevant articles and other sources. I'm now really curious about the flow of language elements you mentioned. Wikipedia is great, everyday you learn some theories and some facts, and enhance the breadth of your knowledge. --Ragib 03:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I've heard, Hindi and Farsi (lang in Iran) have common words like paneer [1]. I also know that Afghans can understand Hindi. User:Nichalp/sg 15:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Farsi and Hindustani share ancient common origins as Indo-Iranian tongues, plus Iranian peoples were amongst the most prominent invaders of ancient India and include the Persians, Scythians, etc.Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I have heared many afghans speaking urdu.i think they might have learned in Pakistan.they usually change the genders.its always intersting to hear there Urdu.there are many words of persian in urdu and for some time people in this sub continent knew persin very well. Indian sub continent has produced many great persian poets like Allama Iqbal.Urdu speaking people can unerstand the little persian.(i my self contibute to the persian ,urdu and arabic wikipedia ,i can easily get the plot in persian but arabic is more harder for me to understand).

Afghan refugees became quite multilingual (and they were already) when they came to Pakistan and Iran. They had to adapt. Arabic is much tougher because Arabic is a Semitic language whereas Urdu and Persian have a lot of links and similarites with most of the influence going from Persian to Urdu. Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu differ mainly in their higher vocabularies. What isn't commonly realised by many people is that the languages across a wide area of Pakistan, northern India and Bangladesh are actually very closely related. It is often better to describe a series of related dialects than languages. The main reason Urdu is regarded as a separate language is some of the vocabulary and the Arabic-based alphabet. Where I am from, we actually speak several related languages - Jhelumi, Potowari, Majhi-Panjabi (the language of the middle Panjab around Lahore and Amritsar) and Urdu. We can easily communicate with almost anyone from Peshawar (e.g. Hindko) to Bihar (Awadhi). Contrary to what one user claims, we have immense pride in speaking both Panjabi and Urdu. The reason for Urdu being the national language is that it does not identify with one particular ethnic group but it is mutually intelligible with most languages in Pakistan.

A request to serious editors

Due to the continous vandlism of User:Truth aspirant-- the article Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman has become a ‘business-propaganda-feature’ rather an ‘encyclopedic article.’ Just see history of the article [[Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and Talk:Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman page--You are requested to take intrest in this serious editorial issue and make things straight in this global phenomena (Wikipedia). Thanx. Wiki4u 878

Flag image

My crude drawing in SVG

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I was wondering if this drawing of the Pakistan flag is correct. Thank you. Zach (Sound Off) 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going ahead and replacing all Pakistani flags with this SVG image, and yall can join in if you want to. Zach (Sound Off) 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What are your reasons for replacing? The current flag image seems satisfactory already. Yours is slightly darker though. Well go for it if you feel confident. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Lately, Wikipedia has aqquired the ability to upload images in the SVG. We can scale these SVG images to any size we need without losing image quality. I was told that all flag images need to be drawn in SVG, so I am complying with their request. While the colors of the flag I chosen were darker, these were the shades used by the Government of Pakistan on their flags. Zach (Sound Off) 04:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No losing image quality? Well, I'm satisfied. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonym, see User:Zscout370/Sandbox#Pakistsan flag test as an example of this "lossless quality." Zach (Sound Off) 04:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please someone correct the flag (I'm too ashamed even to suggest correction!) The panel dimensions are wrong. The position of the heraldic star and the waning crescent is wrong. The size and tilt of the crescent is way wrong. The co-ordinates on which crescent and star are placed are wrong. The color green's shade is wrong. Post it right or don't, please. And kindly spare the "why don't you do it if you know it" because there seem to be many here who claim to be authority on such a vast number of areas, so let's see if someone here really knows the correct flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.97.100 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you register with whatever name you want (that isn't already taken) and save yourself all that pain of getting your signatures right?Tommstein 14:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the CIA World Factbook's version of it: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/flags/pk-flag.html.Tommstein 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of the CIA, why not use the authoritative reference from the Government of Pakistan :p

                     http://www.infopak.gov.pk/flag/flag_description.html

Foreign relations

It's a bit weird how this section has no mention of Pakistan's relationship with India, which probably is the nost important part of its foreign relations.

Lack of References

Maybe one reason why this article seems to come short in some aspects (and sometimes controversial) is probably attributable to the fact that there are no sources. I suggest that editors who have been working on this add them to improve the credibility aspect for future readers. Idleguy 12:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article comes up short. It may have some key points of weakness which we can discuss and research, but overall it is fairly accurate. I think the main reason for "controversy", frankly, is because many Indians prefer to see Pakistan's history as written subordinate to or as a part of "India" which according to an interesting article written by an Indian historian in a book I recently read called 'Religion and Peacekeeping' (ed. by Harold Coward, but can't remember individual writers names) arguable did not exist as a "nation" until modern times. That's just one guy. Arnold Toynbee believes the same and considers Pakistan an overlapping region similar to Turkey. We're all writing from the vantage point of modern-nation states and how they came to be as they are today. The sources are the other articles that corroborate, otherwise the article would come-up "short." In fact, read each linked word and see if what the history article claims is true or false. We might as well hold a higher standard to every single history article at wikipedia since most do not reference much of anything. In addition, there aren't many citations at the History of India article that I can discern, which seems to view the 8 centuries of Muslim rule as worthy of a scant paragraph while every other period receives in-depth analysis. Not to mention treating the Rigveda as history, which is kind of liking using the Bible for the same purpose even though for example there is no archaeological evidence that Moses existed. How about you explain what parts you don't think are correct and we can go from there? Tombseye 09:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

See why Wikipedia:Cite sources is relevant? I've not been editing this article until very recently and there seems to have been issues with this article in the past. I was merely pointing that the best way of resolving them forever is to have credible sources. There were some glaring errors like stating in the History section that Hyderabad Deccan is still disputed. And the economy section would reveal that there are few sources for figures and facts. Infact the reference section was started days ago by me just so that there can be a greater amount of credibility instead of believing it to be up to the mark or otherwise. And if the article were truly not coming up short, it should have been a Featured article. It has a long way to go there and I thought I could do something to make it FA considering India, Nepal and Bhutan already are in the English language Wikipedia (Sri Lanka is a FA in Tamil language edition. --Idleguy 10:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you make a very good point regarding Hyderabad for example. I have no idea who would insert that it is still disputed as that's just nuts. I misunderstood where you were coming from and I now think you have a valid argument. It gets difficult to keep track of the edits. I'm going to go over the history section again and add some references as well and make sure glaring mistakes such as the one you pointed out do not creep back in. The Featured articles sometimes leave something to be desired in my opinion, but again you make a good case. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Tombseye 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

5 million Hindu, Sikhs Muslims killed in Pakistan's creation?

Can someone please find me any written record of death toll (combined) of Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims to match the idiotic total of 5 million. The total death toll of WW2 in 8 million direct and indirect casulties included.

The commucal roits in India lasted for week. During the week of 14th August all trains were directed to run in bound to Pakistan to bring in Muslims of India to Pakistan - and the official british death toll of the incidents of MUSLIM CASULTIES is 470,000 - where as the Pakistan government claims it to be over a million on the basis of those left behind.

The official british and Indian figures of Hindu casulties is in tens of thousands. So I do not understand where does the Vendalistic mis-statement of fact comes from that 1 to 5 million Muslims Hindus and Sikhs died.

Secondly, why do our fellow Indian friends are so interested in the Pakistan page they are more than welcome to go and mis-state death counts on their own countries page.

If you don't mind can you stop rewriting history? Hyderabad Deccan is still disputed? Are you in the 1950s? :) And Udampur is just one of hundreds of places in the Indian Kashmir and when Kashmir the region is mentioned, there is no reason to dwell on each and every village, hamlet and town of Kashmir as disputed.

The casualties of the partition vary. People claim from as low as 250,000 to 5 million. Actually there's been little data on the exact casualties of each religion, and the line clearly states estimates from 1- 5 million accordingly. It does not matter which page in Wikipedia, but the facts remain the same. Tx Idleguy 16:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The History section is supposed to be a brief overview

There is the History of Pakistan which covers the history in-depth and then there is the lead-up page that is now being expanded for some reason I cannot fathom! I'm going to shorten it back as it's absurd to retread as the History of Pakistan section is already accused of repeating information. Tombseye 06:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the section and re-added some information that was removed. Not much has changed, but it is definitely longer in ancient history section and a lot shorter in information about political systems. I would like all users who are thinking of making so many major edits to please discuss this first.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss this. The links provided can be accessed to attain more information about various events in the history overview section. the Partition of British india refers to the communal riots in detail for example. Mentioning things without massive explanation is preferable as this article is already much longer than most country articles. A lot of it is superfluous and repeated information too. For example saying at the beginning caption that Pakistan is a centre of ancient history events is again repeated in the history overview section and then in the History of Pakistan article. The top caption is to give an overview of the modern state and not superfluous info. that is repeated ad nauseum later. It would help to stream-line things and leave those who want to know more with links to other articles. The history of Pakistan section discusses everything and more that the short overview does so what's the point? Also, the pictures of forts etc. has little to do with context or history and why are minor tribes like the Ghakars important to mention since they are largely a regional group? These are all problems with this article that make it unappealing and too cumbersome. Many people will simply gloss over it anyway, whereas if it was shorter and written better, people would get the gist of much more information and also have the opportunity to check out linked items. These are my main points of contention here as I don't see why information has to be repeated over and over again. There needs to be clear delineation. Tombseye 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tombseye that the article has too much details on history. Also, the number of external links of the article is horribly long!!! It has degraded to a list of links to stuff like TV channels and university websites. --Ragib 20:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. However, most info was added yesterday by a new user. Also I think it is fine for now as long as it doesn't get any longer. I will try to shorten it later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up here Ragib. Also, regarding the addition of images, how about people limit them and possibly add more to related articles which often need a lot of work instead? For example, some of the images selected are really bland and random, whereas if there was one spectacular image chosen and limited to one or two sections, the article would look much better. Also, I believe the section on Pakistan's mass media probably should have its own article at this rate as the massive number of external links further dilutes the overall presentation as Ragib correctly points out. I could be wrong, but this article may be longer than the one on the United States and is definitely bigger than the article on China at this point! And not in a good way either. Tombseye 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree with you tombseye in most things, and I agree with Ragib about links. I will work on cutting down the links sections later. About pictures, however, I think that we should try to have more images as possible in the needed areas, but yes they should be limited to certain sections. So the Derawar fort picture should stay until we can find better ones. Btw, I wasn't arguing with you I was actually agreeing that anon IPs and new users who have edited this article, should discuss their edits. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Anonym. The main problem is presentation. The article still looks too disparate and sloppy. The pictures should be relevant (forts are fine, but how are they relevant to the say the historic events discussed?) and better than some of the selections we've seen lately. Also, what's interesting is that while people are adding to the main article on Pakistan, no one wants to add to the connecting articles, which, theoretically, should be where you can find in-depth information. We need to compare this article to the presentation of articles like the one on the United States or the United Kingdom for example which are much more presentable and accessible while having as much information as possible. The wording could be re-done, but people just seem to want analysis which, frankly, reduces the article's quality in my opinion as there should be overviews and links to in-depth articles in a useful encyclopedia. Less is more in this case I'd say. Thanks. Tombseye 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Economic History - table probably confusing for most

The section titled "Recent economic history and trends" had the following table:

Sectoral contribution to GDP Growth (in % point)
Sector	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05
Agriculture	0.03	1.01	0.53	1.74
Industry -Manufacturing	0.61 1.71	1.08 1.11	2.74 2.31	2.46 2.19
Service	2.47	2.75	3.16	4.16
Real GDP (fc)	3.1 %	4.8 %	6.4 %	8.4 %
Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005 [2]

I have a good understanding of economics and statistics, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me what this table was saying. I had to go to the source, read it in context, and then figure it out. The table shows that - unlike the usual developing-country growth spurts, which are basically a matter of luck, being driven by bumper crops as a result of good weather - Pakistan's extraordinary 8.4% growth was largely non-agricultural. The source document doesn't say this explicitly - you would have to have some knowledge of developmental economics to get it.

Although it makes a good point, I removed the table because I think the vast majority of readers wouldn't understand it - it's wasted space here. How about using a graphic (pie chart) instead? 68.252.207.111 17:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call. I briefly checked out the link to the table and gotta agree with your assessment. Hopefully it won't get re-added as so often happens even when you make valid deletions here.Tombseye 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Link explosion!!

Now this has become just a directory page of all things vaguely related to Pakistan. With so many external links, taking up almost 20% of the article page, the whole article looks like a list of pages, along with some content at the top. I propose getting rid of all the links, except the Government of Pakistan pages. Thanks. --Ragib 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that there can be a separate page made for extra links. Some of the links like the ones to university websites can be useful. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the university website links, those are appropriate for the article Universities in Pakistan (if that article exists) or Education in Pakistan. The main page should not point to each and every university webpage. Thanks. --Ragib 18:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with moving the links. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree. The sheer number of links makes the article looking like spammer's paradise. Pavel Vozenilek 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation of Name

I was under the impression that Pakistan translated as "Pure Land" rather than "Land of the Pure" as stated in the article. Am I mistaken, or is the article incorrect? Nik42 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the correct translation of Pakistan is "Land of the Pure". Pak means "Pure". Stan means "Land". If you translate it word for word it comes out to be "Pure Land" . Ali 786 January 2, 2006 16:15

Vandalism

Vandalism by 205.221.1.21, probably an Indian, has been reverted many times. It advisable for him to stop vandalizing Pakistan related pages. -- User:Siddiqui 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way Siddiqui, I'm not Indian. And, I only made changes on one Pakistan-related page, to rid it of POV. Some complaints have also been filed on the "History of Pakistan" page concerning POV, but I've done no work on that one, particularly to avoid accusations like yours. I also do work to rid the India page of its own POV, however without much success, as nationalists keep deleting the Aryan and Achaemenid invasion from the main page's history section. No hard feelings. Template:Unisigned

My comments are directed at 205.221.1.21. If you are the same person then please say so. Your 205.221.1.8 is similar to 205.221.1.21. User:Siddiqui 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-I meant "Afghan Historian", which is me, is not Indian. And many people do agree with me that the history section, particularly the Pre-colonial history section is strongly POV. Remember that modern political concepts should not be used to change history. Pakistan may have had some regional distinction from the rest of the subcontinent but so did all other regions as well(ie: South India). And no, I'm not proposing Partition was wrong. Most non-biased South Asia scholars, aside from Oxford, will tell you that the region today known as Pakistan was socially, culturally, racially(to a certain extent), linguistically, and often religiously tied more to South Asia and often Central Asia with some influence from the Middle East, mostly through an Indic prism. Many commentators other than myself, have also made similar arguments on the History of Pakistan, and have complained of vandalism as well as getting blocked. To avoid this, I will no longer make changes on the main Pakistan page and will just discuss on the discussion and let someone else try instead, to avoid getting blocked myself. That's all I'm going to say and your welcome to disagree with me. "Afghan Historian"(I'm just an amateur historian and I have some Pashtun ancestry.)

I do repect your point of view but at the same time would appreciate that we discuss the different point of views rather than first making reverts.

User:Siddiqui 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a historic basis for this?

"The Aryan invaders instituted the Caste system to enslave the native population and the aborigine tribes. This apartheid system prohibited intermarriage and relegated the natives into low caste untouchables while elevating the status of Aryan invaders."

I was wondering if there is any historical proof/evidence for the above. If not, should this not be removed? 82.24.246.148 12:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Raghu

Hello, I just read that myself and there are a lot of problems with these theories. First, the Munda people reference requires a citation as there is not really any evidence that I've heard of that supports their presence. Also, no one knows if the Indus Valley was Dravidian as that's just a theory and usually the correct term is Elamo-Dravidian as a hypothetical group between the Elamites in Iran and the Dravidians in India, but none of this is proven as no one has deciphered the Indus Valley script. Secondly, the caste system probably emerged much later, but not in what is today Pakistan. I read in the Oxford History of India was that it is believed by many academics (including Indian historian Romila Thapar) that Hinduism emerged not along the Indus, but along the Ganges and that later the caste system came about. Also, many now believe that terminology referring to the Dravidians as Dasa is actually incorrect and may in fact be a reference to rival early Indo-Aryan tribes OR even Iranian tribes in Afghanistan before the Indo-Aryans left Afghanistan and they may have referred to the Iranians as such since they had a different religion etc. Regardless, the usage and relation of this ancient history as fact is very questionable and I think it should be reworded back to how I left it not because I'm claiming some inside knowledge, but I believe what I wrote is more verifiable and common information that is more probable, although the exact location of the Vedic civilization is also largely hypothetical and based upon guesswork. Tombseye 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many arguments that the languages belonging to Munda family were also widespread in lands that constitute modern Pakistan. The Dravidian invaded from Iranian plateau and were most probably the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. The Aryan invaders instituted the Caste system to enslave the native population and the aborigine tribes. This apartheid system prohibited intermarriage and relegated the natives into low caste untouchables while elevating the status of Aryan invaders. This is also evident as the scheduled castes and tribes are the untochables or Harijans. The intermarriage between the castes or even subcaste is prohibited. Many Indian related pages state that Aryan "settled" in South Asia while the Muslim "invaded". This issue of who "invaded" and who "settled" must be discussed. In my view, both invaded first and then settled in South Asia. Why this double standard exists in India related pages ? Thanks.

User:Siddiqui 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sisodia's unprofessional comments

Sisodia reverted my contribution and added this comment:

02:45, 9 January 2006 Sisodia (→Arrival of Islam - Muhammad Bin Kasim's army went to Kashmir? Pakistani Bros this is Wikipedia, not the Quaid-e-Azam Govt Higher Secondary School of Faisalabad.)

I will also reply to him in the same language but first I want to give him an oppurtunity to rethink his statement. User:Siddiqui 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

be cool man, not need to reply him in this manner. sisodia (talk · contribs · block log) had already been once block of this sort of behaviour. dnt get yourself blocked.Wisesabre 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)