Talk:History of India

Archives: 1

Classification of Periods

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

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

Photographs

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

Dinesh Kannambadi

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

How come many of the images were recently removed?

---

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

---

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

Spurious edit

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

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

"Epic Age"

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

Where are the Achaemenids and Alexander the Great?

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

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

Vijayanagara Empire now under Late Middle Kingdoms of India section

need discussion on this, if necessary...

Pizzadeliveryboy 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Article changes

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

Indonesia

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

IAM

Hi:

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

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it accepted? Many scholars seem to challenge it. Like the guy who edited it said, mention it is a theory. Vastu 08:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The theory is being used as a propaganda tool in India, so, sure, you'll find all sorts of polemics about it. If you look at it with a cool head, it's not a big deal. Nobody claims "mass migration", and much of Indian culture may well be rooted in the IVC, so nobody claims Indian culture was imported from Central Asia or anything. Just the languages had to get there somehow, didn't they? This may have been a tiny superstratum, like 5% of the indigenous inhabitants of Gandhara installing itself in say 1800 BC. The debate should be about how this linguistic influence manifested itself without dragging it onto political turf all the time. The Indus valley was invaded all the time, by Greeks, Persians, Sakas, etc. etc, why is this particular instance such a big deal? dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are preaching to the saints here, but the reason so much fuss is probably made out of this is because there are still political parties, etc, that promote some kind of Dravidian/Aryan divide, even today, making it all the more important that people are correctly educated. Vastu 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Durrani Empire

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

Yes, although many other invaders do not have their own sections, including the Huns. Vastu 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the information about Ahmad Shah Durrani is confused with Nadir Shah. For example, Koh-i-Noor was taken by Nadir shah (after his invasion of india). After the assassination of Nadir Shah in 1747 it came into the hands of Ahmad Shah. Bidabadi 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mahajanapadas

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

stub

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

Pseudo-history

First sentence of the inrtoduction: "The history of India can be traced in fragments to as far back as 700,000 years ago." This will be news the majority of anthropologists. PiCo 01:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

" According to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 BCE and 1500 BCE. Their inter-mingling with the earlier Dravidian cultures apparently resulted in classical Indian culture as we know today." ----- I want to ask from this sentence written in article which says that current Indian culture is intermingling of Aryans and earlier Dravidian culture. Were aryans coming in very small fraction of original Indians were so much capable that that could generate present Indian culture throughout North & Central India leaving only four states of South India.This is said via intermingling. Aryans coming to India were so much in population so as to evenly intermingle throughout North & Central Indian sub-continent. They were living nomadic or semi-nomadic type life style. There are presently many nomadic tribes in India having good population ( % can be same as Aryans coming to past Indian subcontinent ). But urban or village dwelling Indians are never impressed with their primitive culture. So, similarly ancient Indians leaving in planned towns , seaports or villages over very huge area of India and who were Merchants ( as they were having export business as evident from planned sea-ports of vast Indus civilization ) ,Artists ( making so many different types of arts from painting ,pottery , cotton cloth making & dyeing, making small metal statues, making different ornaments from gold-silver & others ) and farmers ( reaping rich crops )  ; how they can intermingle with nomadic type living Aryans.

Britishers have ruled full Indian sub-continent, they were not nomads. They were rulers having much much more political power than nomad type aryans who were just migrants like parsis ( zorastrians from Iran ) coming to India. So, it is impossible to impart such a culture throughout past India so fast that it feels dramatic when thought. Not only culture but language of Indo-European type over vast area of India so quickly ( max. within 500 years as per Aryan hyposis ) that even south Indians adopted their vedic religion. South India started using Sanskrit direct or based on it words heavily. Not only North but also South India adopted their Sanskrit language as religious language.South Indians were chanting Sanskrit mantra and their languages are also heavily contains Sanskrit direct or based words - except current Tamil language as Tamilians deliberately removed Sanskrit based words from Tamil after Aryan Invasion Theory was proposed in 1850's.

Sanskrit ( so called Aryan language ) not having traces in their supposed homeland area in Steppes. So, it must have been formulated to currently known status of Sanskrit language from so called PIE in Indian sub-continent with very advanced grammatical & phonetical characterisitc typical of Sanskrit. But same features are also found only in Europe's extreme western language Lithuanian. Why so called Indo-European language family's both ends are showing very close affinity in word constuction, typical grammer, phonetics etc. leaving the middle languages and not giving their typical charactristics. This is totally impossible to occur independently if you know both the languages' characteristics.

WIN 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What? "advanced grammatical & phonetical characteristics"? No one language can ever be anymore "advanced" than any other. Sanskrit is certainly a most beautiful language, but that is more the result of Pāṇini's work in the 3rd century BC than through natural language change. And Lithuania is not in the extreme west of Europe at all; see the map on the nation's page. The similarities between the two languages are mostly a result of the fact they once shared a sprachbund; the area of satemization that affected a series of shared sound changes in the Indo-Iranian (of which Sanskrit is a member) and Balto-Slavic (of which Lithuanian is a member) proto-languages. These sound changes are not reconstructed for having occured in an earlier Proto-Indo-European context due to their absence in other branches. Putting the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages so close to each other is not mere conjecture either; there is infact an Indo-Iranian language still spoken in the Caucasus, in South Russia, to this day: The Ossetic language. The Ossetian language is unique enough to clearly not be a result of recent migration, but close enough to be classified as specifically Indo-Iranian. It is the sole survivor of a large language continuum that spread across central asia, but which was replaced in historical times by the expansion of Turkic speaking cultures from the east. Your dismissal of the Aryan migration is a bit confused as well - the Aryans where not just nomads, they would have been as much a part of the Central Asian and Indian city state cultures as the post-Harrapan "native" Indians where. The advantage the Aryans had was simple: animals. Pastoralism is in many ways, especially to an early bronze age culture, much more efficient than crop based food production. Their culture of animal rearing would have been very attractive to the peoples of the Indus Valley, especially following the drought that led to the collapse of their agriculture based society. The people of the Indus valley would most likely not have been "reaping rich crops" as you put it. Concerns about "civilization" would have become irrelevent; the need for food outweighs cultural imperalism. And with the reliance of the pre-Aryan inhabitants on the Aryan food production methods, the distinction between "nomadic" and "settled" would have blurred very quickly. The Aryan way of life, in all it's forms, found it's way into India. Intermarriage and cultural exchange occured; the "intermingling" you took issue at. This initial intermingling, of course, wasn't what led to Sanskrit being spoken all over North India. What it led to, however, was the roots of the Vedic civilization, which subsequently grew to have a tremendous influence over the whole of the sub-continent, through it's culture and society, through it's language, and through it's religion. There's nothing bizarre or unexpected about what happened with the Indus Valley peoples and the Aryans. We've seen it happen many times, even in recorded history. One case is that of the Byzantium empire in Anatolia, where supposedly "barbarian" peoples, the Turks, become so ingrained into a civilization that they found their culture becoming dominant. Anatolia is now known as "Turkey", and speaks the Turkish language, because of that cultural change. --Krsont 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Sanskrit is a most beutiful language" as also told by you above - how any language becomes beutiful when language is not any woman. Language is called beutiful from it's construction point of view, due to Sanskrit's grammatical structure which is purely very logical & mathematical, Sanskrit's ability to construct new words, the unique phonetic characteristics which is only possible in Sanskrit & daughter Indian languages ( if you can read Sanskrit script then you can pronounce exactly it without knowing that Sanskrit word which is not possible in English like languages - one example `Cut' and `Put' - both are written in the same way but pronounced differently - this is biggest drawback of English type languages. That's why Indian people do not require phonetics to learn. It's interwoven in their language so easily that European scholars were amazed by Sanskrit when they came to know first via Arab scholars. It's same as number system of 1 to 9 and concept & number of 0 `zero' and decimal system. Now everybody find it so casual that we forget it's unique importance and that it was only Indians ( not babylonians, greeks,romans - e.g. X for 10 and XX for twenty , egypticians etc. ) who were able to develop this unique mathematics which was the main foundation for Europe's Industrial revolution. )

And, Baltic language area of Lithuania is at western shore of Europe mainland and not in middle of Europe.

Panini has just codified Sanskrit grammer in Algebric type of rules which is unique in the world and smallest also. He has not developed already in use Sanskrit grammer.And, by the way if you know anything about TRUE Indian history then you should be knowing that during 600 - 500 BC of Mahavir & Budhdha's time Sanskrit was no more common language of people. Already Prakrit languages like Pali & Ardhamagadhi were speken by people. So, to prevent natural changes in Sanskrit ( which is very common in the world languages and that's why they are not same from origin time to current status. One e.g. English ) Due to Panini's rules , Sanskrit has not changed till today. Sanskrit as a language has not evolved but was already in vey high format. That's why Sanskrit verses reciting with exact pronunciation was very important and very much stressed upon. That's why you have all vedas still intact without any sound change. As Sanskrit was already in it's best form , so any sound change or speaking error was told as degradation ( called Apbhransh in Sanskrit ). If we take Aryan supporter's words then Sanskrit developed & died ( died in language of common people's sense ) within 500 - 700 years. And, this time period is very very small for language like Sanskrit. Even, scholars agree that to create vast knowledge & deep thinking as revered in Sanskrit scriptures is not at all possible in small time frame as told by Max Muller & supporters.

Your Aryans having animals as big plus point over Indus Valley civilization really shows that what limited knowledge or thinking or logic you have. You are telling as if Indus Valley people were not having any animals or having scarcity of animals. Indus valley civilization could feed upto 5 milloin people and having surplus ( without agricultural surplus there can not be any trading / manufacturing people ). This civilization was largest of all prevalent civilizations in terms of area & population. How they were doing farming ? Must be using some tractors instead of bulls as there was scarcity of animals as told by you !!! And with bulls naturally comes cows.They are revered in Rig-Ved as Saraswati river giving milk and dairy products. But when `so called' aryans came to India , Saraswati river was completely dried up. So, how `so called' aryans' cattle ( not millions but atleast in thousands - who came `flying' crossing High Mountains of Himalayas as there are no archeological finds of them ) survived in dried Saraswati river area. Indus Valley civilization's people started migrating in all directions when Saraswati river started strinking in length & width much before 1900 BC when it completely dried up from Indian soil. That's why you find non-ocean going two rivers in Afghanistan & Iran naming Harahvaiti ( Saraswati's pronunciation shifting from `S' to `H' )

India is having world's highest no. of animals. And, as per your logic cows , bulls , buffalos and even horses as previously asserted by Aryan Invasion theory supporters must have come from Steppes. Then Indus Valley civilization's people must be using tractors for farming as you implied above !!! There are so many points which I can elaborate but you can find them on the net.

Turks were famous ruthless invasioners and `so called' Aryans were migrationers as per current model prevailing among this theory supporter. Invasion model is past. Turkey example would have been good at that time !!!

Why Pastoral nomad `Aryans' require to develop sophisticated Astronomy for cattle rearing. You can find present Astronomy of Indians totally based on Sanskritic nomenclature also mentioned in Rig-Ved. So as per Aryan Theory , this Sanskrit name based Astronomy must be given by Aryans. So this PIE based Astronomical names must be found in Steppes region as this names must have developed in pastoral steppes !!! But strangely this is not the case at all. Then if previous so called Indus Valley dwelling people had developed it then why they will give Sanskrit based astronomical names when they do not know Sanskrit only. And, do not tell that " Intermingling" was so effective that they found "very attractive" to use Sanskrit nomenclature like above mentioned Animal rearing.

Advanced astronomy would be required by Agricultural society for getting exact time of raining which is fix in India, due to South West Monsoon winds. Only India has Monsoon mechanishm and not steppes. Astronomy will be required in Navigation which Indus Valley civilization's traders would require for export purpose.

You first gain some knowledge in this matter or develop some logic before speaking anything about it.

WIN 06:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that Aryan animals came to be used in the Indus Valley, just that their pastoral methods did - and if we look at modern Indian cattle, we find that they descend entirely from cattle domesticated seperately in India, not from the Central Asian stock the Aryans in Afghanistan and the surround area would have used. What was adopted was the Aryan way of life, not their genetics - whether through cows or people. And yes, the Indus river was dry, (erroneously labeled Sarasvati - the Vedic Sarasvati is more likely to be the Helmud in Afghanistan) but that was entirely the reason for the switch to pastoralism. The steppes are also a dry place, but pastoralism succeeded there where crop based food production could not. The Aryans would also not have needed "sophisticated astronomy" to rear cattle. Just a basic understanding of the cycle of the year, for which there are ample reconstructions for in Proto-indo-European. Infact, astronomy is much more important for agriculture - hence it's later development in Sanskrit speaking Vedic India, when agriculture became a viable solution again. And I'm glad you mentioned the monsoon - yet another reason why the intermingling would have to have happened. Vital information like that would have to have been shared between the two groups. I'd also disagree with your dismissal of the Turks as "ruthless invasioners"; their culture spread as much by peaceful means as it did millitarily. Even in modern times we see that Central Asia is a mixture of Iranian and Turkic genetics and culture, with mostly Turkic languages in the north and Iranian in the south. The same sort of thing happened in India. --Krsont 13:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"erroneously labeled Sarasvati - the Vedic Sarasvati is more likely to be the Helmud in Afghanistan" - Dear first brush up your knowledge and don't write anything. If Rig - Vedic Saraswati river is Helmund then where are Yamuna and Shutudri ( Satluj ) and other rivers Sapta Sindhu big ( Seven rivers ) rivers and Ganga river. Please find them also in Afghanistan. And, Sindhu ( Indus ) never was a dry river as written above as it still flows. And, why Hindus are still reciting Saraswati river's name in Sanskrit verse form alongwith other big Indian rivers like Ganga, Yamuna , Godavari , Sindhu , Kaveri ( while taking daily bath ) if Saraswati was never ever an Indian holy & big river or as said in Rig-Ved - biggest & mightiest of all Sapta Sindhu rivers.

You are telling past assertions which are absurd in today's context. I urge you & all others to go through `Discuss' pages of Aryan Invasion Theory and Indo-Aryan Migration. There are written ample for your kind of people to increase knowledge in this matter or about your pseudoism.

Pastoralism will not be possible in any desert so as Indian desert.But Agriculture is still very much possible in neighbouring richly fertile Indus Civilization areas of Punjab,Haryana and Gujarat. So during that drying of Saraswati river time , there were neighbouring areas of Indus Valley civilization which were & are richly fertile due to other big rivers. Drying of any big & mightly river will be very gradual process and not overnite or within some 100 - 200 years and desertification of Rajashthan will be very very slow process which is even not possible within 100 - 200 years but 1000 - 2000 years atleast which was one reason of Saraswati river ending in Desert and not in Ocean which is mentioned in Mahabharat. So, Mahabharat must have been composed & associated with Iran & Afghan as per your logic !!!!!!! ( but some way it is; via Gandhari - princess of Gandhar - mother of Kauravs who faught Great war of Mahabharat and Afghanistan was part of Ancient India ) In Mahabharat Ghandhari is called upon as Arya nari ( Arya woman - means Noble & Virtueus woman ) and never ever his son Duryodhan who was non-vertueus or not noble as a person. So, you can understand that in Sanskrit scriptures term `Arya' is always called upon as respect gesture to Noble persons and not with their Non-Noble children. So to find some Aryan race or lineage in it is biggest joke ( or rather mis-guide ) of 19th century which is still hanging on you.

Greek Historians ( check Pliny's writings about India ) coming with Alexander to ancient India ( that area is modern Pakistan ), have mentioned that Indians are having calender going back to more than some 6,000 years ( this was noted around 350 BC ).Then how come modern Western Scholars are not teaching the world about India's ancient astronomical advances which would be first in the world ( older than Mesopotamia. But India should not be credited that was mantra of that time's British rulers ). And, that time also Indians were not having any memory of some Aryan nomadic people coming to India and giving language, religion, caste system, advanced astronomy knowledge etc. to original Indians as it is not present even in Greek records. These ancient greek historians mind was not plagued like Max Muller and their followers. So, their written records should be believed who met ancient Indians and appreciated India & her people with amaze and not 1850's British Empire paid servants like Max Muller who has written baseless things about `aryans' which are not having any proofs and who has written twisted translation or mis-interpreted Rig-Ved.

Man, have some common sense or gather some info before writing here.

WIN 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Krsont knows very well what he is talking about. While you appear to be regurgitating propaganda which, believe me, Wikipedia talkpages are already full of, no need to add another layer. Of course the Mahabharata was composed in India, that was more than 1500 years after the migration.[ THEN HOW BUDHDHA & MAHAVIR DURING 600 BC - 500 BC KNOWS OF MAHABHARAT.THEN I URGE YOU TO SHIFT DATES OF BOTH !!!!! -- by WIN ] If the Helmand was the Sarasvati of the early Rigveda (which is not certain, but a serious possibility. I wouldn't say "likely" here, but "possibly"), the name would have been transferred to an Indian river before 1200 BC. It was only after another millennium that the epics were composed. Migrating peoples take their toponyms with them, the USA is full of them (e.g. Zurich vs. Zurich, Kansas) dab (ᛏ) 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not feed trolls. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dab, just read what Krsont and I have written , understanding each words properly and then tell me. Your Zurich example is what can be told by me that when desert ending Saraswati river ( during Mahabharat time or before ) made migration of ancient Indians in every directions , they found similar non-ocean ending rivers in Afghan & Iran and that's why Saraswati name was given to them also - in memory of their ancient Indian river. So, people shifting to new places ( this new place should be non or scarcely - populated and culture should not be deep rooted as it was in U.S.A. when Zurich name was given to Kansas city. Now , you can not change that city name from people's mind easily. ) Same way when Saraswati river when started shrinking in width and it was no longer mightiest river as mentioned in Rig-Ved and this was before Mahabharat time as that time Saraswati river was ending in desert instead of sea, ancient Indians started migrating towards North-West and reached Afghan & Iran's non-ocean going river and named it Saraswati. Saraswati river's mention in Rig-Ved and Mahabharat are not my speculations like some Aryan Theory but it is clearly mentioned in it that way. This can not be mis-interpreted or mis-represented.

If Mahabharat is written in India then why it mentions desert ending drying Saraswati river. If Helmund or Iran's Harahvaiti river is original Saraswati then Mahabharat should be MahaAfghan or MahaIran. And, what about Saraswati's full dried riverbed findings after American Satellite pictures.

Man , Saraswati was an Indian river is accepted by scholars. Come out from past and gather current latest info.

This shows that Western people who have not read Indian scriptures thoroughly and then asserting it his belief without any logic. READ POINTS PROPERLY & LOGICALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT TIME FRAME.

And, Mahabharat was not written in `so called' Epic Age during 1000-500 BC and if this is pure story came from some person's mind then why that person ( i.e. Ved Vyas ) is required to give astronomical positions of Sun, Moon,planats, nakshtra ( stars constellations ) , ecllipse , bright comet etc. all astronomical things at the time of starting of Mahabharat war. In India, you will find so many places associated with Mahabharat or Ramayan and that places are revered still today as that particular place from Mahabharat or Ramayan. There are no clash literally between people about that association and nor geographically also. Means Kurukshetra is in Haryana and not in U.P. or M.P. Panchvati is in Nasik not in Punjab or Tamilnadu. Rameshwar at Tamilnadu shore not in Kerala or Maharashtra shore. There are many many places like this. But to understand , you should know Indian scriptures first.Otherwise it will be all going above your head and still you will assert the same old stuff.

And, you western people still trying to find some Troy ! For you, Mahabharat or Ramayan's so many places perfect association ( sometimes with same old names carried perfectly till today ) is some fabricated epic story. Then what Saraswati river is doing in Rig-Ved and Mahabharat ( supposed to have been composed around 1500 BC - 500 BC - as per Aryan Theory ) when there some big Indian river was already totally dried atleast before 1800 BC as found by geologists.

PERFECT PSEDOISM !!!

WIN 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro cleanup

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

Use of BCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of India and Republic of India

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

vkvora 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

History of Poverty and Mumbai Bomb Blast 711

Is there any relation between History of Poverty and Mumbai Bomb Blast 711.

vkvora 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan

Click here

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

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

Vastu 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country

• http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099

India 6th most dangerous country for kids: Poll

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

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

The facts that have been taken into account for the poll survey include the children involved in armed conflict, the psychological trauma experienced by children caught up in violence, the children living in poverty and forced to work to support themselves and their families and malnutrition among children, the minister said.

vkvora 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is Northern Uganda a country now?

Many unreferenced statements

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

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

Chandragupta Maurya's pic

Looks like its been taken from the Amar Chitra Katha comic. Wouldnt it be appropriate to replace it with a pic of Ch.Maurya in battle fatigues or on the throne or something like that instead of an illustration where he is being taken prisoner(guess this is how the story starts in the comic.... aah.. nostalgia). Just a thought. Sarvagnya

If only one can find such a pic which meets wikipedia's upload criteria ! Shushruth 03:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The existing pic is scanned from the comic. If anybody has the comic, all we need to do is scan a different pic from the same comic.Sarvagnya

the use of a comic book rendering of a historical figure is inappropriate in an encyclopeadia, especially as used here -where its use is not particularly necessary, the likeness is not a contemporary one, the caption of "artist's impression" gives no inkling of how accurate this impression is and what it's based on. Doldrums 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Amar Chitra KAtha are generally ok sources. I believe I may have this one in my collection.Bakaman 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

recent genetic evidence

“ Most scholars today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE, although recent genetic evidence says the opposite occurred. ”

If there's recent genetic evidence, then full citation should be readily available from reputable scientific journals. CiteCop 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Show me something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of a press release and you might have something.

CiteCop 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The independence movement sub -heading

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

Aryan Migration - Most scholars believe?

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

This article is deeply flawed

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

indian hijacking of Pakistan's history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________

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

I propose two ideas.

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

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

Comment was added by Unre4L

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

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

"India" should not be an alternative name for Pre-British South asia.That would be like giving "china" the alternative name for olden day east asia.Nadirali 16:28, 29 November 2006 Pakistan evolved into what it is today from the indus,just as Iraq evolved into what it is today from Babylon,not from Iran(UTC)Nadirali

you will maybe be surprised to realize that China is indeed the article on the region, not on the People's Republic. I am suggesting no more and no less than parallel treatment for India. dab (ᛏ) 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Also, several citizens of India, especially those who migrated to India from Pakistan during the Partition of India share the same history with most Pakistanis. --Incman|वार्ता 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You "outsmarted" him?? Maybe in the bizarroworld of the Islamabad Propagandaministerium but not here. Hkelkar 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sectarian historical revisionism in Pakistan's schools:

1. School Books That Teach Children To Hate- in Pakistan:
2. Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc:

The subtle subversion in Pakistan: Should give an adequate explanation to Nadirali's delusional historical denials and revisionist tirades.Hkelkar 09:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind Kelkar. Nadirali can't even spell Jupiter and reference correctly. Just read this sentence: Sindhis are both Aryan linguistically and genetically.They ruled over the indus before the Aryans came,but since they are mixed with Aryans,they ARE aryans. It just doesn't make any sense as it contradicts itself. Wonder from where he got this crap. No point wasting time on this guy. --Incman|वार्ता 09:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Seperatist"[sic]. Right. You mean the ULFA that split into two, with one half calling itself the "surrendered" ULFA and running after the other half? The Bible Thumpers of the NLFT who have all but surrendered in a hanky of a state? This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore [1](Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS)[2][3]. [4].Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Yeah, right. "Geocities". Some random Pakistani pseudo-ethnocentrist hate site is apparently as reliable as PBS. lol. Hkelkar 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more WP:Reliable Sources for you:

India:

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

Pakistan:

1. Losing it's fight against Islamic fundie-whackos
2. No Democracy in Pakistan
3. Honor killings in Pakistan
4. Poverty Bomb in Pakistan (no pun intended for Osama)
5. Pakistan fibs about poverty figures
6. Pakistan, a country of particular concern for violation of religious freedom
7. and many many more... Hkelkar 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's your "honer killings"(hope it includes your treatment of "second class citizens" or "the un-touchables" in the world's poorest "democracy"): http://atheism.about.com/b/a/057179.htm http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/archives/04_0112_in_wrights.htmNadirali 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Now that's what I call the pot calling the kettle back. Let's not talk about rampant Ashraf/Ajlaf Caste discrimination in Pakistan [5], also Leach, Edmund Ronald (November 24, 1971). Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan (Pg 113). Cambridge University Press. [What about women in Pakistan being gang raped by upper-caste people http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/31/pakistan.gang.rape/][6]

What about the "Mujahirs", eh? The most victimized by riots and pogroms in Pakistan? How about the Ahmadiyyas? Assaulted, women raped, massive sectarian riots in Lahore against them, simply for being "heretics"? Full scale hatemongering against minorities in Pakistani schools and madrassas (over 2/3rd of Pakistani madrassas are run by Deobandi fundamentalist Muslims, teaching hate ahead of math).

I never said that India was perfect. Only a fool thinks that. But, at least we are a democratic republic, widely acknowledged as such by civilized countries all over the world, and we work to solve our issues, and our free press keeps it all in the open so that the problems are well-known. On the other hand, Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian? Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law. They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them. they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls. I think education is the key to solving this problem. that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

Some more perspective:

Abuse of History in Pakistan: Bangladesh to Kargil: by Yvette C. Rosser

1. Pakistani education systematically wipes out all references to the history of Hindus in the region (much like the Nazis did to wipe out the history of Jews in Europe, remember the famous speech by Goebbels?)

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Unre4L

GOOD ONE!!Nadirali 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Lol.. as if Pakistan is the haven next door. --Incman|वार्ता 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

	 Mistaken Definition of Ancient India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Unre4L

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

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

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

Mughal Empire

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

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

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

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

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

To me, mugals symbolize imperialism, persecution, and cultural eradication.--D-Boy 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of propaganda, no doubt. I don't think there is an objective reason to call the Mughals more imperialistic than the Maurya or Gupta Empires. It is a possible position to reject all imperialism, but to feel patriotic pride for certain historical empires, and hold anti-imperialistic misgivings towards others seems inconsequent. dab (ᛏ) 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

may be--D-Boy 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dab, the Mughals had no great love for India. Bear in mind that Mughal Emperors calle d themselves "Badshah", (with wet-dreams of being "Padishah") rather than "Shah", which was reserved for Persian emperors, to whom they always considered themselves subservient. They clearly had a strong Persian fetish. They emulated their language, their customs, even their sexual practices, in courts. Only Akbar was an integrationist, and the exception among the Mughals rather than the rule.Babur, himself, was worse than Macauley in his pejoration and hatred for India. Witness this extract from the Baburnama:

Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks

This illustrates the medeival Persian ethnocentrism of the Mughals quite adequately.Hkelkar 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Dab, Kelkar puts it correctly. No matter what Comrades from JNU tell the world, most Indians see Mughals as essentially a foreign imperial power. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

There are odd exceptions to what you said D-Boy like Akbar. But yes the region's current political dilemmas can be traced back to the troubles that both the British and Mughals caused. Besides, India's downfall took off much earlier since the start of Kali Yug. Anyway despite all of what has been said above the article still has to adhere to WP:NPOV, so we can't depict the Mughals as savage beasts who came to steal our wealth. Gizza^{Chat ©} 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They were religious zealots, plunderers, and (apart from Jahangir and Akbar) genocidal maniacs descended from an army and a group of people that invaded India from central asia.Bakaman 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Indian to be changed into Ancient Pakistani.

The term Ancient Pakistani is a valid term, as the following encyclopaedic sources. and qualified professors state, and make use of the term.[7][8][9]

Definition of Ancient Pakistan: The history and heritage belonging to the Pakistani people, or the land which is now Pakistan.

Therefore its only logical to refer to Pakistani history as Ancient Pakistani first, instead of Subcontinental Indian, South Asian, or Asian.

As you can see, there is already an article for Ancient Pakistani history, which only includes history within the Pakistani borders. However Ancient Indian history article contains the history of the entire South Asia.

Either the article should be renamed to South Asian history, or references of history which is not within Indian borders should be removed.

Thank you. Unre4L 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The first ref is a Pakistani book, the second never mentions the phrase "ancient pakistan" and the third is a blog. Pakistan's history starts on August 15, 1947 as it was an artificial construct from India and parts of Afghanistan. Do explain 930k ghits for ancient India compared to a paltry 8k for ancient pakistan. Or 54 for ancient pakistan on academic sites and 39400 for ancient india using the same criteria.Bakaman 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, did you visit the sources? The first Reference is an internationally accepted book, used as a source for a lot of articles by a lot of Universities. Seach for the book on google. The 2nd reference. Try using the search function. There is a title in the article. "The Greek Influence on the Languages of Ancient Pakistan" The third reference might be a blog, but I picked it because of this quote: ""Some of the seals depict an impression of snakes, mostly associated with ancient Pakistan and Afghanistan, while others portray Mesopotamian champions or squatting women hailing from Susa," Dr. Majidzadeh noted." Note the guys title.

Pakistan and India were created in 1947. I didnt question that. But the Pakistani people didnt pop up in 1947. They are the people who have always lived in the land of Pakistan, and their ancestors are the ones Indians dont have anything to do with.

ps I can give you way more sources. But I dont see how these ones arent good for you.

And notice how all the sources are .edu. I dont need to explain the seach results. It should be obvious. Most of the Ancient India results shouldnt be there. Thats the point I am trying to put across to you. Unre4L 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt be there? Who are you to define what should and shouldnt be there? I used the search function for "ancient Pakistan" and it was not present in the second reference. The 8k or so "ancient pakistan" sites (most of which are from some "Pakistani history" geocities site that spouts anti-Hindu venom) shouldnt be there. You do need to explain why a fictional historiography only nets 54 .edu google hits.Bakaman 04:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be very interested in knowing what is meant by an internationally accepted book. Are there things which are called books in one country but not recognised internationally as books? Jokes apart, I think this issue has been discussed a lot on wikipedia before, and there's no point in repeating the same arguments ad nauseam. deeptrivia (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the history belongs to the Pakistani people, and its being ripped from them. How would you feel if it happened to you? I have provided proper references and you cant go about this. Why Should Pakistani history be called Indian? Answer that for a second. Its like calling it Asian, it might be true but you could be way more specific. By Indian I mean Subcontinental. Check the 2nd reference again. Half way down the page. The title is in Bold. Internationally accepted book. I meant, that the book is accepted by major universities in America, and is accepted as a source. There is a book written about IVC, by some American group, and they specifically called it "Pakistan Studies", aswell as mentioning Ancient Pakistan. Your argument has to be a bit more than questioning by rights. Unre4L 09:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

oh do get over yourselves. We need one WikiProject covering the pre-1947 history of the Indian subcontinent. Either do it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history but make that project acceptable to Pakistani editors (less flags), or do it at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of South Asia, but not both. "South Asia" and "Indian subcontinent" are two terms for the same region, only "South Asia" is the term used in contemporary political contexts, and "Indian subcontinent" is used in historical or geographical contexts. Thus, for a WikiProject on history, Wikipedia:WikiProject History of India would be better. If necessary, do sub-projects, one for post-1947 RoI, one for British India, one for Mughal India, one for Iron Age India, one for IVC and so forth. dab (𒁳) 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

India is NOT acceptable. Its just a blatant excuse to cut the Pakistani people out of their own history. This article has to be renamed to South Asia. India is a modern country, and you cant have a history article for the Indian subcontinent when the subcontinent has never been united as a country before 1850. And while we are at it we will make an article of Asian history aswell. Unre4L 09:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

no. The Republic of India (Bhārata Gaṇarājya) is a modern country. India, otoh, is a geographical region, including the RoI, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. That India isn't, at present, politically united is beside the point, especially since it has been before 1850, and since this is about the history of India (including 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century history). dab (𒁳) 10:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked a world map, India was a modern Country, and please know your history. South Asia has never been united as a country before the British Raj. This is not what the argument is about though. I have provided sources for Ancient Pakistan being a valid term, so it doesnt really matter what you think. Ancient Pakistan is the most logical term to use. Unre4L 10:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

you are free to do a straw poll on this, but it appears that you are the only editor with this opinion at present. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To Unre4L, if you ignore the southern tip and perhaps some of the eastern parts, India aka. the subcontinent has been politically united on numerous occasions. Please see Mughal Empire, Maurya Empire and British Raj, all of which existed before 1947. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the book aside ! The whole South Asian region (as you say it) was known to the world as "India", not "Pakistan" and that's the reason why it is known as "Ancient India" and not ancient pakistan. India may be a modern country, but this region (inc. Pak) has been known as India since BCE times. I hope you get the point. --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 10:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but that's also why India (disambiguation) should reside at India, and the present India at Republic of India, to avoid confusion and ambiguity. dab (𒁳) 10:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

India back then was a subcontinent. NOT a country. people never referred to it as a country. The whole subcontinents history is being passed to Modern India, because of the name confusion, therefore its only logical to change it to South Asian history...unless Indians were using this confusion to their advantage. I am not saying South Asia should be called Ancient Pakistan, I am saying the history of Pakistan within its borders should be referred to as Pakistan, and I have just provided sources that Ancient Pakistan is a valid term. Using it will clear a lot of confusion. Ancient India is regarded as the ancient history of ROI. Please dont throw around different meanings, as you know they are not used anyway.

Take the example. If Germany changed its name to Europe, could it claim the history of all of Europe? I have provided .edu sources like I was asked. I still cant believe you are arguing.Unre4L 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unre4L, believe me, you have made your point now. If Germany unilaterally changed its name to Europe, our History of Europe would still deal with the history of the "European subcontinent", just as our History of India still deals with the history of the Indian subcontinent. dab (𒁳) 15:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1989 OED has:

"India: A large country or territory of southern Asia, lying east of the river Indus and south of the Himalaya mountains (in this restricted sense also called Hindustan); also extended to include the region further east (Farther or Further India), between this and China."

dab (𒁳)

Unre4l, you say that the book [10] is "accepted by major universities in America" on the basis that you found it in UIUC's library catalog. This doesn't amount to academic endorsement of Ancient Pakistan. All American libraries would also have Mein Kampf. So one can also claim that all American universities support the Nazi ideology. Do you see the problem with this argument? If you could find many (or any) universities that use this book as a textbook, that would be interesting to see. deeptrivia (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your point. I gave you 3 references like some people asked for. now you have to pick on them and decide to not accept any because you dont like one of the references? This is ridiculous- Obviously I havent made my point or you would know that Ancient India was not a country, never had united people, never had a single government, never had a single united history. India is the subcontinent, granted, but its amazingly misleading to refer to anything as Subcontinental Indian, and you know why. According to you, Pakistanis and Bengalis should be called Indian because they are living on the Indian subcontinent.

When I get home, I will post a few more sources, and then wait for someone to point out that they didnt like the way the references had a number in the web address since its so unprofessional. Sigh. Unre4L 17:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Other references like the blog, etc. have already been discussed. deeptrivia (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I DIDNT use the blog as a reference. Read the quote in the blog, which is of a doctor using the term Ancient Pakistan. Unre4L 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. This source uses the book as a reference, and note how the author refers to the subcontinent as South Asia. [11] Here is another .edu site using an "ancient Pakistan" title research paper as a reference [12]

Let me know if you dislike the background colour of the site. I have to admit. Thats an acceptable reason to reject educational sources. Unre4L 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying that India lies in South Asia, but are you saying that scholars prefer "Ancient South Asia" over "Ancient India"? You can always find a handful of people doing anything. The question is what is the preference of the mainstream. A Google test makes it pretty clear. Also, giving too much importance to political unity in historical periods is not all that justified. Sparta and Athens both belong to Ancient Greece, don't they? Governments have started mattering so much only recently, because with modern technology, they can now control the lives and the minds of the people. In fact, now governments can also completely brainwash their citizens by manipulating history through their revisionist propagandas. All this was near impossible historically, and mostly people away from the capital city won't even know who is their king. Government's role in people's lives was minimal. We are certainly not talking of India in historical periods as a single political entity, but as a cultural entity unified by many common features. Even today, after 60 years of Pakistan studies, Punjabis/Sindhis and Bengalis have much more in common than Punjabis/Sindhis and Persians. deeptrivia (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So you pretty much admitted that you also know Ancient India was not a country and only united by nothing? So they clearly need a shared history? People in Middle East have a shared culture, but they dont claim each others history . And in case you didnt know Bengalis are far from Pakistanis, and so are South Indians. I am not going to argue. I gave you sources that Ancient Pakistan is a valid term, used by many educational institutions, and its only logical to use the term to describe what it means. Unre4L 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eratosthenes world map, 200 BCE

Please go through the definitions of nation, country and state, and understand the differences. There is no need for India to have been a unified "state" in order to use the term Ancient India. And the fact that Bengalis and Pakistanis are on two different sides of the subcontinent, and yet have so much in common, and Pakistanis and Persians are adjacent to each other and still have not so much in common is exactly my point. Although, there's no academically recognized controversy regarding "Ancient India" vs. "Ancient Pakistan", I'll still point you to Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names, regarding what criteria should be used to discuss this on wikipedia, and what criteria should not be used. This makes the matter pretty clear, and I think no further discussion is need on this. deeptrivia (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I dont think you should tell me that there shouldnt be a discussion. Yes there should be discussion, because a lot of people are unhappy. You obviously dont know any Bengalis, I know lots, and trust me when I say they are generally different in appearance, They have a south east asian look to them, and Persians are more similar to Pakistanis than you think...Ahmadinejad? I am not going to argue who is similar to who, and the naming thing is a Problem, A Big Problem.

Yes there is a need for India to have been somewhat united. Because when you group histories together, you are saying they are the same people, or have always been united. India was simply a way to refer to the Subcontinent. Just like people say Europe, thats what India meant to people. There was no Unity what so ever. Yes you can call Pakistani history, Subcontinental Indian , or Asian. There is nothing false about this, but Ancient Pakistani first, and there is a problem with Subcontinental Indian, India is modern state, and Ancient India means the Ancient history of that state. By calling South Asian history, Indian, you are claiming that South Asia has been a state AND Modern India is now the successor state. You see, this is a big problem.

The Term South Asian, and Ancient Pakistani are not only valid terms, but have to be used to clear up the confusion created by the recent 1947 name disputes. (Nehru basckstabbed everyone by naming ROI, India). However I dont see why we are having this discussion. I provided you with Sources, and arent you suppose to accept .edu sources? Thats at least what I was under the impression of, and sorry, you might not be a bad person, but I havent exactly had a good time with Indians, and Pakistan related articles on this board. Some of you guys have been on my back, reporting my articles (unrelated to India) on false pretences, and even getting me banned on false pretences. Unre4L 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unre4L, I think Ancient Rome is a comparable example. Notice that Ancient Rome is not only about what happened in Rome 2000 years ago but the entire empire, which included Southern Europe and Northern Africa. But you may ask, why don't we call it the Ancient Mediterranean Empire? Because it is not a term used by scholars of any sort. Similarly, Ancient Pakistani is rarely used compared to Ancient Indian when describing a region two or three thousand years ago where modern-day Pakistan is situated. Wikipedia IS NOT based on the truth nor it is not based on what is techinically correct. It is based on Verifiability. If 999 out of 1000 sources describe IVC as part of Ancient Indian history and 1 calls it Ancient Pakistani, we use Ancient Indian. Sorry but there is nothing we can do about it. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Rome is not a problem. There is no country calling itself Rome. Ancient Rome does not claim history which existed prior to its era. That history goes to the country in which its situated. And you are mistaken about 2 things. The sources describing Pakistani history as Ancient Indian are Indian 99% of the time, or written by an Indian. All American sources respect Pakistani heritage being kept by Pakistanis. And I can do something about it. I have provided the sources I was asked for, and I really wish people would hold true to their words. This article has to be renamed to South Asian history and a new article can be made for Ancient Indian history for history within Indian borders. I have Facts, and logic by my site, but you have mistaken identities on your side. Unre4L 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To sum everything up.

Ancient Pakistan is a valid term (5 .edu sources provided), therefore Ancient Pakistani history cannot be included in the History of India page. It can be included in the History of South Asia page, which is why this article has to be renamed to South Asia, or all references of Ancient Pakistani history should be removed from Ancient Indian history page.

Ancient Indian history has to only include the history within Indian Borders. South Asian and Ancient Indian history is not the same thing, since India only came into existence as a single entity with a single Government in 1947. Prior to the British Raj, South Asia was never united. Unre4L 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Unre4L.I propose two things:

• Let there both be ancient Indian and ancient Pakistani history articles.You guys keep your history(ie The taj-mahal,your share of the indus)and let us keep ours.
• Let there be niether "ancient Indian" nor ancient Pakistani history articles but simply south asian.(Though I preffer Pakistan keep it's ancient history)

Regardless of wheather SA was united or not the fact remains that Pakistan has a claim over all the history of itself regardless of what the land was called back then. "India" was not officially used as a term nor was it ever understood(let alone ever heard of)by the people of SA until the British raj.

Ancient Rome is an excellent example.Since there was no country known as Italy back then,it(ancient Rome) should not be a part of French history just because there was no Italy back then.Ancient ROme belongs to italian history as the indus belongs to Pakistani history.

Bottom line is you stick to your history and we can stick to ours.I don't see why it has to be turned into a big issue.Why India is so desperate to claim Pakistani history I'll never know.I think Bakaman has got India's indipendance date mixed up with Pakistan's.Pakisatn's is 14th Augest and india's is 15th augest I hope that settles everything. Nadirali 03:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we go by google. I dont support giving undue weight to a fictional construct over a well-established and correct term. You can give me all the analogies you want but that wont change international consensus. India not used as a term, please? Xuanzang, Marco Polo, Ibn Battuta, Fa-Hien, Zheng He all visited India. What did they visit? South Asia? It only got turned into an issue because we Indians and non-Pakistanis are hijacking a fictional construct. O and btw, hamara bangali bhaiyon ko kyaa bolte? shunyaBakaman 04:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting too long, that too over a non-issue ! I guess, one thing is being forgotten ! "PAKISTAN" as a term was coined by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in 1933 [13]. Before that, there didn't exist a word by the name "Pakistan". And as proved by other editors above, the region was known as "India". So, using "Ancient Pakistan" would be revisionism and perversion of history, things which have no place in Wikipedia. Period. And yeah, Bottom Lines like "you stick to your history and we can stick to ours", eventually sink to the bottom only. --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 06:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again you prove you didnt read the discussion and you keep repeating the same thing as always. Pakistan was coined up in 1947, The Term India was coined up by the Brits, around 100 years before that!! Nobody called it India, they had their own words for the 100s of provinces in the subcontinent. Ancient India is not a well established and correct term. Its ridiculous the way you claim that India has so many meanings. And most of them are used by Indians only. I still have to meet non Indian historians who call the entire South Asian Subcontinent India. But I dont see what the problem is. I gave you sources PROVING that Ancient Pakistan is a valid and correct term. Are you just going to ignore that now? Looks like you are. Unre4L 14:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And I gave you facts stating that Ancient Pakistan is used once for every 104 times India is used. Ahem, India was used by the ancient Persians, ancient Chinese, ancient Turks, etc.Bakaman 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt used to describe a country. And Like I said, Ancient Pakistan is a valid term, and must be used in order to clear confusion. Unre4L 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It must not be used because its a useless and incorrect term. There is no confusion since "ancient pakistan" is a fictional construct.Bakaman 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unre4L said It wasnt used to describe a country. Exactly, you're absolutely right. When foreigners pre-1700 used the word India (Greeks, Chinese, Persians) they were describing the entire region. That is why History of India refers to the history of the entire region, not just one country. You then said Ancient Pakistan, (which isn't commonly used but occasionally used) must be used to clear confusion. Since it isn't commonly used (Not only Indians, but Americans, Europeans and other Western nations used the term Ancient India in their books because they are referring to the region not the country) the best way to avoid confusion is by calling the post-1947 conutry as Republic of India. China, Macedonia, Ireland are all about the regions, not the country. Some of us are proposing that India become as disambiguation page because India, just like China etc. can refer to the region. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop discussing this. This is all too simple to understand had any effort been made. No one is saying that India was a single state except for small intermittent periods. But that India was a nation is not disputed by any scholar. That's all that is needed, because Ancient Greece, etc., all were in the same situation. India as an ancient nation is disputed only on hilarious grounds by Pakistan studies propaganda textbooks. Please note the difference between a state and a nation. I've tried to explain all this before, but apparently what we are seeing here is only an exercise in trolling. Let's not continue to feed trolls. deeptrivia (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nation? India was never united, unless a subcontinent means a Nation, no India was never a nation pre British Raj. And No. India cannot refer to the region of the Indian subcontinent. Unlike China, the Indian subcontinent contains a lot of countries, and in order to clear confusion, wouldnt it make more sense to let people know which region you are talking about instead of naming everything India? If India became a disambiguation, then Everyone in South Asia will effectively be Indians (see a problem with this, considering the country India?). Not useful if you want to differentiate between 1.6 billion people. I am getting the impression you guys are not reading the argument, as you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, causing me to repeat my first post over and over again.

Understand this: India cannot have 2 meanings. The only valid meaning is the Country India. India (subcontinent) is no longer used, because in 1947 the meaning went from being a continent to a country. South Asia is the proper term to use. And now since we dont have terms to refer to the other places outside India in the subcontinent, its only logical to use already VALID terms (sources provided) e.g Ancient Pakistan. And the term India is less than a few hundred years old. The Persians, Chinese, Arabs, did not group everyone in South Asia together, and they didnt call anything India either. Thats the British Term. This article will get edited sooner or later, because NOBODY calls South Asia, India, apart from you guys.

p.s Please leave if you dont want to discuss, and let people who care about this article making sense, talk all they want. Unre4L 08:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep, I agree with you. I shouldn't feed the trolls. I'll make one last point. This article will not get edited sooner or later for your reasons, because A LOT OF PEOPLE call South Asia, India in a historical context, and NOBODY formally uses the term Ancient Pakistan apart from you guys. Wikipedia's policies (particularly WP:RS, WP:V & WP:NOR) will dictate what you can write here. Btw, User:Dbachmann a German speaking Swiss, and User:Taxman an American disagreed with you. I'll give you a challenge; find a non-Pakistani who agrees with you on Wikipedia and I'll give you a barnstar (just a joke), lol :-) Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They disagreed with me on the pakhub article, and told me to find sources for Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. And I did. Unre4L 15:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, the very term Pakistan was coined in the 1930s, how can you split up Ancient India and Ancient Pakistan when someone would have looked at you ludicrously if you stood in the Western Punjab region in 500 BC and said you're standing in Pakistan instead of India (Hind/Bharat). If you told Bhagat Singh that he was Pakistani instead of Indian, he would've looked at you for a second and then turned away back to teaching religious unity. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. NobleEagle, you will be the nth person to not read the article before replying. If you stood in 500 BC Punjab and told them they were Indian, they would look wierdly at you aswell. Because there was no such thing as India. The term is British and hasnt been around for long either. India wasnt a country and nobody ever called thelseves Indian until the British Raj. In 500 BC, they would call each other Punjabi. Ancient Pakistan (sources provided) is just as valid as Ancient India, and the term has to be used for its meaning, especially since Ancient India is already causing a lot of confusion. Unre4L 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that PErsia and India already had an established trading network by then. Therefore he would be used to being called "Hindu" at the least but not "Pakistani". Note the parenthesis, he would say he is in Hind and a person standing in Tamil Nadu would say Bharatavarsham, both synonyms of India.Bakaman 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Persia and India didnt. Persian and the provinces within the Indian subcontinent did. India was never a country. They probably had names for the subcontinent, but these people werent united, so they didnt trade, fight, and live like one big country. Besides thats not what I am arguing. I provided sources for Ancient Pakistan being valid. Since both Pakistan and India emerged as countries in 1947, their histories only go within their own borders. India cant claim the history of Pakistani ancestors, same goes for Pakistanis not claiming Indian history, they dont. You will never see Pakistanis claiming to have built the Taj Mahal, even though they are people of the Indian subcontinent. Its amazing people here dont even care about sources being provided. Unre4L 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, nobody has got anything to argue? Well there is not much to argue about the incorrectness of calling Pakistani Ancestors Indian, when less than 4 generations of them were called Indian, and even then, it should be British Indian since Indian implies someone from RoI. Unre4L 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't mean nobody has got anything to argue, it means it's beginning to seem pointless arguing with you. So you are saying that History of India and History of Pakistan were of the same length, apart from the fact that Vedic traditions were founded in Ancient Pakistan as was a lot of Sikhism and all of Alexander's invasions etc etc. So Ancient Pakistan would perhaps even have a larger and more extensive history. But when I google Ancient India I get 932,000 hits, when I google Ancient Pakistan I get 8590 hits. You do the math, Ancient Pakistan gets 0.92% of what Ancient India gets. If everyone around the world, including notable historians, school textbooks etc. use Ancient India and not Ancient Pakistan, then who are we to change Wikipedia? For every source you get for Ancient Pakistan, we can find numerous ones for ancient India (which aren't blogs). Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointless to argue with me. Maybe because you have nothing to add to the argument but google results, which, as you can see, have been brought to my attention several times. I am not arguing that a lot of people use Ancient India, I am saying its wrong.

The very simple point made here is, the history belongs to the people. Not the name. India, a country which was born in 1947, takes the name of the subcontinent, and claims the history of people who were never known as Indians. How can you claim the history of Pakistani ancestors, when they were never called Indian, and their land is not even part of India. I know you dont want to argue with me simply because I am Pakistani, but does this sound logical to you? There is no reason to refer to any history according its continent. Where else do you see this being done? Unre4L 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They were called inhabitants of Bharatvarsh, India in itself is used to describe Bharat. Bharat was the whole Indian subcontinent before Partition and India was Bharat. Anyway, please read Wikipedia:Original Research. By the way, if I didn't want to argue with you because you were Pakistani, what am I doing now? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Bharatvarsh, it was another word for the Indian subcontinent, but not a country. RoI is not the successor of Bharatvarsh. India and Pakistan both are equal successors of Bharatvarsh. So you are wrong in saying that India is Bharatvarsh. Indian subcontinent is Bharatvarsh, but currently, India is claiming the history of all of Bharatvarsh while clearly excluding Pakistan. I would make a compromise, and call this article History of Bharatvarsh, and you can make another article of History of India. Sounds fair? I am not trying to rip anything off India, just reclaiming what India has ripped off the Pakistani people. Unre4L 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)