Indian delusion for power

Indian delusion for power 

Present day ‘Indians’ suffer with a pathetic obsession for recognition as a political and military power. They are the only people who talk it rather loudly and with so little to justify it. Greatness does not come through bragging or begging nor at the cost of others. Unfortunately, however, in this obsessive quest they have and continue to employ the most unscrupulous tradecraft in true Kautiliyan traditions to glorify their nebulous past and build-up an image of dubious greatness through deceit, falsities and distortions. That in applying these Kautiliyan virtues, the Indian rulers not only misguide and brain-wash the ignorant and simple minded people but also indulge in bluff and intimidation through cheap propaganda and rumour mongering. 

It is a pity that many including quite a few amongst educated Pakistanis fall victim to this deception and charade. Our failure to promote education and spread of knowledge, particularly our lack of interest in history have been the main cause of our weak national confidence and made us vulnerable to false and distorted propaganda. Though it seems ironical but factually every crisis or problem, however, petty tends to shake our very existence and bring us at the very brink. It is a sad reflection on our national leadership and their inability to discern truth from history whose evaluation and application continue to suffer with dogmatic reservations. Its time that we put our feet on ground. 

Recently in a spurt of national fervour,  the Indians changed the names of two of their great cities; Bombay and Madras, both exclusive British contributions. The new names are those of two obscure and insignificant fishing villages on whose foundations the two mega cities had supposedly sprung. But their national pride does not get hurt by identifying their country as ‘India’ or calling themselves as ‘Indians’, both being British in origin and usage. They would not like to call their country ‘Hindustan’ or themselves ‘Hindustanis’ though this was the mark of identity for a thousand years (including the early British period), because this identity was given by and is associated with the Muslim rulers! But sadly still and much against their heart’s desire, it could not be replaced with the vedic ‘Bharata’, because historically it constituted so little of India (Jamuna-Ganges Doab) which cuts at the very root of their elusive dream of greatness. It is, therefore, so expedient to accept the well-known and widely glorified colonial identity, even though its creation resulted from the British swords and guns. Happily for the Indians, the British had gone and the inheritance of British colonial identity and power became a justifiable ground for imperial pretence, even impertinence. 

Now, the seemingly ordinary and nebulous Hindu history and its culture could be built in a sub-continental mould by clever borrowing and mixing to create “Indian Culture and Civilization” and to project Hindu greatness. Buddhism became a mere deviation from Hinduism and its great contributions and glories were impounded to propagate and build-up the image of Hindu India and its cultural influence from Oxus to Mekong. Hindu writers freely plagiarized Buddhist philosophy and architecture, decrying it as India’s contribution to world culture. Buddhism which rose as a social rebellion in the very Hindu heartland, miserably failed there but spread through Gandhara to Central Asia and China and eventually embraced half of known humanity with its own distinct philosophy, social attitude and culture. Despite the unpleasant causes of its demise amongst the Hindus of Northern India whose cruel practices drove the Great Gautama to ethereal revelations and discoveries, Buddhist achievements are impudently appropriated as Indian (Hindu) achievements. With so little to show of their own in the Indian heartland, the Indian writers stretch themselves over-board to find Hindu influence in the numerous great Buddhist temples and viharas throughout Asia. And all this with the strict religious sanctions against crossing the two flanking rivers and the ‘black’ water! But nearer home, Hindu prejudice and animosity exclude equally great contributions made by the Muslim and British rulers to Indian culture during the last thousand years. To many Hindu writers this constitutes the ‘darkest period’ of Indian History! These are too peculiar and distinct to be called Hindu or Indian and, therefore, consistently undermined, insinuated and even ignored being taunting displays of alien arrogance from the hated invaders. 

To the radical Hindus (and their strength is increasing rapidly —think of the BJP’s rise to political power), India is for the ‘indigenous Indians; all others are aliens and invaders (singling out the Muslims since the British have gone). In emphasizing it, they assume of course that the invading Aryans, the proud ancestors of the high-cast Hindus, sprung out of the bowels of Gangetic Valley! In their highly selective presentation of Indian History, they do not correctly account for the successive waves of Aryan invasion spread over a millennium, in which considerably large and powerful Aryan tribes actually settled down in the areas referred to in the oldest vedic scriptures as ‘Septa Sindhu’ meaning the land of the seven rivers (including Kabul and the Indus with the five rivers of Punjab) and who still constitute the bulk of the people of this region. They were the ‘Rig-vedic Aryans’ who fought the great legendary ‘Battle of the Ten Kings’ around 1100 B.C. with the conglomerate of the Gangetic tribes a few miles east of Beas and decided the earliest division of India. They were the rebels and the earliest political rivals who would not accept the tribal hegemony of the heartland India. It is, therefore, no surprise to find these proud and freedom loving Aryans being hurled with abuses and frequently referred to as ‘outlandish, barbaric and arrogant’ in the later vedas and declared outcasts from Mano’s Dharma. Since the descendants of Bharata have regained political power in India in 1947, they have revived the old traditions! And what about the original inhabitants, the truly indigenous Indians, the Dravidians - the Sudras and the untouchables of the vedas? Never mind, their social status was divinely fixed. They did not exist; they were created and absorbed as a part of Brahmanic order to suffer their ‘karma’ miserably and infinitely (notwithstanding some social improvements brought about under the Muslim and British rule). In the wake of resurgent Hindu nationalism in form of ‘Hindutva’, it should not be difficult to discern the fate that awaits these unfortunate ‘aliens and invaders’, the degraded and condemned. 

‘Harijans’ and the emancipated ‘converts’ to Islam and Christianity. The recurrent communal violence against the Indian Muslims and the growing spurt of barbaric assaults on the Indian Christians are sombre reminders. The Hindu writers and propagandists who talk so loudly of secularism, non-violence and Indian ‘humanness’ and show it to the world in the dead and frozen engravings of the temples and the amorous gaiety of dancing women should look for it in the sad faces of these unfortunates. 

As the struggle for independence from the British colonial rule in India started, the Hindu mindset steeped in unbridled lust for absolute power was starkly obvious. There was no compromise in their attitude against Muslims’ just demands. There leadership would rather have the British India plunged into ‘anarchy’ and ‘blood bath’, ‘see every village in flames’ and even accept its partition than agree to basic democratic tenets of accommodation and sharing. Because in their conniving mind they felt confident that partition could yet be undone through dishonest machination and for which fate had so favourably placed Mountbatten to supervise the dishonourable dissolution of British India. The Congress Hindu leaders exploited everything with full support of the Viceroy to achieve their unholy political goals; false and fabricated propaganda through a highly unscrupulous Hindu press, communal riots, arsons, large scale killings and brutalities, unprecedented uprooting of population, usurpation of Pakistan’s rightful share of British assets, immoral tampering of the Boundary Commission Award and aggression into and unlawful occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The list and its details are inexhaustible. Not to mention Nehru’s pride of performance in cultivating Edwina Mountbatten through a relationship which went beyond amorous embraces for political favours and which the Indians are so proud of! No wonder they go along so well with the Liberals, whether British or American! The charade of ‘non-violence’ and the most vaunted claims of ‘Indian Humanness and Civilization’ were thrown to the wind. But for all these cruel and hypocritical activities, the Indian gains were pretty little and Pakistan braved the onslaught even more firmly. Panini, the great ancient scholar of Slatura (present day Lahore on the bank of Indus, a few miles south of Topi) had made a proverbial statement as early as 900 B.C. and not without reason that ‘Udycyia’ (upper land - Upper Indus Valley) could never be overtaken by or merged into ‘Prascyia’ (lower or midland — Gangetic Plains) but ‘Prascyia’ could. History has proved him right repeatedly. 

Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah is much blamed for the partition of India, Did he or the Muslim League really want the partition or merely used it as a strategic lever of last resort? A lot of now available documentary evidence reveals that till March 1947, the Muslim League was still amenable to a united dispensation which ensured equitable distribution and sharing of political power and was opposed to the partition of Punjab and Bengal. But the Hindu Congress was in no mood to give in. They wanted total control and absolute powers to themselves. Forced by their obsession, the inner logic of India’s geo-historical truth reasserted itself. Today the Indians talk of a confederation of South Asian states but they never pause to ask themselves as to why their political leadership rejected the agreed Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 which was much more than a mere confederation. 

The post-independence decades had been a continuous period of belligerence between India and Pakistan. During this period, Pakistan has been subjected to three full-scale wars, at least two limited confrontations, unlimited border ingresses, skirmishes and physical violations, continuously growing scale of sabotage and subversion, uninterrupted stream of virulent propaganda, cheap threats and intimidation, combined with a vicious diplomacy. Indians have constantly increased their military power ostensibly to counter imaginary threats, but really to support their coercive policy in the region. Those who nag all the time against Pakistan’s defence budget should ask a question or two on India’s military spending. Admittedly they have more resources, but should they be wasting it without cogent reason? 

An objective analysis leads to three main conclusions. Firstly, for all the propagated democratic dispensations for national integration, the Indian leadership had been fully conscious of the difficulties posed by India’s staggering physical vastness and racial and social diversity. It is interesting to read views of persons like K.M. Panikar and Radhakishnan who admitted the absence of most basic organic attributes essential for converting the Hindus into a nation and that the uncompromising Brahmanic caste system made India’s social structure permanently inequitable and divisive. Therefore, while the democratic process continued, it was essential to maintain strong military power at the centre to ensure unity. The imperial solution — which was followed by the ruling dynasties and the colonial British before them. It was put to test immediately after partition —Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir and, thereafter, has been continuously used in the NEFA, Assam and East Punjab and now again in Kashmir. Based on historical experiences, there may be some justification but do the Indians need such a large military force with those highly modern and destructive weaponaries to keep in line the poorly armed and organized rebels and dissidents? They must also know that such military extravagance in the past cost the dynasties their empires! Secondly, they perceive external threats to their national security. While claiming the status of a big power in the region, do the Indians really believe that any country in South Asia could pose a serious threat to them? Then what is this clamour of greatness about? They are quick to throw the dart across the Great Himalayas to China. Surely they have a recent experience of bitter humiliation though not new in their political history, but do they also imagine a naval confrontation with the Chinese in the Indian Ocean? Or is it the fear of yet another colonial invasion that forces them to maintain such a strong, high profile, blue water navy? In the rapidly changing geo-political environment, with new developments overtaking China and her dogmatic traditional attitude, the possibility of open war with India has progressively receded. And despite their irresponsible and provocative utterances, the Indians should thank the Chinese for it. 

The third conclusion is both interesting as well as relevant to Pakistan. Indian leadership has never given up their ultimate political objective — unification (or subjugation) of the entire sub-continent under the Hindu banner. It is built on the vengeful impulses and of the fear of recurrent invasions, enslavement and domination by other races which through the centuries has become a part of Hindu psyche. Not withstanding that these invasions ended up in their assimilation into the Indian milieu, a few like the Huns even becoming Hindus, Indians’ bitterness has remained deep and painful and their inferiority complex permanent. There urge for prominence and recognition, their pretence to power and their misrepresentation of historical facts to glorify themselves are basically the result of this complex and ‘soul sickness’. Along with it, is also the stark awareness of their abject inability to defend their kingdoms, their country and themselves from these invasions through the millennia except with one solitary example of the First Battle of Tarain against Ghori, which to their continuing misfortune was won in the following year and became the landmark for the beginning of rule by the Muslim dynasties for the next thousand years. Also for their tall claims to the entire sub-continent (an Akhand Bharat), Indian historians know that never during the better known and recorded Indian history, covering a period of nearly 2500 years, any of the major ruling Hindu dynasties could unify or subjugate even one-third of the sub-continent. The Guptas and Harsha, the great Hindu empire builders could not cross Bhagirthi in the east or extend beyond Ravi in the west. 

The Indians make a great deal of the Mauryas and their illustrious emperor Ashoka. Despite Indian distortions of facts, the historical truth cannot be concealed. Chandergupta, the first Mauryan king and truly a conqueror, was a son of the Potohar and a prince of Taxila, who having defeated the Greek satrap in the Khyber mountains around 303 B.C. was crowned King at Taxila. It was from here that he assembled an army largely constituted from the frontier hill tribes and those from the river valleys that he marched into the Gangetic plains, defeated the Hindu Nanda ruler and established his empire in Magadha (present Bihar). He was not a Gangetic Indian, nor a Brahmin and his conquest of the seat of power in heartland India was indeed, after Alexander, the first invasion from the north-west. Ashoka was his grandson and inherited Chandergupta’s empire on the north-west (much of it including portion of upper Kabul valleys were ceded by the Greek satrap after his defeat and was never conquered by Ashoka). Ashoka’s edicts in the north-western region of Mauryan empire reveal his continuing affection and link with people of this region whom he always regarded as his own. Then what makes Ashoka so different from Akbar, both grandsons of the great conquerors from the north-west and in their own rights great empire builders? Besides that the Indians just don’t have any Ashoka in their entire history, there is one crucial difference. Akbar was a Muslim and Ashoka’s religion is shrouded in mystery and, therefore, easy to manipulate. It was made easier by Pakistan’s dogmatic fixation who would not go beyond the invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim, although in their veneration of the young conqueror, they continue to ignore the first Muslim invasion of India under Muhammad ibn Abu Suffrah, whose army operating from Afghanistan had penetrated as deep as Bannu, more than half a century before. 

So, where lie the glories and greatness of Hindu India that the Indians talk so much about? A Hindu India, mostly fragmented and fighting for petty gains through the first millennium! It was brought to a semblance of unification by the Mauryans, the Muslim dynasties and the British with the imperial sword. What is their historical contribution in the making of India that they inherited on partition? Then what is the actual purpose of all the military buildup and overbearance? Do they really perceive a recontinuation of invasion from the north-west? It seems absurd but the simple reason is too obvious — their deep hatred for the Muslims of the north-west; Pakistan and Afghanistan whom they consider as the sole cause of all degradation and soul sickness. Remember Indira Gandhi’s emotion choked exultation before the combined Indian Parliament thumping their hearts out in joy after the surrender of Pakistani forces in former East Pakistan in December 1971, ‘Today we have avenged the thousand years of our dark history’. But in her haste, Indira, so typical of Hindu Brahmins could not help herself to empty boasting on self-assumed victory which could have never come by without the support and immense sacrifices of the Muslim Bengali fighters. Would some India lovers amongst us analyse Indira’s statement in a different light? Today we have a far more rabid Hindu government in India. 

Hindu India’s Muslim hating emanates from bitterness of the past as well as a persisting fear complex. All their connivance to enslave this region at the time of partition failed but the efforts have continued and Kashmir is vital to these efforts. During his recent visit to Laddakh, Vajpayee in a rare display of compassion scooped water from the Indus and throwing it back shouted, ‘Here, we give water to Pakistan’. In an apparently simple gesture he revealed the key and sent the subtle warning — water, and the control of all its sources. Did someone in Pakistan take notice of it? 

In the partition of Punjab we lost two rivers — Sutlej and Beas. The manipulated Boundary Commission Award gave India control of Ravi and in the illegal occupation of Kashmir, the headwaters of Chenab and Jhelum have come under her possession. Subsequent developments to control these rivers clearly indicate the long-term Indian intentions. And now the Indus has been inducted into the project. Our existence is so completely dependent on the waters of these rivers that a mere threat, leave alone their control in the hands of an avowed enemy should jolt us into action. Would the international laws on the subject help? We have concluded an Indus Basin Water Treaty with India but did it stop the Indians from constructing the Salal Dam on the Chenab or could prevent them from constructing a barrage on the Jhelum? And Farrakha Barrage continues to haunt the Bangladeshis even with an India-friendly government. This is precisely where the Indians are at their best. Having lost the control of the five rivers, the age-old identity of Punjab seems so hollow and empty. If our lack of interest persists in the prevailing wilderness of ignorance, the Punjab could assume a new identity — Beyaab. Would our Moulanas and self-styled religious leaders care to understand a few basic imperatives of territorial security of the state? 

Since partition India’s deep concern over what happened in the past echoes in every national undertaking (in contrast to our dogmatic fixations and progressive decline in research and inquiry). Their slogan is, ‘Never Again’. Against their persistent aggressive posturing, it is Pakistan who has maintained a positive attitude for peaceful coexistence and has never taken advantage of India’s predicament, whether during the closing bouts in the First Kashmir War, Indian debacle in 1962 or more recently Kargil. Pakistan has never threatened to recapture Delhi but India’s declared intentions and continuous efforts to subjugate Pakistan are too loud to miss. They never get tired of Pakistan bashing. India’s continuing interest in Afghanistan first through the decadent ruling elite and now the renegade Northern Alliance is also a corollary to their animosity with Pakistan and a futile effort to assert the colonial claims with British air and pretence but without their wisdom. 

In their present mental and emotional state, the Indians are highly prone to vindictive and mean behaviour. Their threat does not lie as much in their military might which has a dismal record of successes and glories in the past but in their cunning and deception which work like a hydra-headed monster. They are masters in this field and have the best traditions and records. From the old vedic legends to less mythical historical events, the proverbial Hindu deceit runs like a scarlet thread as the most preferred strategy and tradecraft. Recall Shivaji, the most revered of the Hindu military leaders and how he earned his name and laurels. For their excellence in deception and lies they have frequently made gains through bluff and propaganda. We are often bombarded with all kinds of falsities and distortions to cause confusion and doubts and simple and poorly educated minds are easily affected. It is mainly through bluff, boasting and display that they spread fear of their military might but only a fool will believe their threat of using nuclear weapons, which they know would end in mutual annihilation. But unfortunately their bluff and propaganda have brought them success in the field of diplomacy, not so much due to their brilliance but rather for want of effective counter responses. Our internal chaos, lack of national confidence and faith, incompetence and ignorance and greed for monetary gains have been their main targets for exploitation and results are visible. This is the most dangerous threat that the Indians pose to Pakistan and it is here that we need to concentrate all our energies to counter and defeat it. 

In the final analysis, however, India has learnt no lesson from history. Her past bitterness and persisting complexes have become an obsessive delusion for recognition and power. Although, she has cleverly managed to create an image of some importance, she must know that deceit cannot endure. The greatness that she seeks cannot be bought through bluffs and deceptions, show of force, advertisements or lobbying. One can understand the Jewish influence in moulding American policy in their favour but it would be wiser for the Americans not to get jaded by the false lure of economic benefits. They should take a lesson or two from their British kins who have a better knowledge and experience of the ‘Hindu banias’ and see through the charade of this ‘largest’ democracy and how it oppresses the Christians and deprives the Muslim minority of its representation rights even from areas where it has proven majority, the massive brutalities and human rights violations it perpetrates in Kashmir and the unscrupulous means it employs to denigrate Pakistan. Economic greed must not stain American greatness with dishonour. The present Indians need to reflect on what Panini said a long time ago and must not exult on temporary gains. India’s Hindu elite would do better to overcome their futile soul sickness as a part of ‘karma’ which they so wisely apply to their poor and unprivileged. Reconciliation and adjustment to the reality had been a known attribute of Hindu character which helped the Indian Hindus to survive their thousand years of ‘dark period’ and ‘ignominy’. They should rather rely on it than chase the dark shapeless shadows of the past.

Differences between Pakistanis and Indians

OPINION  Differences between Pakistanis and Indians  Language/linguistics:  About 99% of languages spoken in Pakistan are Indo-Iranian (sub-branches: 75% Indo-Aryan and 24% Iranian), a branch of Indo-European family of languages. All languages of Pakistan are written in the Perso-Arabic script, with significant vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian. Punjabi, Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi, Kashmiri, etc. are the languages spoken in Pakistan.  About 69% of languages spoken in India are Indo-Iranian (sub-branch: Indo-Aryan), 26% are Dravidian, and 5% are Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, all unrelated/distinct family of languages. Most languages in India are written in Brahmi- derived scripts such as Devangari, Gurmukhi, Tamil, etc. Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Assamese, Punjabi, Naga, and many others are the mother-tongue languages spoken in each of India's states.  As you can see both countries have distinct linguistic identities. Even in the case of Punjabi, while it is the mother-tongue of a majority in Pakistan, it represents the mother-tongue of only 2% Indians. Besides, Pakistani Punjabi (Western Punjabi) is distinct in its vocabulary/dialect and writing script when compared to Indian Punjabi (Eastern Punjabi). Another thing to keep in mind is that Indian Punjabi is mostly spoken by Sikhs who consider themselves distinct from the rest of Indians and had been fighting for independence. In the case of Urdu/Hindi, while Hindi is the mother- tongue of a majority in India, Urdu is the mother-tongue of only 8% Pakistanis. Besides, they both are distinct languages, Urdu has a writing script and strong vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian, whereas Hindi has strong vocabulary derived from Sanskrit and is written in Devangari script. Most Pakistanis can understand English and watch American/Brit movies but that does not make them  British/American, same is the case with Hindi.  Race/genetics:  About 70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Pakistanis are tall with fair skin complexion, similar to Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. While the racial features of each ethnic group are not uniform, Pashtuns are the most Caucasoid, followed by Kashmiris, Baluchis, north Punjabis, and then Sindhis, Seraikis, Urdu-speakers, etc. The Australoid-Negroid and Mongoloid racial elements are quite infused within the dominant Caucasoid genes among Pakistanis, however there are some that have retained their distinct racial characteristics.  About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin complexion, with wider noses, shorter heights, etc. The Australoid-Dravidoid racial element dominates among the lower caste Indians, South Indians, Eastern and Central Indians, etc. The Caucasoid racial element dominates in Northwest Indians and higher caste Indians. The Mongoloid racial element dominates in Northeast Indians and border regions with China.  Obviously, both countries have distinct racial identities. A common international perception based on observance of physical features is that most Pakistanis are lighter skinned than most Indians. Most Pakistanis resemble the looks of peoples inhabiting on its western borders and beyond. Indeed, many Pakistanis also resemble many Northwest Indians or higher caste Indians, but those are a minority in India. Similarly, a few people of Pakistan resemble peoples of South India, lower caste Indians, Northeast India, etc. but they are a minority in Pakistan. And besides, let's say, if some Saudis look similar to the French that does not make them one people, same applies here between Indians and Pakistanis.  Culture/Traditions:  Pakistanis have a distinct culture, traditions and customs. Shalwar kamiz is the dress commonly worn, both by men and women in Pakistan. Pakistani food is rich in meat (including beef), whereas wheat is the main staple. Pashto, Punjabi, Balochi, Sindhi, etc. music and dances are distinctly unique with their own melodies, instruments, patterns and styles. Pakistani arts in metal work, tiles, furniture, rugs, designs/paintings, literature, calligraphy, etc. are distinct and diverse. Pakistani architecture is unique with its Islamic styles. The manners and lifestyles are guided by a blend of Islam and local traditions.  India's commonly worn dress is dhoti for men and sari for women. Indian food is mostly vegetarian, with wheat as the main staple in the north and west, and rice is the main staple in south and east. Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Bengali, etc. music and dances are distinctly unique. So are Indian arts in the many areas. Indian architecture is unique in its mostly Hindu styles. The manners and lifestyles of most Indians are guided by Hinduism.  Pakistanis and Indians definitely have distinct cultures of their own. Some Indian women wear shalwar kamiz, but that was introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis. Many Pakistani food dishes are absent in Indian cuisine and vice versa, and if some dishes are shared, they were also introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis (like naan, tikka, kabob, biryani/pulao, etc.). There is barely any Hindu architectural influence in Pakistan (Gandhara is Graeco- Buddhist and Harappan is distinct), but significant influences by the ancestors of Pakistanis can be found in India. The lives of most Pakistanis are shaped by Islam, whereas the lives of most Indians are shaped by Hinduism.  History/background:  Pakistanis are a blend of their Harappan, Aryan, Persian, Greek, Saka, Parthian, Kushan, White Hun, Arab, Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal heritage. Waves of invaders and migrants settled down in Pakistan through out the centuries, influencing the locals and being absorbed among them.  Most Indians are a blend of their heritage of Dravidoid-Australoid hunters and gatherers, and Aryans (in north). Northwest Indians have a heritage from Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, and White Huns. Northeast Indians have a heritage based from Mongoloid hunters and gatherers. Also, Turks, Afghans and Mughals ruled north India for centuries.  Pakistan and India have a distinct history and background. The region of Pakistan was never part of India except for 500+ years under the Muslims, and 100 years each under the Mauryans and the British. If any thing, it were the ancestors of Pakistanis who colonized  north/northwest India, among them were Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, Kushans, White Huns, Turks, Afghans, and Mughals.  Geography:  Pakistan is geographically unique, with Indus river and its tributaries as its main water supply. It is bordered by the Hindu Kush and Sulaiman Mountain ranges in the west, Karakoram mountain range in the north, Sutlej river and Thar desert in east, and Arabian Sea in the south. The country in its present form was created by the Pakistanis themselves out of the British Raj, the Indus people themselves who are now mostly Muslims.  India is geographically unique, with Ganges river and its tributaries as its water supply in the north, and other river systems in the rest of the country. Himalayas as its northern boundary, Sutlej river and Thar desert as its western border, the jungles of northeast as its eastern border, and Indian Ocean in the south. The mountains in the central-south India are the great divide between Dravidians of the south and Indo-Aryans of the north. The country itself was created by the British, a direct descendent of the remnants of British Raj.  It is evident that India and Pakistan have their own unique geographical environments. Pakistan is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. On the other hand, India is located at the core of South Asia.

FACTS ON THE PRE-MUSLIM ANCESTORS OF PAKISTANIS, AND THE PRE-1947 NON-MUSLIM POPULATION:

Opinion - Hindus in Pakistan  FACTS ON THE PRE-MUSLIM ANCESTORS OF PAKISTANIS, AND THE PRE-1947 NON-MUSLIM POPULATION:  - Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of Pakistan practised Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives like Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism, etc.), Animism (nature worship), Paganism (Hellenic and other deities), and Shamanism.  - Harappans ate beef, buried their dead, and had no Hindu temples/idols/deities.  - RigVedic Aryans forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste system, and were culturally closer to ancient  Avestan Iranians.  - Under Persian rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread.  - Similarly, Greek Paganism (Hellenism) spread under the Greeks.  - Mauryan Ashoka introduced Buddhism.  - Buddhism was later also propagated along with Zoroastrianism, Animism, Shamanism, and Hellenism under the Bactrians, Sakas/Scythians, Parthians, and Kushans for many centuries.  - Hephthalites/White Huns were not very fond of Buddhism but it still remained popular among the masses.  - The Hellenized-Iranianized Brahmanist and Shaivite converts were a minority in Pakistan.  - Kafirs of Kalasha, the only people in Pakistan who have retained their ancient religion are an example of the non-Hindu religions practised by the ancestors of Pakistanis.  - Many different Gangetic holy Hindu texts call Pakistan region and its people as outlandish, sinful, outcaste, mlechas, etc.  - The pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis never called themselves Hindu nor practised any religion similar to present-day Hinduism. Thus, the pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis had nothing to do with Hinduism.  - The fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD.  - When Muslims invaded Pakistan region the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became "budh". - The word/term Hindu/Hinduism is a recent construct. It were the Muslim invaders (Ghorids) who for the first time in history imposed the foreign term Hindu on the many different peoples and religions of south Asia. The term Hinduism was given by the British colonialists. Not a single pre-Muslim/British era Vedic, Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word Hindu/Hinduism. Similarly, Sanata Dharma was a term invented in the 19th century AD by Gangetic Brahmans in their desperate attempt to replace the Muslim/British term Hindu/Hinduism.  - Terms such as Hindu/Hinduism/SanataDharma are artificial in nature because of its foreign origins and contradictions in its beliefs/practices. Just because we call all Europeans or their descendents as Goras it does not make them one people as they have many racial, religious, linguistic, cultural, and historical differences. By the same token, if the Ghorid Muslim invaders imposed the foreign word/term Hindu on the non-Muslim peoples of south Asia it does not mean that they were one people since there were/are countless different religions, cultures, histories, languages, and races in south Asia.  - Also, by the time of Ghorid invasions (12th century AD), Pakistan region was already mostly Muslim. Most of Pakistan region was a part of Arab empires previously (later also ruled by local Muslim kingdoms). Arabs never called them Hindus. So the Ghorid imposition of the artificial term Hindu was mostly for present day north India for their ruled non-Muslim subjects.  - A significant minority of Pakistanis are descendents of Arab, Iranian, Turkic, Mughal and Afghan invaders/migrants, who just like the rest of the ancestors of Pakistanis were Zoroastrians, Animists, Pagans, Shamanists, and Buddhists before Islam.  - It was mostly due to Islamic Sufism that the ancestors of Pakistanis converted en masse to Islam.  - Pre-1947 region of present-day Pakistan only had less than 15% non-Muslims, out of which half were Sikhs. Many of the Hindus were actual migrants from the region of present day India during the British rule. For example, most of the Hindus in pre-1947 Karachi had migrated from Gujarat and Rajasthan during British rule because of Karachi's economic boom then. The other remaining Hindus of local origin were converts due to Shankarcharya's missionaries from India region during post- 9th century AD period.  - The pre-1947 non-Muslim population in present day region of Pakistan had: 6% Hindu and 10% Sikh in W. Punjab, 9% Hindu and 2% Sikh in Sindh, 1% Hindu and 2% Sikh in NWFP, and 2% Hindu in Baluchistan.  - According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12 million is the total estimate of migrations from both India and Pakistan (East Pakistan included) of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs combined at the time of partition. So if Hindus and Sikhs are taken as 50% of that figure (although there were much more migrations of Hindus/Sikhs than Muslims) of population, that would make about 6 million Hindus-Sikhs in both East and West Pakistan that migrated to India. Now, we know that there was almost an equal (50% each) number of migrants leaving East and West Pakistan (although Hindu population in East Pakistan was much higher), that would make the Hindu-Sikh population in West Pakistan about 3 million. Now we know that West Pakistan's population at that time was about 25-30 million which makes the total Hindu-Sikh population about 10-12% (+ add the current 1.5%) in West Pakistan before partition. Also, it is estimated that out of the non-Muslim population in West Pakistan, +40% were Sikhs, so that leaves Hindus with even lesser numbers. We know that Sikhs do not consider themselves as Hindus and they are fighting for independence from India.

Sikhism vs Islam and Hinduism

Sikhism vs Islam and Hinduism


1. Sikhs believe in One and only One God, whereas Hindus worship quite a number of gods, goddesses, and deities.

2. The Hindu Trinity---Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva---is altogether rejected by Sikhs. They also do not believe in Krishna and Rama as reincarnations of God. 

3. The worship of any carved statues, images or idols is completely forbidden in Sikhism although it is allowed in Hinduism.

4. The cow is not considered as a sacred animal by Sikhs, hence it is not worshiped at all.

5. The supermacy of the Vedas, Gita and other Hindu scriptures is not recognised or accepted in Sikhism. They have their own holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, compiled by the fifth Guru himself.

6. Sikhism has rejected the caste system, and all men and women are reckoned equal irrespective of their caste, color or creed.

7. Sikh traditions, customs, and ceremonies of death and marriage are completely different from the Hindus.

8. Unlike it is in Hinduism, vegetarianism is not given any special spiritual or moral importance in Sikhism. Meat eating is allowed.


"How are you a Brahman and I am a low caste? Is it that I have blood in my veins and you have milk?" (Gauri Kabir p-324)

"Why call Shiv God, and why speak of Brahma as God? God is not Ram Chander, Krishan, or Vishnu whom ye suppose to be the lords of the world. Sukhdev, Prasar, and Vyas erred in abandoning the One God and worshipping many gods. Hindus have set up false religions; I in every way believe that there is but One God." (Swaya- XV, Guru Gobind Singh) 

In Zafarnama which Guru Gobind Singh wrote to Emperor Aurangzeb, he mentioned about hill Rajas, "They worshipped idols, and I was an  idol-breaker.." 

"Five are the Muslim prayers; five their appointed hours, Five their  names. These be the true prayers: The first is Truth, the second is  lawful earning and the third is to beg the Graces of God for all, The  fourth is the right intention in the mind and the fifth is the praise of the Lord." (Guru Nanak, Var Majh) 

"You are the Creator, O Lord, the Unknowable. You created the Universe of diverse kinds, colours and qualities. You know your own Creation. All this is your Play." (Guru Nanak, Var Majh)

"He neither has father, nor mother, nor sons nor brothers." (Guru Nanak, Maru). 

"Burnt be the mouth that asserts, the Lord takes birth. He is neither born nor dies; neither enters birth nor departs. All pervasive is Nanaks Lord." (Guru Arjan Dev, Raga Bhairon) 

"The stone he calls his god, in the end, drowns him with itself... Know that a boat of stone carries one not across" (Guru Arjan Dev, Suhi) 

"The stone neither speaks nor gives anything. Therefore its service is fruitless and its worship is of no avail." (Bhagat Kabir, Bhairo) 

"They cannot be called satis, who burn themselves with their dead  husbands. They can only be called satis, if they bear the shock of  separation. They may also be known as satis, who live with character and  contentment and always show veneration to their husbands by remembering them." (Guru Amar Das, Var Suhi) 


It is obvious that Sikhism has more commonality with Islam, and was actually a movement against Hinduism.. 

Baba Nanak, in one of his Janam Sakhis he says that he had it revealed to him by God that the religion of Islam is true. It was because of this that he went on pilgrimage to Makka, and adopted all the tenets of Islam.  His sacred relics at Dera Baba Nanak bear the clearest testimony to his profession of the Islamic Kalima, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet", and those at Guru Har Sahai in the Ferozepore District, include a copy of the Holy Quran. He also proclaimed that enmity to Islam was enmity to the light that comes from heaven.

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the  present: 


1. Indus Valley Civilization:  3000-1500  B.C.  i.e.  about  1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.  

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.  

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.  

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.  

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C.  i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.  

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.  

7.  Saka-Parthian  period:  100  B.C.-  70  A.D.  i.e.  about  170  yrs. Independent, separate from India.  

8.  Kushan rule (1st  phase):  70-250   A.D.   i.e.  about  180  yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.  

9.  Kushan rule (2nd  phase):   250-450   A.D.  i.e.  about  200  yrs. Independent, separate from India.  

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st  phase):  450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.  

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.  

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D.  i.e.  177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.  

13. Ghorid and  Qubacha  periods:  1187-1227  A.D.  i.e.  about  40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.  

14. Muslim period (Slave  dynasty,  Khiljis,  Tughlaqs,  Syeds,  Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.  

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali  periods:  1739-1800  A.D.  i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.  

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan:  1800-1848  A.D.  i.e.  about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.  

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e.  about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.  

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan:  1947-present. Independent, not part of India.  
  

The above table reveals that  during  the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST)  and  British  (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian  'claim'  that  Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural?  It  hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan  always  had  her  back  towards India and face towards the countries on her west.  This  is  true both commercially and culturally

The Myth of Bharat

The Myth of Bharat  In modern times, bigoted Brahmins have projected Bharatavarsha as the  ancient Sanskrit name for the whole of India. This, however, has no  historical foundation. Bharatavarsha did not include the whole of  India and never did, but only denoted the kingdom of the Aryan invader  Bharata, who was a chieftain of one of the Aryan tribes that invaded  India. This small region comprised only a small part of the upper  Ganges valley.  Epigraphic Evidence  The epigraphic evidence confirms that Bharata originally did not mean  the whole of India. but only a small part of North India. Kharavela  who lived c.63 BC - c.23 BC ( C.R.Mishra, p.114 ), was one of the most  famous kings of the Kolarian-Dravidian kingdom of Kalinga. His  conquests ranged far and wide. They are celebrated in the Hathigumpha  inscription. The nineth and tenth lines of this inscription clearly  mention that he invaded Bharata from Kalingam thereby implying that  Bharata at that time did not include the whole of India -  Line 9-10 : "And, in the nineth year, (His Majesty) [ Kharavela ]  caused to be built the great victory place - royal residence at the  cost of thirty eight hundred thousand (coins).  " Then, in the 10th year (His Majesty) who embodied the principles of  politics, diplomacy and peace, caused (the army) to march towards  Bharatavarsha for conquest ."  -- ( C.R.Mishra, p.128 )  Prof. C.R.Mishra notes that Bharata did not originally denote  India : " Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the  regions of northern India " (C.R.Mishra, p.121). Elaborating this, he  states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha  inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India -  " In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha'  is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the  name denoted North India at that time."  -- ( C.R.Mishra, p.130, n.79 )  A.L. Basham states that Bharatas was one of the invading Aryan tribes  which settled in the region between the Satlaj and Jamna, which later  became known as Brahmavarta (Basham, The Wonder that was India, p.30).  Thus, the first time that we have undisputed usage of the word  Bharatavarsha, it denoted only North India. There is no evidence of  Bharata's kingdom extending beyond Northern India.  Historical Evidence  Historical evidence refutes the Brahmanist claim that Bharata  conquered the whole of India. Bharata's ancestors lived in the region  of the Caspian sea in Central Asia; they were nomadic tribesmen of  Aryan stock. Bharata's legendary capital lay in the Kabul valley, ie.  Yusufzai territory of modern Afghanistan:  " According to local tradition, the original seat of the empire of  Bharata was much further to the morth-west, namely, at the site now  occupied by the ruins of Takh-i-Bahi, in the country of the Yusufzais  to the northward of Peshawur."  -- ( Wheeler, p.48n.2 )  From this base he descended with his hordes of Aryan horsemen  onto the plains of India. There he defeated Indra ( Wheeler, p.45 ),  a descendant of the first Aryan invader Indra, earning himself the title  "most renowned of the Lunar race" ( Wheller, p.47 ). He then conquered  the Upper Ganges valley, exceeding Indra's dominion.  After the wars of annexation, the Raj of Bharata extended over the  enitre doab between the rivers Ganges and the Jumna right up to the  junction of these 2 rivers ( Wheeler, p.44 ). It is thus obvious that  Bharata's empire, Bharatavarsha, only included a few provinces in the  Ganges Valley.  His son Hastin founded Hastinapur further down the Ganges valley,  after this second wave of Aryans had pushed on from the neighbourhood  of Peshawar up to the banks of the Ganges ( Wheeler, p.48.n2 ). It is  thus evident that even the lower Ganges valley was beyond Bharata's  control. Hence, the Brahminist concept of `One Ancient Bharata' under  perpetual dominion of the Brahmin Aryans is a fallacy. In the words  of Winston Churchill, `India is as much a nation as the equator' .

FACTS ON THE PRE-MUSLIM ANCESTORS OF PAKISTANIS, AND THE PRE-1947 NON-MUSLIM POPULATION:

FACTS ON THE PRE-MUSLIM ANCESTORS OF PAKISTANIS, AND THE PRE-1947 NON-MUSLIM POPULATION: 



- Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of Pakistan practised Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives like Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism, etc.), Animism (nature worship), Paganism (Hellenic and other deities), and Shamanism. 

- Harappans ate beef, buried their dead, and had no Hindu temples/idols/deities. 

- RigVedic Aryans forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste system, and were culturally closer to ancient 
Avestan Iranians. 

- Under Persian rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread. 

- Similarly, Greek Paganism (Hellenism) spread under the Greeks. 

- Mauryan Ashoka introduced Buddhism. 

- Buddhism was later also propagated along with Zoroastrianism, Animism, Shamanism, and Hellenism under the Bactrians, Sakas/Scythians, Parthians, and Kushans for many centuries. 

- Hephthalites/White Huns were not very fond of Buddhism but it still remained popular among the masses. 

- The Hellenized-Iranianized Brahmanist and Shaivite converts were a minority in Pakistan. 

- Kafirs of Kalasha, the only people in Pakistan who have retained their ancient religion are an example of the non-Hindu religions practised by the ancestors of Pakistanis. 

- Many different Gangetic holy Hindu texts call Pakistan region and its people as outlandish, sinful, outcaste, mlechas, etc. 

- The pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis never called themselves Hindu nor practised any religion similar to present-day Hinduism. Thus, the pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis had nothing to do with Hinduism. 

- The fact is there is barely any trace of Hindu past in Pakistan region yet there are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-Hindu archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD. 

- When Muslims invaded Pakistan region the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became "budh".

- The word/term Hindu/Hinduism is a recent construct. It were the Muslim invaders (Ghorids) who for the first time in history imposed the foreign term Hindu on the many different peoples and religions of south Asia. The term Hinduism was given by the British colonialists. Not a single pre-Muslim/British era Vedic, Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word Hindu/Hinduism. Similarly, Sanata Dharma was a term invented in the 19th century AD by Gangetic Brahmans in their desperate attempt to replace the Muslim/British term Hindu/Hinduism. 

- Terms such as Hindu/Hinduism/SanataDharma are artificial in nature because of its foreign origins and contradictions in its beliefs/practices. Just because we call all Europeans or their descendents as Goras it does not make them one people as they have many racial, religious, linguistic, cultural, and historical differences. By the same token, if the Ghorid Muslim invaders imposed the foreign word/term Hindu on the non-Muslim peoples of south Asia it does not mean that they were one people since there were/are countless different religions, cultures, histories, languages, and races in south Asia. 

- Also, by the time of Ghorid invasions (12th century AD), Pakistan region was already mostly Muslim. Most of Pakistan region was a part of Arab empires previously (later also ruled by local Muslim kingdoms). Arabs never called them Hindus. So the Ghorid imposition of the artificial term Hindu was mostly for present day north India for their ruled non-Muslim subjects. 

- A significant minority of Pakistanis are descendents of Arab, Iranian, Turkic, Mughal and Afghan invaders/migrants, who just like the rest of the ancestors of Pakistanis were Zoroastrians, Animists, Pagans, Shamanists, and Buddhists before Islam. 

- It was mostly due to Islamic Sufism that the ancestors of Pakistanis converted en masse to Islam. 

- Pre-1947 region of present-day Pakistan only had less than 15% non-Muslims, out of which half were Sikhs. Many of the Hindus were actual migrants from the region of present day India during the British rule. For example, most of the Hindus in pre-1947 Karachi had migrated from Gujarat and Rajasthan during British rule because of Karachi's economic boom then. The other remaining Hindus of local origin were converts due to Shankarcharya's missionaries from India region during post- 9th century AD period. 

- The pre-1947 non-Muslim population in present day region of Pakistan had: 6% Hindu and 10% Sikh in W. Punjab, 9% Hindu and 2% Sikh in Sindh, 1% Hindu and 2% Sikh in NWFP, and 2% Hindu in Baluchistan. 

- According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12 million is the total estimate of migrations from both India and Pakistan (East Pakistan included) of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs combined at the time of partition. So if Hindus and Sikhs are taken as 50% of that figure (although there were much more migrations of Hindus/Sikhs than Muslims) of population, that would make about 6 million Hindus-Sikhs in both East and West Pakistan that migrated to India. Now, we know that there was almost an equal (50% each) number of migrants leaving East and West Pakistan (although Hindu population in East Pakistan was much higher), that would make the Hindu-Sikh population in West Pakistan about 3 million. Now we know that West Pakistan's population at that time was about 25-30 million which makes the total Hindu-Sikh population about 10-12% (+ add the current 1.5%) in West Pakistan before partition. Also, it is estimated that out of the non-Muslim population in West Pakistan, +40% were Sikhs, so that leaves Hindus with even lesser numbers. We know that Sikhs do not consider themselves as Hindus and they are fighting for independence from India. 

"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India!

"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India! Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as `India' but as `Bharat'. The word derives from Bharata- varsha, `the land of the Bharatas', these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism.  In the first flush of independence `Bharat' would seem preferable, because the word `India' was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an `India consciousness' were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called `India' is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically `India' belonged anywhere, it was not  to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan.  Partition would have a way of dividing the subcontinent's spoils with scant reference to history. No tussle over the word `India' is reported  because Jinnah preferred the newly coined and very Islamic-sounding  acronym that is `Pakistan'. Additionally, he was under the impression  that neither state would want to adopt the British title of `India'. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain `India'. Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, `was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress Party) were going to call themselves India'. The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy which Pakistan would never accept. It also flew in the face of history, since `India' originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the Indus river (with which the word is cognate). Hence it was largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan.  The reservations about the word `India', which had convinced Jinnah that neither side would use it, stemmed from its historical currency amongst outsiders, especially outsiders who had designs on the place. Something similar could, of course, be said about terms like `Britian', `Germany' or `America'; when first these words were recorded, all were objects of conquest. But in the case of `India' this demeaning connotation had lasted until modern times. `Hindustan', `India' or `the Indies' (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a territory. Geographically imprecise, indeed moveable if one took account of all the `Indians' in the Americas, `India' was yet conceptually concrete: it was somewhere to be coveted – as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. To Alexander the Great as to Mahmud of Ghazni, to Timur the Lame as to his Mughal descendents, and to Nadir Shah of Persia as to Robert Clive of Plassey, `India' was a place worth the taking.  The first occurrence of the word sets the trend. It makes its debut in an inscription found at Persepolis in Iran, which was the capital of the Persian or Achaemenid empire of Darius I, he whose far-flung battles included defeat at Marathon by the Athenians in 490 BC. Before this, Darius had evidently enjoyed greater success on his eastern frontier, for the Persepolis inscription, dated to 518 BC, lists amongst his numerous domains that of `Hi(n)du'.  The word for a `river' in Sanskrit is sindhu. Hence sapta-sindhu meant `(the land of) the seven rivers', which was what the Vedic arya called the Panjab. The Indus, to which most of these seven rivers were tributary, was the sindhu par excellence; and in the language of ancient Persian, a near relative of Sanskrit, the initial `s' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as an apirate – `h'. Soma, the mysterious hallucinogen distilled, deified and drunk to excess by the Vedic arya, is thus homa or haoma in old Persian; and sindhu is thus Hind(h)u. When, from Persian, the word found its way into Greek, the initial aspirate was dropped, and it started to appear as the route `Ind' (as in `India', `Indus', etc.). In this form it reached Latin and most other European languages. However, in Arabic and related languages it retained the initial `h', giving `Hindustan' as the name by which Turks and Mughals would know India. That word also passed on to Europe to give `Hindu' as the name of the country's indigenous people and of what, by Muslims and Christians alike, was regarded as their infidel religion.  On the strength of a slightly earlier Iranian inscription which makes no mention of Hindu, it is assumed that the region was added to Daruis' Achaemenid empire in or soon after 520 BC. This earlier inscription does, however, refer to `Gadara', which looks like Gandhara, a maha-janapada or `state' mentioned in both Sanskrit and Buddhist sources and located in an arc reaching the western Panjab through the north-west frontier to Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where `Kandahar' is the same word). According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Gandhara had been conquered by Cyrus, on of  Darius' predecessors. The first Achaemenid or Persian invasion may therefore have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BC. That it was an invasion, rather than a migration or even perhaps a last belated influx of charioteering arya, seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemy were the `Derbikes'; they enjoyed the support of the Hindu people and were supplied by them with war-elephants. In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of Hindu with elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus. To Alexander of Macedon, following in the Achaemanids' footsteps two centuries later, the river would be a geographical curiosity, but the elephants were a military obsession.  If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan.  Under Xerxes, Darius' successor, troops from what had become the Achaemenids' combined `satrapy' of Gandhara and Hindu reportedly served in the Achaemenid forces. These Indians were mostly archers, although cavalry and chariots are also mentioned; they fought as far as eastern Europe; and some were present at the Persians' victory over Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermopylae, and then at the decisive defeat by the Greeks at Plataea. Through these and other less fraught  contacts between Greeks ad Persians, Greek writers like Herodotus gleaned some idea of `India'. Compared to the intervening lands of Anatolia and Iran, it appeared a veritable paradise of exotic plenty. Herodotus told of an immense population and the richest soil imaginable from which kindly ants, smaller than dogs but bigger than foxes, threw up hillocks of pure gold-dust. The ants may have intrigued entomologists, but the gold was registered in political circles. With rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle, it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth.  Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma, a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' History circulated widely. A hundred years after his death it was still avidly read by northern Greeks in Macedonia, where a teenage Alexander `knew it well enough to quote and follow its stories'.

On the meaning and origins of Hinduism:

On the meaning and origins of Hinduism:  "The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 AD by  British writers. " [Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 `Hinduism' 519 ]  "The term Hindu was first imposed on south Asian nations by the  Afghan dynasty of Ghori in the 12th century; this term was never  used in south Asia prior to the Muslim era and is not even found in  early (pre-12th century AD) Brahmanical or Buddhist texts. Such a  term and concept has no historical depth in any social, religious,  ethnic or national sense past the 12th century when Mohammed Ghori  for the first time named his conquered subjects Hindus." [G. Singh,  Sakasthan and India, Toronto, 1999, p. 20]  "Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things  to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say  definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of  the word." [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi,  1983, p.75]  "Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a  Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered  again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory  answer has been given." [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu  Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178]  "Hinduism defies definition... It has no specific creed." [Khushwant  Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19]  "The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to  define it in a single phrase... A Hindu may have any religious  belief or none." [Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan,  1961, p.40]

ON INDIA, HINDU, HINDUISM, & PAKISTAN

Opinion  ON INDIA, HINDU, HINDUISM, & PAKISTAN "Hindu/India" (derived from the word "Sindhu" in present day Pakistan  --- by the way, the people of Sindhu continue to call themselves "Sindhis" and not "Hindus/Indians") was exclusively the foreign geographic term for Indus Valley (Pakistan region) in ancient times. It had nothing to do with the religion of Hinduism nor the region of present day India. This is proven in the Achaemenian inscriptions at Persepolis and Greek texts like those of Herodotus. It was many centuries later that the term "Hind/India" was used by some foreigners to further encompass much of South Asia, again as a geographic term having no religious or national meaning. The broadening of this term's usage was no different than how the word "Farangi" (derived from the word "Franks/France") became the term for all Europeans used by Middle Easterners (and South Asians) during the Middle Ages due to French interaction (Crusaders) with them. Indus Valley is located at the entering point (from west) into South Asia, thus its geographic term was later used by a few foreign visitors and invaders for the whole region. However, others used 'Hind' for present day north India and 'Sindh' for present day Pakistan. The bottomline is that the term/word "Hind/Hindu/India" was foreign (for their own references), and had no religious or national meaning. It was no different than how the words "Africa" and "America" are used --- i.e. foreign geographic terms encompassing many different peoples and religions.  Not a single South Asian text/inscription (Vedic, Buddhist, Brahmanic, Dravidic, etc.) mentions any word "Hindu/Hinduism/India". It was only with the arrival of Muslim invaders (Ghorids --- 12th century AD) that the foreign term "Hindu/Hindustan" was imposed in South Asia to denote its ruled subjects and lands. It was also starting from this period that the word "Hindu" started to gain a religious color. It was easy for the new invaders to differentiate their religion from the countless local ones with just a single word. Later on, with the arrival of the British, their introduced term "Hinduism" became widely in use. The foreign word "Hinduism" simply became the term for many different local religions of South Asia. Hinduism is a meaningless term and concept  in the sense that it can include any thing or nothing. Contradictory or opposing aspects are quite common in it, and as quoted by many scholars it cannot be truly defined. Hinduism as a "civilization of Hindus" is another hollow definition in the same way "Western civilization" can include many different religions, peoples, nations, regions, etc. To say "Hinduism" has been evolving since ancient times is a farce as the term/word itself has recent origins, and humans and their ideas/beliefs have been evolving since time-immemorial all over the world. For example, if Christianity has some influences from Roman Paganism it does not mean that Christianity evolved from Roman Paganism because the word/term "Christianity" was invented later on and Christianity's beliefs/practices are by large distinct.  As far as present-day India is concerned, the fact is it was created one day after Pakistan's creation! Pakistan was created by the Pakistanis themselves. On the other hand, the British colonialists conquered the various countries/peoples/kingdoms of South Asia and for the ease of administration consolidated them into a single unit called "India". No country with such name or/and size existed prior to its British creation. With the departure of British, their colonies were divided with present day India being a direct descendent of that British creation.  In the words of Winston Churchill, "India is no more a country than the Equator". It is no wonder there are many separatist movements in India, having many distinct nations, races, languages, cultures, religions, histories,etc. A Tamil  is racially as different from a Kashmiri as is an Ethiopian from an Italian. A Naga is culturally as different from an Bihari as is a Chinese  from a Argentinian. A Gujarati is linguistically as different from an Andhra (Telugu) as is a German from an Arab. Such extreme differences are common place among the so called Indians with barely any unifying factors. On the other hand, Pakistanis have all the commonality being linguistically Indo-Iranian, racially mostly Caucasoid, geographically based around Indus Valley, sharing a common history/culture, and adhering to the faith of Islam. Pakistan might be a few decades old, but the land and its people have a history dating back to thousands of years. Indus Valley Civilization is their heritage, the continuity is obvious in many aspects of their culture and race, absorbing and/or adopting the many different waves of migrants/invaders throughout the centuries.Pakistanis are a blend of their heritage of Harappans, Rig Vedic Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Parthians, Kushans, Hephthalites, Arabs,Turks, and Moguls. Pakistan---the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries also recently created) inherits their own great ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now mostly Muslims! Similarly, descendents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, and descendents of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians! And also, just because the once Christian Syrians are now mostly Muslims, it does not mean that Nigerian Christians can claim the heritage of Syria today! Just because China was mostly Buddhist it does not mean that Chinese civilization is part of Indian heritage. Same logic applies between Pakistan's Buddhist past and today's Hindu India. Or just because once Syria and Spain were briefly united under the ancient Romans and Arabs it does not mean Syria's heritage belongs to Spain. Same logic applies between Pakistan and India under the rule of British, Turko-Afghan Muslims, etc. And just because today a country is named "South Africa" it does not mean it can claim the heritage of all southern Africa. Same logic applies between Pakistan and India's monopoly over the British geographic/colonial term/word "India". The region of Pakistan was never part of present day region of India except for 100 years under the Mauryans, 522 years under the Muslims, and 100 years under the British. These are historical facts that no one can deny! Most Indians have no right to claim the heritage of Pakistan (Indus Valley Civilization, Rig Vedic Aryans, Gandharan Civilization, etc.) because the region was rarely part of India, with its mostly distinct religion, culture, language, and race since ancient times! Why should a Tamil (Indian) claim the heritage of a Punjabi (Pakistani)? Or why should a Vishnuvite of Bengal (Indian) claim the heritage of Kalasha's Kafirs of NWFP (Pakistanis) or Buddhist ancestors of Sindhi Muslims (Pakistanis)? And let's say, even if the ancestor of a Pakistani was Shaivite, that does not mean that Shaivites of Indonesia can claim the heritage of Pakistan. Or, if Pakistan region/people were once mostly Buddhist, it does not mean that Buddhist Japanese are the same people as Pakistanis.

Indian hijacking of Pakistan's history

Indian hijacking of Pakistan's history  Although both India and Pakistan were created at the same time out  of British Raj, Indians desperately try to steal Pakistan's heritage,  particularly the Indus Valley Civilization! This Indian hegemonic  agenda is based on myths and false propaganda for religious and  nationalistic imperialism. Also, there are some Pakistanis,  particularly Islamists, who narrow-mindedly deny/ignore Pakistan's  glorious pre-Islamic past. Harappans were certainly the ancestors of  most Pakistanis, who absorbed or adopted the many waves of  invaders/migrants through out the centuries.  Indus Valley Civilization was mostly based in the region of Pakistan.  The names used for the Civilization are "Indus Valley" or "Harappan",  both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harappa  and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of Hakra/Ghaggar  river (extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more mature  Harappan sites on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side. The  proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley  Civilization, at its peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan  to northern Maharashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About  85% of Indians (i.e. outside of northwest India) have nothing to do  with Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic  forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the  sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.  Indus/Harappan religion was not Hinduism. Not a single Hindu temple,  idol, or statue has been found at excavated Indus sites. Harappans  buried their dead, ate beef, and were not Vedic.The "Great Bath"  was common in many civilizations such as among the Graeco-Romans and Mesopotamians. Depicted on some Indus seals, the "deity" wearing  the horned head-dress looks nothing like Hinduism's Shiva,  and similar deities were common in other civilizations like the  Celtic "Cernunnos". Bull seemed to be sacred among Harappans similar  to Mesopotamians and Minoans, but not the cow.  A people may evolve by adopting new ideas/beliefs, change with  political environment, and racially get mixed with other peoples, but  that does not erase their history. Pakistan -- the land and people of  Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of  the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all  three countries and names also recent in origin) inherits their own great  ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of  Harappans are now mostly Muslims (Pakistanis). Descendents of ancient  Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, descendents  of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians. It is time  that all Pakistanis take pride in their past, and protect it from  thievery of other countries like India.

"RACES AND RACISM"

                                      


"RACES AND RACISM" 


  


The Essence of Racism:


The races of man, having developed from a single stock---primitive man--are, from a strictly scientific point of view, biologically similar subspecies divisions. As far as their evolution is concerned, none of the races stands higher or lower than the others in its level of physical development. It is precisely the oneness of their origin that accounts for the races being basically identical, not only in the specifically human peculirities of their physical structure, but even in many tiny details. When compared with this overall similarity, the few racial differences that exist are of less than secondary importance from the standpoint of biology or in the anatomic-physiological sense and in many cases serve merely to identify members of the same, or a related, tribe.

There are, however, scholars who regard racial peculiarities as being those of a species or even of a genus, who allot those peculiarities an exaggerated taxonomic significance and try to show that there are profound differences between the races. In the opinion of these scholars, the races descended from different ancestors; this is the polygenetic theory of the origin of man. By ignoring facts they strive to show that the races of man are groups of people that differ very greatly in their morphological, physiological and psychological features, that they are not in any way related and inimical to each other. When the supporters of such ideas admit the common origin of man they maintain that they are "rapidly developing, higher" races and "backward, lower" races. The former are progressive and it is their vocation to rule over the latter who are doomed to substantiation, slavery and extinction. The raison d'etre of racism is the substantiation and defence of the false idea of the biological inequality of the races of man.

The racists usually consider the "white" race to be the higher and the "coloured" ('black' and 'yellow') races to be the lower. Some scientists, especially in Germany, Britain and the USA, support the "Aryan" theory, according to which some one group of North European race is declared to be the "higher race"*.

The racists maintain that the few "higher" races have created all culture and civilization, employing the slave labour of the "lower" races. The "higher" races, they say, are "active" and play a leading role in history, while the "lower" races, being "inactive", play a subordinate role. The majority of racists are of the opinion that the development of society does not affect racial peculiarities, but, on the contrary, the biological, innate qualities of a race determine the progress or retrogression of human social groups. In this way the false idea of the physical and psychological inequality of races becomes the racial theory of the historical development of mankind. 

The racists not only sanction this unsubstantiated biological explanation of history, they also regard as identical such categories as race and nation, although the former is a purely biological category and the latter belongs to sociological science. It is a serious error to confuse the concepts of race and nation.

Anthropologists provide us with numerous facts that are definite evidence against the concept that culture is created only by some "higher" race. The racists, it will be remembered, make the level of cultural development dependent upon the greater size of the brain. One of the most convincing refutations of this concept is the development of a high level of culture among ancient Egyptians. According to the of the German anthropologist E.Schmidt, the volume of the Egyptian male cranium was 1394 cc and that of the female cranium 1257 cc. From this it follows that the brain of the Egyptian was smaller (i.e. less than the average) than that of neighbouring peoples who were at a lower cultural level. Anthropological data also prove that there is no connection between the shape of the head and the level of culture.

The Germanic peoples present a good example showing that culture is independent of race. Their ancestors were barbarians at the time the Roman state reached its highest level. Later, when the Germanic peoples found themselves in conditions more favourable to development, they reached a high cultural level while retaining their racial peculiarities. Culture, therefore, has nothing to do with racial features but is determined by social and economic factors. In the course of man's development from savagery to barbarism and later, racial features were of no significance.

Why do the racists insist on their false views? The answer is a simple one. The theory of "higher" and "lower" races, of the right of one race to dominate over another, justifies war between nations--- it is the ideological mask concealing imperialist politics. Or in some cases it justifies separatism and racial hatred with false nationhood.

The racists equate the class struggle in human society with the class struggle going on in the animal kingdom; they make use of the reactionary theory of social-Darwinism that developed in the latter half of the nineteenth century. This theory states that modern human society is governed by biological laws that are the same as those that operate in the animal kingdom--- the brute struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest, the extinction of the unfit. The racists, like the social-Darwinists, amintain that the division of human society into classes is the result of biological inequality and is due to natural selection. In this way racism attempts to use the laws of nature to explain social inequality in capitalist society.

The racists developed the theory of social-Darwinism and maintained that people belonging to a certain class possess certain racial features. The advocates of this theory assert that rich people belong, in the majority of cases, to the dolichocephalic type while the poor are mesocephalous or brachycephalous. One has only to examine the facts to see that this assertion is without any basis. In an investigation of recruits called up for service in the Swedish army it was established that both among the well-to-do (bourgeois) and among the poor classes (workers and peasants) the cephalic index was the same, i.e. 77. The same investigation showed that the average height of the better-off recruits was 173.1 cms and that of the poorer, 171.9 cms. The difference in the length of the body, however, has nothing to do with race and is explained by the better food habitually comsumed by the former group. These facts are sufficient to show that the concepts race and class must not be confused. In studying the history of the development of human society the really existing class struggle must not be replaced by an invented "race struggle".

From the above it may be seen that it is typical of racism to confuse the biological category of race with other categories of social character, such as nation and class. The unprincipled way in which racism identifies race with nation or class depending on whether it is necessary to justify war between nations or exploitation or separatism within one nation, shows clearly that racism is unscientific and reactionary.

The racists, fulfilling the social demands of the ruling class of exploiters, distort the truth to such an extent that they even attribute a racial character to languages as the outcome of racial spirit.



Race and Language:

The similarity of languages of the European peoples has frequently led to the idea that they might be related. Many linguists have made an ardent search for the "common ancestor" from whose language the similar European languages developed. At one time it was thought that scholars had found this "first language" in Sanskrit, the language of the ancient Indian manuscripts. It is true that a number of Indian languages and the Iranians languages show some resemblance to the European languages which gave rise to the name of "Indo-European" for the whole group of languages.

It is believed that in the distant past India and Iran were invaded by tribes from other part of the world, tribes that spoke Indo-European languages, who conquered those countries. The conquerors declared themselves a "higher" race than the local population whom they had enslaved; they gave themselves the name of "Aryan" from the Sanskrit word "arya" meaning noble-born. 

The Indo-European languages that have roots similar to the languages of the inhabitants of India and Iran have been called "Aryan" by some writers. Later the name "Aryan" was applied to certain racial groups and the findings of the linguists were given an unscientific, racist colouring. Many racists regard only the tall, blue-eyed blonds of modern North Europe as being "true Aryans"--- these peoples have been given the name of the "Nordic race". 

If language is the offspring of the race spirit, the peoples speaking Indo-European languages should possess the features of the northern, "Aryan" race. But this is not so. The Kurds, and many other peoples who are Indo-European in language, have skin and hair that is much darker; light-eyed individuals are rare among them. Aryan languages are typical of South Europe where the majority of the people are dark eyes and hair and do not in any way resemble the mythical "Aryans".

The tall, light-eyed and light haired Finns and Estonians, on the other hand, are close to the North European type in their racial features; the languages of the finns and Estonians, however, have nothing in common with the Indo-European languages.

Thus the theory of an Indo-European or Aryan "first language" and "common ancestor" with all the features of the "Aryan race" is refuted, and at the same time it is obvious that no race has the right to call itself
"Aryan"--noble-born.

Peoples speaking the same language are not racially homogeneous and, as a rule, consist of representatives of a number of anthropological types. Six such types are to be found in Germany, for example.

In Africa the Negroid peoples speak their own languages, in North America they speak English and in South america they speak Spanish, etc. Thus groups of one race that enter into composition of various peoples and nations, speak different languages.

All this goes to show that language is independent of race and disproves the unscientific theory that language is the offspring of a mysterious "race spirit" in some way "biologically inherent" in a race. Language depends entirely on the development of society, it emergers, lives and dies as peoples develop; it has no causal relation with the race as a biological group. 

By M. Nesturkh



Races of Mankind:


I. Negroid (Equatorial) Great Race:

1. Negroid (African) Race:

(i) South African (Bushman)
(ii) Central African (Pygmy)
(iii) Sudanese (Negro)
(iv) East African (Ethiopian)

2. Austroloid (Oceanic) Race:

(i) Andaman (Negritos)
(ii) Melanesian
(iii) Australian (aborigine)
(iv) Kuril (Ainu)
(v) Ceylon-Zond (Veddah)



II. Europeoid (Eurasian) Great Race:

1. South European (Indo-Mediterranean) Race:

(i) South Indian (Dravidian). ------- "C"
(ii) Anterior Asian
(iii) Mediterranean-Balkan
(iv) Atlanto-Black Sea. ------- "C"
(v)  East European --------"C"

2. North European (Atlanto-Baltic) Race:

(i) Atlanto-Baltic
(ii) White Sea-Baltic



III. Mongoloid (Asio-American) Great Race:

1. North Mongoloid (Asian Continental) Race:

(i) Urals ------- "C"
(ii) South Siberian ------ "C"
(iii) Central Asian
(iv) Siberian (Baikal)
(v) Arctic
(vi) Far Eastern (East Asian)

2. South Mongoloid (Asio-Pacific) Race:

(i) South Asian
(ii) Polynesian -------  "C"

3. American (American Indian) Race:

(i) North American
(ii) Central American
(iii) Patagonian

Pakistan-Afghanistan Border is a Settled Issue

Pakistan-Afghanistan Border is a Settled Issue 


About twenty-three miles south of Pillar XII, which is erected on the Saricol range of Pamir, lies the beginning of the "North West Frontier". Pillar XII is located at latitude 37o20'5"N and longitude 74o24'50"E. It was erected by a joint Anglo-Russian Commission in September 1895, on the left bank of a tributary of the Tegermen-Su river, one mile from its mouth; and it is the last among pillars, which carry the Russo-Afghan frontier from the eastern end of Lake Victoria (Wood's Lake) to the Chinese frontier. 

The protocol embodying the final agreement was signed on July 22, 1887 and is known as the Pamir Agreement. The demarcated boundary according to the 'The Pamir Agreement' remains unchanged to this day. This border was internationally recognized as the border between Russia (then Soviet Union) and Afghanistan. Today this boundary is the internationally recognized border between the Central Asian countries (former Soviet republics as successor independent states of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan) and Afghanistan. 

The Afghan frontier turns west from Pillar XII and follows the northern ridge of the Sarikol Range bordering the Taghdumbash Pamir. It then curves southward over the Wakhjir Pass to join the present Pakistan-Afghan frontier, which is often referred to as the Durand line. While negotiating the Durand Line, Amir Abdul Rahman Khan of Afghanistan had received a British mission in a formal Durbar which was held in November 1893, in the Salam Khana Hall, where the civil and military officers of Kabul and chiefs of various tribes were present. 

The Amir in his speech gave an outline to the audience of all the understanding which had been agreed upon and the provisions which had been signed, and urged upon them the necessity for adhering firmly to British alliance. He pointed out that the interests of Afghanistan and England were identical. 

The Amir further told the audience that it was for the first time that Afghanistan had a definite frontier which would prevent future misunderstandings and would render Afghanistan strong and powerful after it had been consolidated with the aid in arms and ammunition which would be received from the British. 

The demarcation of the Durand Line was carried out in fulfilment of the Anglo-Afghan agreement' of November 12, 1893 between Amir Abdul Rahman Khan of Afghanistan and Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, Foreign Secretary to the Government of India. 

The demarcation of the Indo-Afghan frontier, as defined in the above mentioned agreement, was divided into sections and was carried out for the most part by the joint Anglo-Afghan Commission during the year 1894-1896. In 1947, the Indian sub-continent emerged as two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. West Pakistan by right of its location inherited the former North West Frontier of British India and the Indo-Afghan boundary established vide the agreement of 1893. 

There are some circles who continue to spread disinformation that the agreement was signed under duress and has a validity of 100 years. Unfortunately, the propaganda emanates from a country in the neighbourhood of Pakistan. This country also instigates anti Pakistan elements in the Afghan government to issue controversial statements undermining Pak-Afghan relations. A host of websites of this country also disseminate anti Pakistan propaganda. It is therefore necessary to put the facts in the correct perspective as follows: 

• The International Border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is based on the map attached with the original Agreement of 1893. 

• Clause 6 of the Agreement clearly states that the agreement is regarded by both the parties as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them. The Agreement has been reaffirmed by successive Afghan rulers. 

• 1905 Treaty with Amir HabibullahKhan continuing the Agreements which had existed between the British Government and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan. Para 2 states "I also have acted, am acting and will act upon the same agreement and I will not contravene them in any dealing or in any promise." 

• Treaty of peace between the British Government and the Independent Afghan Government concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919. Article 5 states that "the Afghan Government accepts the Indo-Afghan frontier accepted by the Late Amir.” 

• Friendly and Commercial Relations treaty between Great Britain and Afghanistan at Kabul on 22 November 1921. Article 2 of the treaty states that, "The two high contracting parties accept the Indo-Afghan frontier as accepted by the Afghan Government under Article V of the treaty concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919." 

• Notes were exchanged between His Majesty's Government and Afghan Minister in London, 1930 (His Highness General Shah Wali Khan to Mr. Arthur Henderson), Afghan Legation 6th May 1930. Both parties ~greed that it was their understanding that the Treaty of Kabul of 22 November 1921 continued to have full force and effect. 

• On 13 June 1948, Shah Wali Khan, the Afghan envoy to Pakistan declared, " Our King has already stated, and I, as the representative of Afghanistan, declare that Afghanistan has no claims on frontier territory and even if there were any, they have been given up in favour of Pakistan. Anything contrary to this which may have appeared in the press in the past or may appear in the future should not be given credence at all and should be considered just a canard." 

The Pak-Afghan International Border has sound technical and legal background. According to international law, treaties of the extinct state concerning boundary lines remain valid and all rights and duties arising from such treaties of the extinct state devolve on the absorbing state. Pakistan is the successor state of British India. The following is worth mentioning: 

• A country to country treaty does not need any revision unless both parties desire change. 

• International Agreement once finally concluded can be revoked only bilaterally and not unilaterally. 

• Unless otherwise provided in the concluded treaty about its duration, the treaty becomes of a permanent nature. This is applicable to the 1893 Treaty Agreement. 

• International Law does not lay down the maximum life period of one hundred years for an internationally concluded border agreement between the two states, when fixed border validity has not been mentioned in its text. 

It goes beyond doubt to say that the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a settled matter and is globalfy accepted. It is supported by International Law and the treaty of 1893 has been ratified several times by successive Afghan governments.



-----------------------------------------------------------------



Durand Line / Treaty 

As long as Afghanistan refuses to accept the Durand Line as the permanent international boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is no reliable way to combat extremism and terrorism in the region. 

Durand Line – the present border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – was agreed to as official boundary line between British India and Afghanistan on 12 November 1893. Sir Henry Mortimer Durand from the British side and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan from the Afghan side signed the historical document. 

Pakistan and Afghanistan, as successor states, are bound to honour this agreement. 

The present spread of religious intolerance and extremism in the region is, in great part, attributable to the fact that the successive and successor governments of Afghanistan have declined to accept the Durand Line as permanent boundary between the two countries. Uncertainty of the boundary rules and impermanent nature of the physical border are playing in favour of extremist elements on both sides of the dividing line. 

Moreover, there was a whisper campaign a while ago that the Durand Line agreement was valid for 100 years and after that the document is legally null and void now. The original text shows that there is no time-expiry clause in the agreement. 

Here is the complete text of the agreement: 


Agreement 
between 
His Highness Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, G.C.E.I 
Amir of Afghanistan and its Dependencies, on the one part, 
and 
Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., 
Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, 
representing the Government of India, on the other part 

Whereas certain questions have arisen regarding the frontier of Afghanistan on the side of India, and whereas both His Highness the Amir and the Government of India are desirous of settling these questions by a friendly understanding, and of fixing the limit of their respective spheres of influence, so that for the future there may be no difference of opinion on the subject between the allied Governments, it is hereby agree as follows: 

1. The eastern and southern frontier of High Highness’s dominions, from Wakhan to the Persian border, shall follow the line shown in the map attached to this agreement. 

2. The British Government of India will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of Afghanistan, and His Highness the Amir will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of India. 

3. The British Government thus agrees to His Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees on the other hand that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur or Chitral, including the Arnawai or Bashgal valley. The British Government also agrees to leave to His Highness the Birmal tract as shown in the detailed map already given to High Highness, who relinquishes his claim to the rest of the Waziri country and Dawar. His Highness also relinquishes his claim to Chageh [now, Chagai. Ed.]. 

4. The frontier line will hereafter be laid down in detail and demarcated, wherever this may be practicable and desirable, by Joint British and Afghan Commissioners, whose object will be to arrive by mutual understanding at a boundary which shall adhere with the greatest possible exactness to the line shown in the map attached to this agreement, having due regard to the existing local rights of villages adjoining the frontier. 

5. With reference to the question of Chaman, the Amir withdraws his objection to the new British Cantonment and concedes to the British Government the rights purchased by him in the Sirkai-Tilerai water. At this part of the frontier, the line will be drawn as follows: 

From the crest of Khwaja Amran range near the Pasha Kotal, which remains in British territory, the line will run in such a direction as to leave Murgha Chaman and the Sharobo spring to Afghanistan, and to pass half way between the New Chaman Fort and the Afghan outpost known locally as Lashkar Dand. The line will then pass half way between the railway station and the hill known as the Mian Baldak, and, turning southwards, will rejoin the Khwaja Arman range, leaving the Gwasha Post in British territory, and the road to Shorawak to the west and south of Gwasha in Afghanistan. The British Government will not exercise any interference within half a mile of the road. 

6. The above articles of agreement are regarded by the government of India and His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them in regard to the frontier; and both the Government of India and His Highness the Amir undertake that any differences of detail, such as those which will have to be considered hereafter by the officers appointed to demarcate the boundary line, shall be settled in a friendly spirit, so as to remove for the future as far as possible all causes of doubt and misunderstanding between the two Governments. 

7. Being fully satisfied of His Highness’s good-will to the British Government, and wishing to see Afghanistan independent and strong, the Government of India will raise no objection to the purchase and import by His Highness of munitions of war, and they will themselves grant him some help in this respect. Further, in order to mark their sense of the friendly spirit in which High Highness the Amir has entered into these negotiations, the Government of India undertake to increase by the sum of six lakhs of rupees a year the subsidy of twelve lakhs now granted to His Highness. 

(Signed) H. M. Durand 

(Signed) Amir Abdul Rahman Khan 

Kabu, the 12th November 1893 

Note: Original agreement is available in the national archive of Pakistan. This report has been produced from the copy available at the Area Study Centre, Peshawar University. 

Published with permission. 

One Lakh = 100000



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Views on the issue of Pak-Afghan border:


--  Following independence, the NWFP voted to join Pakistan in a referendum in 1947. However, Afghanistan's loya jirga of 1949 declared the Durand Line invalid as they saw it as ex parte on their side since British India ceased to exist in 1947 with the independence of Pakistan. This had no tangible effect as there has never been a move to enforce such a declaration. Additionally, world courts have universally upheld uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are "passed down" to successor independent states, as with most of Africa. A unilateral declaration by one party has no effect; boundary changes must be made bilaterally. Thus, the Durand Line boundary remains in effect today as the international boundary and is recognized as such by nearly all nations. Despite pervasive internet rumors to the contrary, U.S. Dept. of State and the British Foreign Commonwealth Office documents and spokespersons have recently confirmed that the Durand Line, like virtually all international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is their any mention of such in any Durand Line documents. (The 1921 treaty expiration refers only to the 1921 agreements.)

--  Afghanistan was created in 1747 AD by the Punjab-born (city of Multan in present-day Pakistan) Pashtun named Ahmed Shah Abdali. The fact is Abdali conquered the Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Baluchis, Punjabis, etc. This was a forceful occupation of various lands/peoples subdued to the Abdali monarchy. Per Encyclopedia Britannica, "Ahmad Shah began by capturing Ghazni from the Ghilzai Pashtuns, and then wresting Kabul from the local ruler. In 1749 the Mughal ruler ceded sovereignty over Sindh Province and the areas west of the Indus River to Ahmad Shah in order to save his capital from Afghan attack. Ahmad Shah then set out westward to take possession of Herat, which was ruled by Nadir Shah's grandson, Shah Rukh. Herat fell to Ahmad after almost a year of siege and bloody conflict, as did Mashhad (in present-day Iran). Ahmad next sent an army to subdue the areas north of the Hindu Kush. In short order, the powerful army brought under its control the Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik, and Hazara tribes".

--  Now many people can argue that Afghanistan's creation was illegal because the land belonged to Iran-based Safavids/Sassanians/etc and India-based Mughals/Mauryas/etc until Abdali's creation in 1747 AD. But the fact of the matter is people and its lands constantly evolve to new geo-political environments changing boundaries and nationhoods. Prior to 1747 AD, the region of Afghanistan was ruled by Persian Achaemenians and Sassanians, Greeks, Scythians, Hepthalites, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and many others (currently by the USA). Mauryas and Mughals ruled a large portion of Afghanistan (almost all of Pashtun areas). By the way, the Muslim rulers of South Asia were "mostly" Turks originating from Central Asia who also ruled the Pashtuns.

--  Afghanistan's creation was legal in the same way Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. were created later on. The boundaries between Iran and Afghanistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan, etc were created by the British and Russians. So the few Afghans beating the drum of Durand Line (Pak-Afghan boundary) is pointless. By the same token, all boundaries of Afghanistan are questionable. Why should only Pashtun areas of Pakistan be merged to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country like Pakistan. Should Tajikistan lay claim to Tajik lands of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan to Uzbek lands in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan to Turkmen lands in Afghanistan, etc.?

--  The ethnicity-based countries like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, & Turkmenistan have much more stronger claims to Tajik, Turkmen, & Uzbek lands of Afghanistan because Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country like Pakistan, so a multi-ethnic Afghanistan has no right to claim only Pashtun lands of Pakistan. How about Pakistan claiming Pashtun lands of Afghanistan instead since Pashtuns are being oppressed in Afghanistan, Pashtuns in Pakistan are comparatively much more prosperous, and Afghans are desperate to flee to Pakistan. By the way, Pashtuns are not the only ethnic group divided between two countries, e.g. Azeris are divided between Iran and Azerbaijan, Tajiks between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, Uzbeks between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, Turkmens between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, Balochs between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, Kurds between Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria, Arabs between many different countries, etc.

--  If Durand Line of boundary is artificial, then not only Pashtun lands of Pakistan, but "all" of Pakistan should merge to Afghanistan because the "original" Afghanistan included today's Pakistan and Afghanistan. And if Durand Line of boundary is artificial then how valid are the boundaries between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, etc.... or all countries of Middle East (Sykes-Picot treaty).. created by former European colonialists such as the British, French, and Russians. Lets not forget the "Great Game" on how the Brits and Ruskies created Afghanistan's boundaries as a buffer zone between them. We know how the Russians (Soviets) created Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan... "In 1886 a Russian army fresh from its conquest of the Oasis of Merv, in today’s Turkmenistan, occupied the Panjdeh Oasis near Herat. It was also the time of The Great Game. Britain immediately warned Russia that any further advance towards Herat would be considered as inimical to British interests. As a consequence of the May 1879 Treaty of Gandamak after the Second Afghan War, Britain took control of Afghanistan’s foreign affairs. After the Panjdeh incident a joint Anglo-Russian boundary commission, without any Afghan participation, fixed the Afghan border with Turkestan, which was the whole of Russian Central Asia, now Kirghizistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Thus as a consequence of the competition between Britain and Russia, a new country, the Afghanistan we know today, was created to serve as the buffer.".....Now on the Afghan-Iran boundaries created by the British/Russians, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, "In 1863 Dost Mohammad retook Herat from Iran with British acquiescence....  The boundary with Iran was firmly delineated in 1904, replacing the ambiguous line made by a British commission in 1872".

-- In 1947 and beyond the Congressite followers of Badshah Khan continued to ask the Gandhi question "The Pathans should have had a choice between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India". The Muslim League had correctly argued that the British had no right to ask that particular question, since they did not ask Nagaland if it wanted to join Burma, nor did they ask Tamil Nadu if it wanted to join Sri Lanka. Thus the Durand Line became the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

--  Knowing the bitter enmity between Tajiks/Hazaras and Pashtuns in Afghanistan, Tajiks/Hazaras will never allow Afghanistan to become 75% Pashtun (from 40%) by only integrating Pashtun areas of Pakistan. The current Tajik-dominated Afghan govt has been oppressing Pashtuns in Afghanistan. In fact there are Tajik bigoted nationalists who are fiercely anti-Pashtun/Afghanistan: http://members.tripod.com/~khorasan/Miscellaneous/why.html And when the Afghan Pashtuns ruled Afghanistan under Taliban they massacred thousands of Hazaras in Mazar-e-Sharif, and others.

--  The word Afghan in the past might have meant Pashtun, but that meaning evolved to another one. Today, an Afghan is defined as only a citizen of present-day Afghanistan regardless of ethnicity. There are countless other examples on how a word's meaning evolves to a different one over time.

--  NWFP of Pakistan is not all Pashtun, large areas of this land are Hindkowi, Shina, Khowari, Gujjar, etc. most linguistically related to Punjabi. Majority of Baluchistan is Baluch who also have bitter rivalry with the Afghans and do not want to be part of Afghanistan. 

--  Millions of Pakistani Pashtuns inhabit in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh such as cities of Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad... not to mention millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Since the 1980s the Durand Line has been a porus line for men and material. During the Soviet occupation of Western/Northern Afghanistan, some portions of Eastern/Southern Afghanistan (at least the Pashtun portions) literally became part of free Afghanistan, a satellite of Pakistan. 6 million Afghans came to Pakistan as refugees. More than one million Afghan children were born in Pakistan.  

--  Pashtuns have much more in common with Pakistanis than with Afghans (plus there are much more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan). Pashtuns are linguistically Indo-Iranian. Pakistanis are 99% Indo-Iranian whereas Afghans are only 84% Indo-Iranian. Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi, Kashmiri, Urdu, Pashto, & Dari are Indo-Iranian languages which means they are related to each other and have a common origin. About 16% of Afghans are linguistically Altaic such as the Uzbeks, Turkomens, etc. These Altaic Afghans are linguistically distinct and unrelated to the Indo-Iranians. Additionally, Pashtuns are racially mostly Caucasoid. Pakistanis are also mostly racially Caucasoid (mixed with a little Dravidoid blood). On the other hand, Afghans are only 66% Caucasoids. Hazaras, Turkomens, Uzbeks, etc. are mostly Mongoloid by race.