Talk:Pakistan/Archive 2

message: :Those that did not go beyond Pakistan include: the Achaemenid empire, The Macedonians under Alexander, the Greco-Bactrian KIngdom, the Parthians, and the Sassanid Persians. The largest portion of the total area in South Asia conquered by the White Huns was in Pakistan, not in India. During much of its history, the Kushan empire was ruled from Pakistan, and the vast majority of its territory was not in present-day India. I'll grant you that the Indo-Scythians, after conquering Pakistan, established kingdoms to its southeast. They are an exception: most groups did not penetrate beyond Pakistan. Of those that did, most did not stay or last. 
:Before Muslim rule, Pakistan was politically subject to India only under the Mauryan dynasty. From the start of Achaemenid rule, to the beginning of the Delhi Sultanate, over more than seventeen centuries, there was only about 180 years of Mauryan rule. Isn't that the objective truth? FactNTact 17:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pakistanis are a diverse mixture of many people (a fact supported by genetic studies, BTW.) Nowhere does the article claim anything else. There's a gap (~15th century BCE to ~6th century BCE) between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Achemenid rule because we don't have verifiably-dated written records from that period, at least for ancient Pakistan. If you have factual knowledge to the contrary, feel free to add to the article. FactNTact 23:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Before the Muslim rule of north India, Pakistan was rarely part of India politically

message: See another example of Pakistani history-denial campaign. You guys are so mentally enslaved by Arabs that many of you have made false Arab lineage for yourselves. Ragib,iFaqeer where is this GME (Greater Middle East). Wikipedia has descended into mass of information written by wishful writers with a vendetta.  62.252.0.9 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world are you talking about? Where in the article does it say that Pakistanis have an Arab lineage? FactNTact 23:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you name me, I would like to state clearly that I have not written that phrase, and neither can I comment on its source and its authenticity. Please check out the history of this article to seek the person concerned. Also, you might think about toning down your language to a more decent level, rising above your national identity and *signing* up for an account. At the least, you could also think about signing your messages (which only requires you to type ~~~~, not a too-difficult task. As for whether or not Pakistan is in Greater Middle East, I have no idea, nor any objection or any particular fondness for the classification. Thanks. --Ragib 23:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto me. I also have no preference about whether no particular desire to include Pakistan in the "Greater Middle East" and think many Pakistanis would have mixed feelings on this issue. FactNTact 23:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: *I am not playing around your "question", I simply stated that I have no idea and have no interest in disputing about that. My most interest has been parts of the 20th century history section, and that's it. My only "other" contribution in this article has been to keep it in a readable state and thwart vandalism as it happens. I have already stated that you'd better ask the person who put in that sentence, what GME actually means. Also, you should ask people who are from Pakistan, I'd rather not be a party to this bi-partisan dispute over heritage and affiliation. Thanks. --Ragib 22:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: *Hello folks.  Sorry to have created controversy if there has been any.  Well the Greater Middle East has little to do with the "Arabs" so much as a continuity based upon certain common historical currents (the empires of the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turkic groups etc. that did not directly impact India for example) and a designation used by various schools of thought from the University of Chicago's Near Eastern dept. to G8 Industrial nations who lump Morocco to Pakistan as this Greater Middle East, while maintaining that Morocco is also part of the Maghrib and Pakistan is South Asian as well.  The reasons are the common empires that have shaped these areas.  I added it also to show that while eastern Pakistan has a South Asian affinity, the west has an Afghan/Mideastern affinity as well.  The compromise being that Pakistan is both South Asian and Greater Mideastern (or Central Asian since I don't believe Afghanistan is South Asian and nor is western Pakistan except by association with the rest of modern Pakistan) not unlike Turkey which can be both European and Mideastern or, for some people, exclusively one.  As for the buddhism question, actually this is not misleading at all.  Muhammad bin Qasim and the Syrians found many gold statues of "budds" or buddhas which they proceeded to melt down sadly.  They seem to have found more buddhist stupas then hindu temples.  One can dismiss their observations if that is what is desired, but what is the alternative evidence?  Many of the ruling dynasties were Hindu however and even some of the Iranian Shahis of Kabul were Hindu as well, but the majority of the people appear to have been buddhist, but no census was taken that I know of to verify.  It is Indian historians who largely believe that most of the people of northwest South Asia were buddhists although i have heard it claimed that there was a process of hinduization that was taking place when Islam arrived.  It's also misleading to say everyone is "Indoaryan" also.  The Indoaryans were themselves coming from Iran/Afghanistan after merging with locals somewhat and then they again merged with local Elamo-Dravidian peoples in ancient Pakistan.  The languages today are Indo-Aryan in the east and Iranian in the west with the Dardic groups in the north, which some put within the peripheral Indoaryan family OR separately.  The Romany appear to speak a Dardic tongue albeit one that has been greatly altered in Europe etc.  In addition to all of this, the invaders from the north and west would all contribute a little at a time until the population OVERALL would be impacted.  For example, the Greek contribution is probably tiny, but perhaps 5% in the Northwest Frontier province etc., while the overall impact would be 2% or less.  I'm just saying it's not really known, but they were 10% of the population of Bactria (Afghanistan) if the number of colonists are to be believed (60,000 in a country that maybe had over half a million ppl at the time).  The next group of invaders add something else and so on.  The Kalash (the pagans are a minority today as most have converted to Islam) claim to be descendents of Greeks as do some Pashtun tribes, but unless genetic evidence is forthcoming this is not that likely as invaders tend to be absorbed here and there and vanish into the larger population which moves around.  As for the White Huns, this group is largely Central Asian Turkic and not related to the Aryans or Europeans, the other Huns who went to Europe were by that time much mixed with Slavs in contrast.  "White" Huns is a deceptive title.  Ultimately, Pakistan (and India for that matter) change a little bit each time, but changes are not uniform everywhere.  India's population density is much bigger and invaders would be able to have less of an impact compared to the Aryans who would have a massive influence early on.  One of the problems I've noticed is that Pakistan is often subsumed into "India" while the events taking place in Pakistan are one thing and those in India are another.  Or i should say the area that would become known as Pakistan later.  So while many references say to refer to Indian history, one reads scant mention of what happened in Pakistan, while the Guptas are discussed etc.  Because it's a separate country there is no reason not to discuss the particular history of the region.  Even Bangladesh appears to have been largely buddhist for example even as late as 1200 CE.  Lastly, yes Pakistan, in the east, had large Hindu/Sikh minorities, while it is surmised that most of the converts to Islam came mostly from the buddhist majority with some Hindu converts as well.  This doesn't seem that inconsistent or improbable surely.  Lastly, I highly doubt the Arab contribution to the gene pool is any higher than that of the Greeks overall, with the Baluchis getting more of it from Arabia itself I'd say and perhaps some Sindhi Muslims (we're talking very distant and from over a millenium ago so don't get bent out of shape) and Pashtuns in Afghanistan where Khorasani Arabs lost their language over time, although i'm skeptical that there is very much Arab or Semitic contributions even though people claim to be descended from both Arabs and ancient Hebrews even.  This is perhaps more complicated than they are all one group or not.  This is an eclectic society that is not unlike the Balkans in this regard.  And as an atheist Pakistani-American of Pashtun origin I really have no desire to see this as simply Pakistan's enslaved mentality to be part of the Arab world so much as a desire to see some historical continuity.  Pakistan can be part of two regions or be classified as overlapping and the world won't end.  The problem is that the Indian perspective is strictly that, from their own POV.  Pashtuns or "pathans" are often ignored as peripheral for example (not by you, but by others).  Indian hegemony notwithstanding, history does not begin and end with Hindu nationalists who seem to be making many assertions that gloss over the particulars in seeking to establish Hindu continuity while relegating buddhism (let along Islam) to the backbins of history and perhaps are ignoring the fact that buddhism is in many ways an offshoot of early Hinduism which was still evolving even with the advent of Islam coming from the west.  --Tombseye 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is this Greater Middle East???