1947-was no Partition-2 independent nations created- Pak n Bharat
- Thread starter A.jokhio
- Start date
miafridi
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Very well said. Somehow some of the fanatic Indians and RSS goons try to imply as if Pakistan was formed out of India.
When in fact it was the birth of both Pakistan and India, before which the Indian subcontinent was nothing but a combination of different princely states ruled by different rulers.
When in fact it was the birth of both Pakistan and India, before which the Indian subcontinent was nothing but a combination of different princely states ruled by different rulers.
Buddhism
he was budhist...
Hussain1967
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
India has been one country since the time of Mughals. About 400 years in total. This is a long time. Saying that British partitioned India and created two states is a fact. This doesn’t undermines the state of Pakistan or India. Both countries are a reality. Bangladeshi people also mind when Pakistani say to them that they have created their country out of Pakistan. They say that we were always different from Pakistan. But, their argument is weak. BD was carved out of PK.
StarTrooper
MPA (400+ posts)
It was partition based on religion e.g Punjabi & Bengali same culture same people but landed in to different countries
India is a later name given to the country called Sapta Sindhu or Bharat or Arya Verta
StarTrooper
MPA (400+ posts)
Half of his life he was Hindu (Sanatani follower of Vedic religion) and in later Half of his life he was Buddisht
Will_Bite
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
This is derived from Javed Jabbars words presented at a conclave hosted by an Indian media outlet several years ago.
Your argument is extremely weak. Mughals were ruling over a region, not a country as Ottomons ruled over the Middle East and it didnt make it one country. Afghanistan at some point was part of Mughal empire, Is it part of India also? What identity the so called united India had back then? An anthem? a flag? common culture or language?
StarTrooper
MPA (400+ posts)
Through out History India had one language and one outer culture with sub cultures . The language was called Sansikrat from Kabul tu Sri lanka. Throuout history every historian described it as a single country . Under Muslims it had two languages Persians for Muslims elite and sansikrat for Hindus . Most of the parts of Afghanistan were part of ancient India. Even Muguls described it as a single country Hindustan.
what ever you have mentioned , does not exists even today....India is Indus civilization...Pakistan and Bharat are two countries (besides others) that came into being in 1947...there was never partition... the partition was in two areas i.e Punjab and Bangal..
It snot mughals, its Persians and arabs that called this place Hindustan...due to color of people around Sindhustan (the original name of this Civilization)...
StarTrooper
MPA (400+ posts)
Partition plan was of Hinstustan not of Punjab or Bangal. Only a fool can deny History . There was no place called Sindustan it was Sapta Sindhu Sansikrat name meaning Land of seven rivers which was pronouned by Persians as Hafta Hindu and later on Hindustan. Through out History Muguls fought for the boundries of Hindustan. Arab called it Hind not Hindustan. Muguls crowned themselves as king of Hindustan. Even Al Beruni described it as one country one people . How much history you will deny ! Still sansikrat coins are being found in Afghansitan. Urdu , Hindi , Punjabi , Sindhi all languages descended from Sansikrat
First, the idea of “one country” is very modern. So, people who insist that India was “one country” in the past are entirely clueless. The concept of an all-encompassing language and culture in a region as diverse as India is very ambiguous. Sanskrit, being an ancient language, had its influence in all other branched out languages. But it doesn’t mean that it was a symbol of unification in this region. If anything, the spread of Sanskrit and the associated culture were attributed to the spread of Hinduism. Just like Islam influenced the languages and culture wherever it went. It doesn’t mean that all those areas became one country.
Furthermore, the Dravidian languages, which some claims are older than Sanskrit, cast a big shadow on the claim that Sanskrit was an overreaching Lingua Franca across the region. Finding Sanskrit coins in different areas means that the currency was also used in neighboring and Sanskrit speakers-controlled regions, just as Roman coins found in Africa. All the historians naming a place “Hind” was not a country but a region, as Khurasan was where modern Afghanistan, eastern central Asia, and Baluchistan stand. In conclusion, the Subcontinent had its unique cultures, which interacted because of their proximity. The region also saw some unification attempts as Imperial expansion and not as an attempt to culturally homogenize the area.
Last edited:
