The Long Shadows of Hindu Kush

kalarchakra/vivek :`` Nationalism is the noblest sentiment that a real person can feel....If you dislike nationalism, earn everyone`s respect by not rising to the defense and advocacy of Pakistan on Chowk for just one year.``

This is not true. Nationalism is nothing more than a vehicle to create a misguided following. As I mentioned, much of the killing in the world, today, is being carried out under the flag of nationalism.

There is absolutely nothing noble about that.

One should never, ``defend`` anything based on nationalism. One should defend it based on a concept of humanism and human rights and fact. That is the criteria I always use. Unfortunately, those who push nationalism will never see any faults in their own actions, because nationalism, by its definition, does not allow one to see fault in what one`s own nation is doing...................

To give you an idea of the ridiculousness of nationalism, just take a look at the various time periods in history, and the causes people were supporting. The same geographical areas, could be on one side, on the same issue, if they belong to the same nation. And then on the other side, if the geographical boundaries of the nation changes......Even though the issue remains the same...........

Nationalism, like patriotism, is, in many cases, the last excuse of the human rights violater and aggressor........... Any country that whips itself into a nationalistic frenzy will do a lot of damage to itself and to its neighbors........Nationalism should be limited to within the boundaries of the cricket fields..........

Everybody. Thanks for the valuable inputs.

I forgot to include Jaipal`s Shahi dynasty at Kabul which was ended by Ghaznavi. Hindu Kush being ruled by a Hindu Dynasty is historically an important part of the story.

And it was Ashoka who introduced Buddhism to Hindu Kush and not Chandra Gupta (as pointed out by Dost)

I have re-editted the text to correct these shortcomings.

thanx & bye.

nhk

Romair,
I agree that history should not be studied with emotional fever but with the purpose of learning the lessons for the future. The invaders should definitely be blamed for being ruthless murderers but our ancestors should also take the blame for being stupid and being too busy fighting among themselves instead of the foriegner. But as kaalchakra says ``nationalism is a noble concept``, and it is needed espescially when we don`t trust our own neighbours.

Some of you seem to have never read any thing substantial aboout the ancient history of your own land. At least a few of you may find the following quite interesting. It is from ``Anabasis`` the magnum orpus of Arian - a Greek historian and senator of the Roman empire, around the beginning of the second century AD:

---

``I hope I may be allowed to regard Eratosthenes of Cyrene as worthy of special credit, since he was a student of Geography. He states that beginning with Mount Taurus, where are the springs of the river Indus, along the Indus to the Ocean, and to the mouths of the Indus, the side of India is thirteen thousand stades in length. The opposite side to this one, that from the same mountain to the Eastern Ocean, he does not reckon as merely equal to the former side, since it has a promontory running well into the sea; the promontory stretching to about three thousand stades. So then he would make this side of India, to the eastward, a total length of sixteen thousand stades. This he gives, then, as the breadth of India. Its length, however, from west to east, up to the city of Palimbothra, he states that he gives as measured by reed-measurements; for there is a royal road; and this extends to ten thousand stades; beyond that, the information is not so certain. Those, however, who have followed common talk say that including the promontory, which runs into the sea, India extends over about ten thousand stades; but farther north its length is about twenty thousand stades. But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months` journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point.

---

There are some interesting facts to note in the accounts of various ancient historians and travellers to India. All of them refered to India, just as they regarded Egypt, Persia, and China. They were not deeply aware of NWFP and Punjab.

They described hundreds of cities and tribes, and mentioned many races of different skin colors, along with large numbers of kings ruling over different parts of the land, and, people who were Buddhists and non Buddhists. But never once were any one of them confused about the essential unity of the place they were visiting or describing.

Neither, of course, were our ancestors, irrespective of what they called themselves locally, and irrespective of whether they lived near the Indus or the Ganges or in modern-day Kerala. They knew of places that were NOT India - places like China, Greek, Rome, Egypt and Ethiopia. How could they not, when they regularly traded with and visited these places?

Interesting side note: even before Arian`s time, the wealthy of Greece and Rome and Africa and China were buying pearls, gold, diamonds, and spices from different parts of India at pretty hefty prices.

The clueless captain....wrote:
``When Ghauri and Ghaznavi and anyone else invaded South Asia, they did not invade, ``India`` as it is known today.``

You are using your paki jihadi logic again. Sure, India as it is known today did not
exist then - that is common sense.
But everything east of the Balochistan desert, and the khyber pass was definitely
Hindustan - the cultural continuity and separate ness of the region from persia
and other central asian regions was well known.

Even by today`s geopgraphical standards, Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Abdali were all Afghans,
so hardly of any connection to pakiland. But then you behave just like Naipaul
has described, so there is nothing surprising.

Romair

Nationalism is the noblest sentiment that a real person can feel.

If you dislike nationalism, earn everyone`s respect by not rising to the defense and advocacy of Pakistan on Chowk for just one year.

The suggestion about Islamabad being named, ``Taxila`` is interesting. And probably a good idea. Though Taxila is kind of far from Islamabad. Though not too far............

Anil #64: ``History is of the people and not of nation-state. .....Nation-states come and go, people have never been completely exterminated.``

Yes, this is true.

At the same time, nationalism is one of the strongest forces that is doing the rounds, nowdays. It is present everywhere. With nations trying to, ``rise`` and exert their influence over other areas. Int`l superpower, local superpower, mini-superpower etc. seem to be desirable goals......

Much of the support behind violence today is through nationalism. This is a, ``religion`` of its own. In fact, in today`s world, and in this whole century, State sponsored nationalism has killed far more human beings than any religion.

I think nationalism is, thus, a much more violent force than any other, in today`s world. This is what I was refering to. It is dangerous enough to attach today`s deeds to nationalism. It is extremely dangerous to start attaching history to today`s nationalism, also.

For example, I can understand someone from NWFP, Punjab etc. getting upset at someone invading his ancestors land, from Afghanistan, hundreds of years ago, and changing their demographics. However, why would someone from Sri Lanka or Malyalam be concerned? He/she should and would be more concerned about historical invasions (?) from Tamil Nadu. He/she would only be concerned, about Central Asian invaders, if he/she attaches this history to today`s, ``India.``

Similarly, should the descendant of any of the Muslim rulers that were conquered by Ghauri and Ghaznavi, support his own ancestors, or Ghauri and Ghaznavi? If he looks at it in today`s nationalistic origins, he would support the invaders, because he would attach it to Pakistan.......If he looks at it, outside nationalism, he would oppose the invaders..........

I think the only countries that have moved on, beyond nationalism are Western Europeans (and Canada). They seem to have had their fill of ruling others. And are now concentrating on universal health care, old age benefits, multiculturalism, closing the rich/poor divide. The rest of the world, including unfortunately the USA, is caught in various different stages of misguided passionate nationalism...........

If South Asia is to make any progress, it needs to let go of nationalism.............

Re: # 61
<<``When Ghauri and Ghaznavi and anyone else invaded South Asia, they did not invade, ``India`` as it is known today. To link their actions to a historical invasion of, ``India`` is as incorrect as linking Tariq-bin-Ziyad`s invasion of Spain in 711, to a Muslim invasion of the European Union in 2005. ``>>

History is of the people and not of nation-state. Nation-state (like India, Pakistan etc.) started to form only after Industrial Revolution in Europe. Nation-states come and go, people have never been completely exterminated.

Ghauri and Ghaznavi are the names given to lethal weapons by today`s actors, and today`s mindset of certain group. Scenarios to analyzing their mind set are too ghastly, some would be sadistic - as if they get pleasure in killing and plunder of innocent.

<<``..... I will not dignify this article with a response, which disrespects and dishonors the heroes of Islam, Ghaznavi, Ghauri, and Abdali and twists historically established truths, just to please a certain audiance. Without these heroes we would still be pagan infidels marred with superstition and heart wrenching disparity among human beings.....``>>

This is from Urstruly`s email on this board. A today`s actor, today`s mindset and in today`s time.

History is performed by yesterdays actors, who had no benefit of evolution in human thoughts and knowledge, beyond their time, which we, the today`s actors have. It will be the biggest mistake to not use this advantage to analyze the history. Otherwise, Holocausts will be repeated, as some segment, ala bin-ladin style, will be able to recreate conditions and circumstances of the past - if not in reality but certainly in their minds - and justify all acts barbarious. Nearer to home, some will otherwise justify slavery, or Nazism too.

We have the advantage of living in today with evolutions in today`s knowledge and today`s thoughts. We must never forget it, as others would not. What baffles me is that why the people whom I would call Islamic intellectuals and would respect their views on matters Islam, fall into regressive thinking. I wonder if this comes from strong current in Islam to unchange some of its archaic tenets of this religion.

Anil Kapuria

I wish `chowk` had a travel section, but since this board is on the subject of mountains, i thought i`ll paste a couple of links to some great pictures of India

Mumbai skyline/nearby areas:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=164579

Rajasthan:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=164579

A must for all indians:

http://www.ku.edu/~kuindia/

A picture is worth a thousand words.Peace.

Re: # 61

``As did the Christians in Europe. Muslim Kings ruled Spain and Portugal (or its portions) for over 700 years. During this time, a lot of Jews lived their also. Eventually in 1492, the European Christian armies retook all of Spain and Portugal. How many Jews and Muslims now live in Spain and Portugal? What happened to all of them, who had lived there for 700 years!!``

From Wikipedia
The expulsion of the Muslims was reputedly started by the first King of Asturias, named Pelayo (718-737), who started his fight against the Moors in the mountains of Covadonga (722). Later, his sons and descendants continued with his work until all of the Muslims were expelled.
The idea of the Reconquista as a single process spanning eight centuries is historically inaccurate. The Christian realms in northern Spain warred against each other as much as against the Muslims. The military decline of the Ummayads in Spain led to the creation in 913 of the Kingdom of León. Sancho III of Navarre - a man of considerable military skill - placed his son Fernando on the throne of the County of Castilla in 1028, propelling Christian Spain yet further into the south.
A revived movement for the Christian unification of Spain was capitalized on by the ``Catholic monarchs`` (Reyes Católicos in Spanish) Isabel I of Castilla and Fernando II of Aragón in order to justify their invasion of Granada, the expulsion of the Jews and the forceful conversion of the Moors.
In 1499, about 50,000 Moors in Granada were coerced by Cardinal Cisneros into mass baptisms and conversion. During the uprising that followed (known as the First Rebellion of the Alpujarras), people who refused the choices of baptism or deportation to Africa, were systematically eliminated. What followed was a mass flee of Moors, Jews and Gitanos from Granada city and the villages to the mountain regions (and their hills) and the rural country, however by 1500 Cisneros reported that ``There is now no one in the city who is not a Christian, and all the mosques are churches``.

People tend to look at history, through the geography and civics of today. When, in fact, they should look at it, through the geography and civics of the time when the history was being made.

Due to this, too many people are tied up to their present-day loyalties towards India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. When in fact, these are extremely new entities (at least India and Pakistan), which may not be around in a couple of centuries.

When Ghauri and Ghaznavi and anyone else invaded South Asia, they did not invade, ``India`` as it is known today. To link their actions to a historical invasion of, ``India`` is as incorrect as linking Tariq-bin-Ziyad`s invasion of Spain in 711, to a Muslim invasion of the European Union in 2005.

In fact, one could make a pretty good argument that the only time, ``South Asia`` existed as a united entity was during the time of Ashok and during the British rule. For over 90% of its history, including today, it was smaller states living side by side.....

Hence, I have never understood the emotional linkages that so many Indians (and Pakistanis) have to all these invasions. One seeing itself as the loser, and the other as the winner. During the days of the invasions, the general rule was kings/rules invading other kings/rulers. Didn`t matter if you were Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. The Muslim invaders killed other Muslim kings and rulers, along the way. And the Hindu kings did the same to their co-religionists. The intensities may have been different, but they battles were definitly fought.......

As did the Christians in Europe. Muslim Kings ruled Spain and Portugal (or its portions) for over 700 years. During this time, a lot of Jews lived their also. Eventually in 1492, the European Christian armies retook all of Spain and Portugal. How many Jews and Muslims now live in Spain and Portugal? What happened to all of them, who had lived there for 700 years!!

That is apparently how things were done back then. That was the civics of the time. King vs King. Muslim King vs Hindu King. Hindu King vs Muslim King. Muslim King vs. Muslim King......

To look at it within the context of today`s nation-states, and then form opinions, is incorrect......I think someone should describe in detail, how many Hindu kings/rulers fought each other, historically. After all, Islam only arrived in South Asia the eight century. There was a lot of fighting going on before then. And how many Muslim kings/rulers fought each other in South Asia, as they invaded each others` conquered lands..............

Aitezaz Ahsan discusses this in his, ``Indus Saga,`` dividing the whole area into the Indus civilization and the Ganga civilization. He actually links the Indus civilization with Persia and Afghanistan. In which case the invaders were invading their own cousins............

Re: # 58

``As per the periodical Saamna which is a Mumbai publication that conducts research into ancient India [it used to be funded at various times by the Maharashtra govt and the GoI but it depends on who is in power because of some of their more radical theories and opeds``

Is this Saamna different than the Shiv Sena daily?

I think this article correctly points out that the hindu kush area is more significant historically than it is geographically.

However, as a fallout of 9/11, change (overdue by centuries) is finally coming to this area, with the international community footing the bill to build roads and schools and other infrastructure needed to develop the area. Afghanistan is growing at 30% every year for the past couple of years. On the other hand, the population remains strongly attached to their primitive customs. For Pakistan it is very important that this area progresses and gets rid of the dysfunctional traditionals of the area.

As usual, Nazar sahib has chosen an interesting subject and written well on it.

Nazar Khan - this was a truly interesting article to read. The Hindu Kush is an area the British and the colonials wrote about a great deal perhaps because it was where the British suffered a defeat at the hands of the locals. It`s always seemed a place of great romance and adventure and that is probably due to the books that kind of slip over the fact that all that romance and adventure were based on great tragedy. Post Independence, its hard to come across any books set in the area unless they are political commentaries.
Unfortunately, yes - it does look like an interesting century ahead.
Thanks for the write up.

Re: # 54
Khammy got it slightly wrong. As per the periodical Saamna which is a Mumbai publication that conducts research into ancient India [it used to be funded at various times by the Maharashtra govt and the GoI but it depends on who is in power because of some of their more radical theories and opeds] I understand the earliest naem of India is Chinchpoklikijai. Hope this helps.

Interesting article Khan sahib and even more interesting interacts. Both Iran and Afghanistan are proud of their Aryan heritage even today. Egyptians do not hang their heads in shame over their pyramids and pagan past. It is amazing that some Pakistanis do not want to own up to their oldest and the grandest university of Taxila( Islamabad), that predates Oxford or Harvard by centuries just because it might displease a certain audience.

By the way Afghanistan was still a Hindu country for four hundred years after Raja Dahir of Sindh was defeated by the Arabs. It was last ruled by Brahmins, some of whom even fought to aid and died with Ali at Karbala in Iraq. It would not be surprising that Gauri and Gajanavi had Hindu ancesstors too just like Iqbal of the last century. Khatri is Punjabi corruption of Khastriya, Mauryan empire`s capital was at Patna of Bihar, Ranjit Singh could have but did not bring back the sandalwood gates of Somnath because of some superstitious advice. Unlike the present day Khalistanis, Ranjit Singh, Hari singh Nalua etc. considered themselves to be Hindus. Nalua`s dying instructions were for his bones to be intrerned in Ganges at Haridwar.