The Long Shadows of Hindu Kush

Nationalism suffers in comparison with true universalism. But a true universalist is yet to be found.


Dost-mittar

South Asianists are merely re-emphasizing an older `nationalism.` It`s a mild political ruse, but overall, a respectable one, with positive motivations.

The bitter negative attack on nationalism today comes from two equally negatively oriented, anti-intellectual bed-mates -- Pan Islamists and extreme leftists.

Re #84

``In fact, India lost a golden opportunity then to use its influence with Mujeeb to bring about a reconciliation between East and West Pakistan and earn the goodwill of both wings. ``

I have a feeling Pruthviraj Chauhan must have had such noble sentiments after he defeated Mohammad Ghori in their first battle. We all know what happened to him.

Re # 84

Kutte ki doom hamesha tedi hoti hai.
Ek din, ek haftah, ek mahina, ek saal baandh kar seedhi rakho, uske baad vaapas
tedi ho jayegi.
Look at Kashmiri and Bangladeshi muslims. This was bound to happen one day, however much rest of the India had done for them. They were bound to find an excuse to do
whatever they have done and doing now. Dimaag hi programmed kiya jata hai.

I think whatever India did was good. Perhaps should do more.

rahulmal#83:

I agree. I have said before that even Indian intervention in Bangladesh was wrong. In fact, India lost a golden opportunity then to use its influence with Mujeeb to bring about a reconciliation between East and West Pakistan and earn the goodwill of both wings. And if Indians are supporting insurgency in Balochistan then it is playing a shortsighted game. Indians should encourage a positive Pakistani identity, such as the one promoted by the likes of the author of Indus Saga, to replace the one based only on Islam and being not-Indian.

DMji and Amit,

Great posts! I would guard against anyone playing with integrity of India`s neighbours. Any disintegration would mean that the resultant smaller states would be even more malleable to the wishes of extra-regional and non-state actors. Just imagine uncle Sam guarding the Pak-Iran border under the guise of Baloch nationalism. Ironically, we may see ourselves rooting for Pakistani nationalism when their own people seem to have given it up for more `universal` causes :-)

Re:dost-mittar#81

I think the Pakistani disillusion with nationalism has more to do with their own lack of success in forging a strong nation, rather than an urge to compete with India. Basically Pakistan is currently being held together mainly by military force. The events in Balochistan, the strife in NWFP, the simmering disconent in Sindh over water, the squabbling over Punjab`s dominance are all symptomatic that people in Pakistan think more in terms of their local identity than a national identity. Earlier, the one method to keep everyone together was to raise the bogey of a threat from India but now even that has lost its appeal. If the army ever becomes weak in Pakistan, the country might evolve into a loose federation of provinces.

India, on the other hand, has managed to forge a national identity, in spite of having many secessionist movements. By and large, people in India have developed a national consensus on key issues and a stake in staying together, not to mention leveraging the economies of scale. India has truly developed into a showcase for the whole being more than a sum of the parts. Therefore, no one in India is willing to dismantle nationalism and it will stay united like the USA.

Therefore, I predict that the subcontinent is going to move more towards a hub and spoke model. The hub is a centralized united India of the present and the spokes are regional economic alliances between adjoining provinces of neighboring countries. So one spoke would be Indian Punjab, Pakistani Punjab, Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir with perhaps NWFP and/or Afghanistan joining in. The other spoke could be Rajasthan, Gujarat, Sindh and Balochistan. Yet another spoke would be W. Bengal, Bangladesh and North East states.

Re: # 82
Interesting idea with the hub and spokes. The only quibble I have is that you idolise India a little too much. Indians declaring India to be a great nation does not mean you are a great nation. In order to be a great nation, that title has to be bestowed by other countries.

You dismiss secessionism as if it were merely a footnote in history. India is in no better shape than Pakistan. With the larger area, India seems to have proportionately fewer problems. In fact, India has yet to effectively deal with Kashmir, Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin, Sikh discontent in Punjab, the eastern hill rebellions, Naxalites etc.

You talk of India being a showcase, but India is still a land of enormous inequalities. Certainly there is a growing and wealthy middle class based on the ``software revolution``. However, there are still hundreds of millions of dirt-poor people with little hope of being noticed by urban elites. Don`t be too confident of the software industry either - bigger bubbles have burst than this.

Come back to us when you are able to show that the vast majority of your citizens have access to schools, hospitals, jobs, drinking water etc. Then maybe you can talk about how strong you are.

By the way, the USA suffered disunity too (look up the Civil War and tell me that wasn`t secessionism). The greatness of the USA was built on the deaths of many innocents - is that your role model?

Stop looking up to distant nations and do something positive for your own poor people and your neighbours.

Pakistanis have given up on seeking parity with India on the old concept of one Muslim mujahid equals ten cowardly Hindus. Next was ridiculing the idea of the concept of India as a nation; India has demonstrated however that her notion of unity in diversity works and Indians have, by and large, succeeded in developing a strong sense of nationhood. The latest ploy is to attack the very idea of nationhood as regressive and passé and that South Asians should consider themselves as a number of natural units on an economic and cultural basis (with Pakistan plus Kashmir and maybe even the Indian Punjab being, of course, a natural unit). The basic aim remains unchanged, which is that Pakistan somehow should be equal to India.

Europe has not given up on nationhood: France, Germany, England, Italy and others retain a strong sense of their national identity, although they are willing to trade off some of their sovereign powers for economic benefits and to compete as a bloc with America. There are strong nationalist movements in Spain. The old Yugoslovia has broken into many nations because it lacked a sense of nationhood. Soviet Union broke into several independent states because of the strong nationalist feelings among constituents. Canadian nationalism is strong enough that beer companies have ads. touting Canada`s distinctiveness vis-a-vis the US, just as Pakistanis tout their distinctiveness vis-a-vis India. And the same beer company dares not run that Ad in Quebec because the feeling of Quebec nationlism there will mean a reduction rather than an increase in the sale of their product. Closer to home, there are strong separatist movements in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Kurd areas. There is, of course, the Kashmiri separatist movement as well, even though it is strictly speaking, not an independence movement but an alienation from India based on the concept of an Ummah (the slogan being: Pakistan se rishta kya, La Ilaha L`il Alah!).

Nothing in the above suggests that SAARC countries should not develop into a strong economic bloc a la Europe. This would encourage friendship, reduce tensions and create interdependencies and business lobbies against war with each other. Pakistanis who are against the concept of nationhood do not realise that their government has consistently refused to allow Indian businessmen to invest in their country regardless of whether or not that investment would benefit Pakistanis.

Urstruly#77

Sikh rule started after Abdali and the Marathas had fought each other. The marathas were defeated and Abdali retreated back to Afghanistan, leaving a vaccum in North India that was filled by the sikhs.

#77 Urstruly

“they were devouring Muslim children`s hearts after Bar b q-ing them”

Any credible references on internet or you just create this bs when you are in a creative mood? My understanding was that Ranjeet singh had many muslim generals and ministers in his punjabi administration.

And btw, sikh rule did not end due to Abdali`s valor, but they lost to british.

#75 by tahmed32 .. no thanks.. romair has eyes on the IT minister job as soon as the new nation of ``Islamic Republic of Kashmir`` is formed...unless a new nation separates in ontario province before.

I think it is a sin keeping silent when jahiliat and ignorance is preached under the guise of scholarship. People should know that Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked Punjab at the request of Shah Walliullah Mohadis Dehlvi to free the Muslims of Punjab from the ruthless shackels of Sikh opression. Please keep in mind that it was the time when Shahi Mosuque of Lahore was turned into a stable by the sikh heathens and they were devouring Muslim children`s hearts after Bar b q-ing them. If it weren`t for Abdali the Muslims would have been extinct from the Western India today.

satyamvada: I see you are aping the ape-man (with his brilliant coining of the word Pakiland - Pakistan being too painful to say). How pathetic can you get when you start aping the monkey-men. ha! ha!

(Now write me a nasty post telling me how hindus are so brilliant and how muslims are so primitive).

Romair: Spoken like a true statesman (this business about rising above petty nationalism). I vote for you to be the next President of the SU (Southasian Union).

Romair,
Conditions in Europe and South Asia are not the same. In Europe all countries have realized that they cannot progress without cooperation. This has been built after close to 60yrs of cooperation. South Asia has no history of cooperation, and it cannot have cooperation when every country is suspicious of its neighbours. If by some miracle they start cooperating, then maybe after 2 decades of such cooperation, they can think about giving up on their nationalist bias.

Nationalism is actually breaking down in the most sophisticated societies in the world. The Europeans have, traditionally, conquered and ruled more of the world, than anyone. Only Genghis Khan`s descendants` had a larger empire, but that didn`t last too long. In addition, the Europeans have contributed more to the arts and sciences than anyone in the world.........

Apparently, they have figured out the uselessness of nationalism now. They are now moving into a union, with no natinalistic boundaries. Their nationalism is now limited to the Olympics. This is despite the fact that European nations fought some of the most brutal wars in world history.

The battle of Verdun, in WW I, was just one of the many battles in WW II. Many times more people died in that battle alone, than in all the wars between India and Pakistan. Alsace-Lorraine was the Kashmir of Germany and France, switching ownership, over history, between two countries, swept up in nationalism. Now the two countries have given up their nationalism. And there isn`t even a single security gaurd standing in that area. No visas are required...........

The countries/areas etc. that are caught up in nationalism, like the USA and South Asia will always remain in a state of hot or cold war, with someone. Because it is too easy to get the populations riled up for misguided causes............

The future belongs to economic unions of politically independent groups. It does not belong to nationalistic control of geogrphical areas, leading to a perpetual state of war with others. The Europeans have discovered this the hard way. Americans are now starting to realize it, and will hopefully shun their nationalism, after the neo-con era is over. South Asia should learn from the Europeans` experience.

The future of South Asia is a voluntary conomic union, like the EU, of politically independent areas, which are not in the influence of any country`s nationlism.............I am far happier going to an independent Dhaka, today, where people welcome me, if I want to set up an IT office, then to go to a Dhaka controlled by Pakistani nationalism, where the locals hate me..........

Poverty and feudalism has been the historical evil in South Asia. It would be sad to see it replaced by nationalistic frenzy........The results will be no different that the historical wars that occured in Europe............

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.............

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.

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: # 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

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``.

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.

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.

urstruly...
abay bilkul pagal ho gaya hai?...ghaznavi, ghauri and abdali were no heroes of islam...they were invaders and robbers ...who killed hindoos and muslims with the same sword...

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.

Khamkwha:51
chiriphatikijai...the ancient name of india...

chiriphatikijai..? Can you please give the source of your un-jahil scholarship. Knowing you I suspect this is some kind of your classic Bi-Jamaalo antics. Maybe not. I must admit you sometimes out-boom the boomboom himself.

Care to translate it into everyday english ..with pronunciation?

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.

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 have heard another interpretation of the name Hindukush. Hind + Kavkaz or Caucasus the mountains Turks were most familiar with. Maybe some of you could shed some light on this.

...abay jahilo...
the real name of this particular mountain range was... Hindu Khush...meaning happy hindu...it has been corrupted to Hindu Kush by the jahil angraiz rulers of the yesteryears who missed one H while drunk...ask boomboom...he will confirm that angraiz were the source of all evil in chiriphatikijai...the ancient name of india...

Re # 48

``Don`t you think if there was another name for it , it would be known to us? ``

``I am curious to know the `original` (earliest memory) name of this mountain range.``

echoboom,

Yes, you are right. From what I have read, I have never come across an earlier name
for this mountain range. Perhaps it was all Himalay (Himalay, Karakoram, Hindukush).

echooboom # 48

The only big problem that Hindu Kush poses for invaders is its difficult terrain.

The Russians had a perfect solution for the difficult terrain - Helicopter.

They lost out because the Mujahideen were given an anti-dote of Helicopter by Americans - shoulder mounted heat seeking Stinger missile.

This one FACTOR was responsible for defeat of the Soviets.

nhk

Shipsha:46

No need to be so maudlin & so sentimental over this. Don`t you think if there was another name for it , it would be known to us? Nobody NAMED rivers or mountains in an ownership/patented/`I-discovered` kind of way which is the method of the vulgar, low class western thUGGs...like Everest:.... Oh Now that is where we can make a start. Bring back the name which was there before the bufoon ``conquered`` it-( Kailaash? as Kaleedaas wrote)-was that not taught in the Radiant-Reader?--the Ba Ba Blacksheep course(which were the seepaaraas of tahmed32. Hee must be a Hafiz-e-Radiant-Reader, bobbing on Miss Muffet`s Tuffet while memorising the stuff.

Hind does not refer to a religion here. It simply means that anyone trying to cross these treacherous mountains would not survive because these mountains kill those who arrive from Hind. Why? because even today the ones from the hot climes of the plains do not like to face the cold of even Rawalpindi or Quetta or even Lahore ( just ask even the `hinduised` muhajirs from Karachi). Just imagine when there were no facilities. Even Britto`s couldn`t & the Ugly Americans are now tasting the icecandy. Russia has been `blessed` by these immense cold frontiers on its west south and eastern borders and that is why she was able to fend off Napolean & Hitler. Their stupidity in the Afghan war was that instead of drawing back, they engaged. What they did not know ( jaahil kee aulaad) that these rugged mountain men do can manage without propper even in the severest of winters. A reading of the Aaeen-e-Changaizee or the tuzuks of the Mughals PLUS the grand muslim literature on this would have made them somewhat learned. But everyone reads the west-point & sandhurst-stuff now. From whence can come the whiff of wisdom now?

I am curious to know the `original` (earliest memory) name of this mountain range. I hope nobody ever got offended by Nanga Parbat: Khalis `hindi` name to bring shame to those who live in, what is now ,Pakistan.

I wonder why some people want to change the name of mountain range ?

Infact, it serves as a reminder of history. One should not forget history, lest it
be repeated again.
One should forgive - but never forget.

I wonder how muslims in general and Pakistanis would be feeling/reacting had there been a
city in say Maharashtra called IslamNashpur (where say ShaistaKhan ran away after his fingers got chopped along with his army) or say there was a river in
Rajasthan called IslamNashini!

Would likes of echoboom be calling such a ``good name``? I would not.

Re: # 46

I agree, this thing about killer of hindu is actually a communal slur/abuse...........I hope the authorities in Pakistan do some thing to remove such references to communal or religious carnages of the dark ages!!

kabuliwallah #41

{{Babur and Abdali were both invited by Indians to settle petty rivalries}}

Ahmed Shah Abdali was invited to invade India by a certain Shah Waliullah Dehlavi. That man was an Islamic fanatic enraged by the decline of Islamicate power in India and by the likelihood of Muslims becoming indistinguishable from non-Muslims under a non-Islamic dispensation.

That does not sound like a petty rivalry to me – it is a complaint that has been voiced at regular intervals over the next two and a half centuries, by an assortment of characters, some of them Westernised in varying degrees, even while the long-term decline of Islamicate power and Persianate cultural influence continues unchecked.

Singularity:43
Hindu-kush is a good name . It is always a good reminder . Otherwise children will not ask why the name.

Well, nowadays the enemy comes by air and mountains are no barriers. If at all a name change is necessary it should be farangi_kush because the ugly Brittos suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the brave & chivalrous afghans...only one was sent back alive to narrate the story. (Muslim children`s eyes become starry-eyed & bright when this in narrated in class).
I`ll give-up the trademark rights for free & in the interest of BOTH countries.

It is a good name because no one can ever deny that the common enemy in the freedom-struggle for all Indians (pre-1947) were the British Baboons. This is a name which all would agree.

Hi Chowk members:

How many here will vote for a PROPOSAL to change the name of HinduKush mountain range to something like ``Aman`` or ``Shanthi`` mountain range to drive home a message of peace.

Having a name full of barbaric connotation like ``HinduKush`` or ``Kill the Hindus`` only helps the MUSLIM MINDSET of average mullahs to keep the kill the kafir hindus deep in their psyche. If Muslims want to get out of the mullah grip they need to do everythin that erodes the psychological power the mullahs hold over the muslims.

Changing the name of this BLOODY mountain range will make a quantum leap in muslim civilization ethos.

So let us say, if we take a VOTE, I am sure all Indian-hindus(except the self-loathing PseudoSec variety) will say YES to name change. But the key element is to see how many MUSLIMS, especially PAKISTAN muslims who has the honesty and guts to accept this honest request.

Kabuliwallah:41

Indians who would invite outsiders to invade and topple a rival...Babur and Abdali were both invited by Indians to settle petty rivalries...Ghaznavi and Ghori both had Indian (so much for Rajput chivalry) allies. Entire Indian history is a story of betrayal and treason.

---

Thanks for this insight which unfortunately has become a very deliberate & conscious oversight for the Haraamzaadays & Ghulaamzaadays even today.

The maader-ate & lunlightened U-turn trapeze artist of Pakistan is the latest case in point.

What is the point in learning such history when we are determined to add more to such history?

Until & unless we do learn to zaleel & humiliate the US, Brittos, & othe colonialists, we won`t go anywhere. This we must do at the `peril` of being without their AIDs, of being poor but proud, of going to higher education in ``kick-a-farangi-today`` curriculam from China, Iran, Malaysia, North Korea ( South Korea is a pimp & prostitute like Pakistan: money in bank/ but conscience & honour in gutter) and so many other proud nations. These nations are deliberately ostracised from our own media when they humiliate the thUGGs in public.

re: Amit # 31

``However, I have never heard of any South Asian ruler providing any kind of defence to these passes. Even invaders who came via these passes forgot about their own arrival, until the next wave of invaders came in to subjugate them!! ``

I believe Gupta kings and Allaudin Khilji built a series of forts on their frontiers to defend themselves from the Huns...much the same reason Great Wall of China was built...The problem, I believe, was not lack of defences...but rather a lack of unity among Indians...more often than not it was Indians who would invite outsiders to invade and topple a rival...Babur and Abdali were both invited by Indians to settle petty rivalries...Ghaznavi and Ghori both had Indian (so much for Rajput chivalry) allies. Entire Indian history is a story of betrayal and treason.

regards,

Kabuli

This is the irony of history taught.

The Khans defiled Islamic states/powers/religion/population in every manner possible. Yet, how proudly and eagerly they took the names of the invaders.

The natives who bore the brunt of the inasions and turned the tide are forgotten on purpose in history books.

One shouldn`t take the history at face value. History is written by victors and chamchas and is usually biased. With common sense, one can easily see thru.

JUST OFF THE CUFF


MR NHK Sahib..

I always find your articles interesting and very informative... and pretty decently balanced.... and in the Near future I might become a Fan of yours..

you seem to use wikipedia extensively ................. most of your referernces are from wikipeida`s site..
no doubt it a very good one...

But I have tried.. www.answers.com its another very good similiar site... of course with other fringe benefits like dictionary...etc.e.tc..etc....plus a downloadable search appelet which allows you to search the site from your desktop.. provided you are connected to the NET....


Just thought I might interest you....

Rahulmal said
``For instance, Rajputs mostly use Singh followed by their clan name like Tomar, Chahmana (or Chauhan), Solanki etc. while Khatris use Malhotra, Tandon, Kappor, Khanna etc. ``

Names like Rathod and Solanki - are from the kings of Karnataka
called the Rashtrakuta and the Chalukya. I do not know about Tomar, Chauhan etc..
but I would suspect it would be similiar.
Again,We should not mistake the present day state boundaries and languages with what
existed in ancient times.

India (indeed the whole subcontinent) has had an extremely fluid movement of ideas
and people over millenia. Over a period of time this gave rise to a composite culture -
that is why as an example, even today, you have people who go for piligrimages from
every nook of the country to the various shakti-peeth spread spread all over the
subcontinent.

Hmm....as usual the eminent Dost-mitter comes up with his `social theory` of low-caste
and high-caste etc, and everyone else follows...

In ancient times, there was very little concept of `high` or `low` jaati - whoever was
in higher number and held political power was a kshatriya. Until the peshwa period
- there were not many brahmin rulers. Everyone who became
ruler was considered kshatriya. This is how jaati-mobility was achieved. One jaati
which is weak in one part of the country can be strong in another - this is true even
today.
So whether Chandragupta Maurya was kshatriya or not - would not have mattered
either to Chandragupta or others.
One should not back project present day prejudices and perspectives onto ancient times.


Also -FYI- Khatri, khatti etc are all apabrahmsha form of the word Kshatriya.

I wish ``chowk` had a travel section, but i cannot but wish to share these magnificent panoramic views of south india.I feel like getting into my car and driving there myself.Even seeing these photos are soothing to the eyes.Mr.Gill., i`m sure you will understand!!!.


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=209063


There`s so much beauty right in our own neck of the woods.Yet, we refuse to see it.Sad.

Very good comprehensive article indeed--nice peep into the history.
This all confusion about the caste of Chandragupta is a created one because the so called warrier castes dont feel comfortable in accepting the fact that the most powerful empires of south Asia were either established by low castes or mughals,thats why they try to prove that either he was illegitimate son of Nand or from a Kshattriya tribe.

If anyone has photos of the hindu kush range i would love to see.Meanwhile, feast your eyes on the Garhwal areas of the Himalayas.Garhwal is an indian town in Uttaranchal state.These photos are absolutely stunning and you will see why india is such a magnificent country.The diversity not only of peoples , but also flora and fauna.Enjoy!!...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=208678

Rahulmal # 29

(Though, this is the first time I`ve heard that he was Khatri. I`m curious to know the source of this information.)

Chandra Gupta was a Kshtriya.
Refer to the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauryan_empire

nhk

Re: # 32

Nazar Saab,

This is what Wikipedia says:

``Chandragupta Maurya`s origins are shrouded in mystery. Having been raised by peacock tamers, he could have been of low-caste background. According to other sources, Chandragupta Maurya was the son of a Nanda prince and a dasi, Mura. It is also possible that Chandragupta was of the Maurya tribe of Kshatriyas, a clan of Hindu kings and warriors.``

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya

Like I said in my last post, his caste is still not established. Moreover, Kshatriya is different from Khatree or Khatri. The former are members of warrior caste who today are known as Rajputs. The latter are a merchant community in and around U.P., Punjab & Delhi. The surnames are also different. Foe instance, Rajputs mostly use Singh followed by their clan name like Tomar, Chahmana (or Chauhan), Solanki etc. while Khatris use Malhotra, Tandon, Kappor, Khanna etc.

Did you mean kshatriya when you used Khatree in the article? Is there something I`ve overlooked?

Re:NHK#28

You wrote, ``Keeping a track of over 22 invaders, one tends to get confused.``

It is amazing that the Afghans and Pashtuns have been able to endure so many invasions all through their history. Sometimes we Indians tend to think that we are the only victims of history :-), but our experiences are dwarfted by the experiences of the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

One thing that has always amazed me is that the Hindukush mountains could never provide an adequate defence to South Asia. On the North and North-east, the Himalayas provided a strong buffer against China. However, in the North-west, the invading armies would always be able to exploit the mountain passes like the Khyber pass to invade South Asia. Also, one would think that after a few invasions, people in South Asia would sit up and notice their vulnerability to these Passes and do somthing to protect themselves such as put up barriers, walls etc like the Chinese. However, I have never heard of any South Asian ruler providing any kind of defence to these passes. Even invaders who came via these passes forgot about their own arrival, until the next wave of invaders came in to subjugate them!! Just shows that the Chinese are any day smarter than us desis :-).

Rahulmal # 17

I agree there are some editing mistakes. There are other mistakes like extra `ands`, one `not` missing and some sentences which could be further simplified and made more direct.

Condensing 3000 years & handling over 22 characters, even I got fed up in the end; and let it go.

nhk

``His nemeses was Chandra Gupta, a khatree from Taxila, who unified South Asia and captured the Hindu Kush introducing Buddhism. ``

There have been three ChandraGuptas in Indian History. CG Maurya, CG-I of Gupta dynasty and CG-II (CG-I`s grandson also known as Vikramaditya). The famous Vikram and Betaal stories are woven aroind CG-II`s person, who was considered a very wise ruler.

CG Maurya captured Magadha under the tutelage of Chanakya, his Brahmin advisor. Legend has it that Chanakya was riled up by the discourtesy shown to him by Nanda ruler of Magadha. So, he vowed to not tie his `Shikha` till he had seen the last of Nandas. It is improbable that his protege would convert to Buddhism while Chanakya was prime-minister. And Chanakya it was, as is attested by contemporary Greek documents about `Sandrokottus`. Please read the interesting story of how William Jones solved the riddle of first pan-Indian ruler of India!

There are many views about his caste ranging from Brahmin to so-called lower caste. The question of CG-I`s caste has not yet been resolved. Though, this is the first time I`ve heard that he was Khatri. I`m curious to know the source of this information.

There is a school of thought that believes CG Maurya converted to Jainism and ended his life in Karantaka by starving himself to death. If I get it, I`ll post a link during the weekend.

Amit # 26

I should have mentioned Hindushahi Dynasty of Jaipal. A very valid observation. I had jotted it down but just missed out. I feel this is a major miss - the influence of Hinduism in the Hindu Kush.

Keeping a track of over 22 invaders, one tends to get confused.

About the Sikhs recovering the Somnath doors from Ghazni is another interesting detail that I did not know.

nhk

Nazar Saab,

As usual, a good read!

Trivia:

``the average the average`` in first para needs editing

``doze`` in fifth para should be dose

My request is to work out an arrangement with Chowk staff so that your articles are published only during the weekend. Otherwise, the temptation of interacting gets the better of the sense of duty :-)

NHK,

Excellent Article!! You missed out a few things though. You did not mention the Hindushahi dynasty that ruled Kabul and Peshawar at the time of Ghaznavi. The king of Kabul was Raja Jaipal, who was defeated by Ghaznavi. His son Ananadpal setup his kingdom from Peshawar. Anandpal organized a large Rajput confederacy all over modern day Pakistan, to fight against Ghaznavi but lost yet again. Earlier to the Hindushahis, the Gupta dynasty also had an influence in this region.

In more recent times, the Sikhs controlled Peshawar and even Kabul for a while. In fact, the Sikhs even captured Ghazni town. The door of the Somnath temple that were hauled away by Ghaznavi, were recovered back by the Sikhs from Ghazni and taken back to India.

It is so heartening to read anything that acknowledges certain merits of the Vedic civilization.

It just amazes me that a vast subcontinent that India is and that which has been repeatedly assailed, still managed to produce excellence in atleast three aspects: cuisine, music, and abstraction. In fact, this gets more and more evident as one goes south. People there enjoy indulging in those three and are so immune and also passive to the harsh conditions of life. But I would also ascribe this as a reason to the slow material progress we have managed to make so far. I wonder what the people living in say, Balochistan, would think of South Indians had they been part of India still.

Indeed a very good read.

Finally a break from the crapy stupid political articles.

Netizen # 22

(After reading your article, I started wondering why Pakistan has named its missiles as Ghori, Ghazni and Abdali)

I think this realization is now gradually seeping in, even in the Punjabis. The people who named them had only read the state-sponsered History Books. An effort is also being made to re-write the history in its correct context.

Taxila is just a stone`s throw from Islamabad. They could have named Islamabad as Taxila; and the city could have been suddenly enriched by a 2000 year old history.

nhk

nhk,

You are like a sage of chowk, who regularly enlightens us with wisdom and fascinating tales.

After reading your article, I started wondering why Pakistan has named its missiles as Ghori, Ghazni and Abdali. None of them were of Pak origin. OTOH, they must have slaughtered the forefathers of present Pakis, as they were on their murderous path. Are people so blind of hate that they don`t see it or refuse to accept it. You comment about Bulleh Shahs description of Abdalis atrocities, and still punjabi majority pakis honor him? was there any punjabi muslim who ever became a ruler, all i know is Ranjit Singh being the only feared Sher-e-Punjab. Sikhs would have been a minority with muslim punjabis being a majority still the Sikhs ruled the region how do muslim punjabi view it? Is he accorded his place in history.

Thamizon # 18

(Can you give any proof that Punjabi Hindus/Sikhs still live there?)

Sikhs are very much there (and also at Peshawar) doing business. Some have recently returned back to Kabul after the Taleban were ousted.

I recently read somewhere that one last remaining Jew in Kabul has decided to leave for Israel.


nhk

Temporal # 12

(what is the current status of the durand line? )

The matter has yet to be resolved. Even our creation the Taleban refused to accept it. Afghans say that this treaty was between the British of United India and Afghanistan.

The Mughals had ceded West of Indus to Afghans. And, historically, Indus was considered a boundary of Hindu Kush.

In fact, all areas falling in Pakistan were considered outposts of South Asia. Babar kept roaming in these areas for 4 years but his victory is taken from the date he won at Panipat.

nhk

Temporal # 12

(what is the current status of the durand line? )

The matter has yet to be resolved. Even our creation the Taleban refused to accept it. Afghans say that this treaty was between the British of United India and Afghanistan.

The Mughals had ceded West of Indus to Afghans. And, historically, Indus was considered a boundary of Hindu Kush.

In fact, all areas falling in Pakistan were considered outposts of South Asia. Babar kept roaming in these areas for 4 years but his victory is taken from the date he won at Panipat.

nhk

Very interesting summary. Can you give any proof that Punjabi Hindus/Sikhs still live there? I would have though by now everyone would simply start to follow the majority religion.

Asoka became Budhist after witnessing the battle of Kalinga. He spread Budhism. It seems that without much success amongst the masses. Mauryas were Hindus.

HinduKush means Hindu Killer. The Hindu slaves on their way to the markets in foreign lands perished here in numbers. Thus the name Hindu Kush.

dost-mittar #9

{{Chandra Gupta Maurya, I believe, was himself not a Buddhist}}

There is a Jain tradition to the effect that Chandragupta Maurya adopted their path, abdicated in favour of his son Bindusara, became an ascetic and starved himself to death.

{{Incidentally, there is quite a bit of disagreement about the caste of Chandra Gupta Mauraya. He is believed by many to be of a low caste }}

Caste of peacock-breeders? There are other traditions though.

Re #14

``some say that that was hindu holocaust. I think the GoI should do some research to find the fact so that we can know what happened and why.``

Maybe dispersal and westward migration of Gypsies from then North/Northwest India was a result of that!

Re: # 15

``Maybe dispersal and westward migration of Gypsies from then North/Northwest India was a result of that! ``

I don`t think so. They would have moved eastwards not west, in case of fleeing an invasion. Hindu Kush refers to those emaciated, tired helpless slaves who were taken to slave bazaars of Samarqand/far west. It was a common practise among Islamic invaders eg Greek, Kievian Russ. Ironically indian textbooks are silent about these massacres.

I also found interesting that Mullah Omar of Taliban came from town/village of
Singesar near Kandahar.
Singesar sounds a lot like `apabhransha` of Singheshwar or short of SinghSarovar
(sar being short of Sarovar like in Amrutsar and Singh meaning Lion).

nazar:

interesting read

what is the current status of the durand line?

When the British come, they fail to conquer Hindu Kush from the East could have included briefly the afghan wars?

and the fakir of ippi?

rgds

t

NH,
It is not ``Poros`` - but Pururvas ( the name itself shows that he was a descendant
of Puru - who by the way is closely tied to the Rigveda and the Bharata)
Poros or Porus is the greek version of the Indian name - it tends to confuse.
Similiarly Darius - is actually Darayush

The name of Chanakya (the author of the Arthashastra) is Vishnu Gupta

#7
True.Hindu probably didnt refer to a certain religious group.But then again werent the majority Hindu or followers of hinduism!

A little off topic but has anyone her ever heard of Jordi Magraner? he spent the last 12 years searching for bigfoot (barmanu in local chitrali dialect) in these areas especially around Chitral.He was killed a few years ago by his servant.Alot of his research was based on witness testimonies; it just fascinates me as to how many secrets lay undiscovered in these regions.

Nazar Saheb#8:

Are you sure?

Chandra Gupta Maurya, I believe, was himself not a Buddhist. He was, in fact, brought to power by the famous brahmin Machiavalli, Chanakya.

Incidentally, there is quite a bit of disagreement about the caste of Chandra Gupta Mauraya. He is believed by many to be of a low caste (Modern day Guptas in India are, asaik, Vaisyas/Banias). This has an interesting contemporary significance. The dalit party of India, Bahujan Samaj Party` leader Mayawati, is trying to win over the brahmin votes in UP and is invoking the alliance of the Brahmin Chanakya and the low-caste Chandra Gupta to win their support.

Re: # 9

``He is believed by many to be of a low caste (Modern day Guptas in India are, asaik, Vaisyas/Banias). ``

I don`t think there is any connection b/t Chandragupta and the modern day guptas. Maybe ``Gupt`` was more of a title at that time, as someone else pointed out that Chanakays real name was Vishnu Gupt.

---

#10

``True.Hindu probably didnt refer to a certain religious group.But then again werent the majority Hindu or followers of hinduism!``

you can say that most of them were either vedic, buddhists, jains. may be some of them were atheists or agnostic but were still hindu (by culture). Hence some say that converted muslims/christians are also hindu!!

``barmanu in local chitrali dialect``

does ``barmanu`` mean big man. Just curious because thats what it would mean in my native language.

---

#4 Beejay

``I thought “koh” meant cave and “kush” meant a type of grass. But I may be wrong. ``

Koh-e-noor: light of the mountain
khud-khushi: killing oneself
hindu-ksuh: killer of hindus

some say that that was hindu holocaust. I think the GoI should do some research to find the fact so that we can know what happened and why.

Dost # 5

Historically, Hindu Kush was a Persian backyard. The books talk about the Vedic Aryans -whatever loose theoligical concept they had. Later Zoroastrianism seems to have picked up.

Chandra Gupta is said to have introduced Buddism - which fully flourished during the times of Ashoka.

I guess there could be differences in the shades of interpretations.

nhk

BeeJay # 4

In Persian, Koh means `mountain`. And `Kush` means killing.

There are different theories with ragard to the name `Hindu Kush`.

In ancient times, the term `Hindu` did noot carry any religious connotation. It simply denoted the people who lived in South Asia.

nhk

A good, broad historical sweep. Enlightening as usual from you!
Some minor quibbles! I believe that the region also went through a vedic/hindu phase between zorastrainism and buddhism. I believe that buddhism was brought into this region by Ashoka and not by Chandra Gupta. Ashoka, as you know, was a descendant of Chandragupta Maurya.

Re: # 5
Right,
Also Hindu Kush was the name given by Muslim Invaders, killers of the Hindus.

A fascinating and very interesting insight into the history of the region! Thanks!

Minor notes:
[And thus came about the name Hindu Koh or the Hindu mountain]
I thought “koh” meant cave and “kush” meant a type of grass. But I may be wrong. (Rahul_Capri to the rescue?)

[In recent times, it produced its very own radical Talibans and the international terrorist cult of Al Qaeda.]
I thought that one originated in Pakistan and the other in the Middle-east.

[Therefore, when the push comes to a shove, it would be a wise decision for Pakistan to side with the regional rather than the extra-regional states.]
I don’t doubt the wisdom of this advice (and I certainly don’t want to turn this into a discussion on geopolitics) but it is not as if Pakistan is siding with the “extra-regional” states by CHOICE? Also, let’s be serious, in this region the “wisdom” has always been highly subservient to political expediency.

Sir,

Nice insight into the region.

regards,

B++

Nice overall summary, tiny bit biased but I can live with it.

You are proabbly the first Pakistani whom I heard writing about Bullah Shah`s writing about Abdali. Your contrymen will get you my friend.

Good research.Interesting read.Thank you.