The Long Shadows of Hindu Kush

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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..........

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

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.

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).

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).

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.

#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.

#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.