Last Rites in Kashmir or a New Journey?

``Everytime the Pakistani cricket team, which is primarily from Lahore, Peshawar and Karachi, and is Punjabi, Pushtu and Urdu speaking, is standing next to the Sri Lankan team, which is primarily Tamil and Sinhalese, I get so confused. They look so identical, that it is impossible to tell them apart, without looking at the color of their uniforms.....:-) ``

Romair..interesting that you bring up this point...I am pasting below two images..the first is Yousaf Yohana..a ``Fair and Lovely`` Punjabi of Pakistani heritage. The send is the Dark Madrasi Balaji. Please point out what racial differences you see...

Re: # 250 stuka

Youhana is a Chamar. It`s very telling that you chose a Chamar to a South Indian because they both belong to the same Dravidian race. And if you`re staying that most Indians look like our ChewRay then the vast majority of Pakistanis will agree with you. (T)

``Similar features!! And that too from a Punjabi. What`s this world coming to? Heer and Ranjha must be rolling in their graves. You have committed cultural and civilizational blashpemy!! Are you going to tell me that my features are similar to those of someone from Tamil Nadu, or Bihar or Bengal or Sri Lanka? What in the world is similar about our features?....... ``

Damn, this Punjabi = Fair and Tall and Bihari = Short and Dark mantra has been internalized wesat of the Border.

Sir, now that I have spent a few days in Lahore, I can assure you that there is NO DIFFERNCE at all between Biharis, Punjabis and Bengalis in terms of physical features. I know many a Bihari who would be lighter skinned than Punjabis.

Let me tell you another fact...Bihar Punjab etc are relatively recent boundaries. Let us look at castes like Jat, Gujjar, Rajput etc. These extend from Punjab all the way to Eastern UP and Bihar. Would you say they are different nations?


``My features are probably similar to yours. They have a closer similarity to the adjacent civilizations of Kashmir (on India`s side), Sind and Afghanistan and maybe even Iran, than they do with someone three civilizations away in Bihar.............I have been confused for an Indian Punjabi, an Afghani and and Irani by people. I have even been confused for a South American. My wife has been confused for an Afghani, a Latino, an Irani, an Italian, even a Russian.

But, never in our lives have we ever been confused for a Bihari or a Tamil...........And I doubt a Bihari or a Tamil would be confused for a Pathan or a Punjabi.......... ``

I do not know you personally and would not like to comment on individuals. The point is that there is no physical difference between a Gujjar from Bihar and a Gujjar from Punjab...or for that matter a Gujjar and Rajput and a Jaat.

``Same Root Language!! The basis of civilization is not root language, but language itself. Otherwise, so many poeple become Latin and Arabs. Urdu`s roots are in Turkish and Persian. Am I a Turk? Am I an Irani? ``

Who said Urdu`s roots are Turki and Irani? That is the root of the script. If Urdu`s roots were only Turkish and Iranian, no Indian would understand it. Urdu is a combination of Hindi mixed with the languages you mention. But Urdu is way more similar to Hindi that it is to Turkish and Persian. How many Iranians would understand Urdu compared to Indians?
Take another example of Punjabi...One Language written in two scripts..Gurmukhi and Shamukhi. One of Indian origin and the other of Pharisee origin. The very fact that you speak Urdu and not Pharsee speaks to your Indic origin rather than a Semite one. (again Civilization and not Nation)

You are wrong on the fact that ``the basis of civilization`` is one language and not one root language as you are again confusing civilization with nation. Western civilization is one large civilization that exists in multiple national manifestations.



``The different languages spread across the Sub-Continent actually clearly identify the fact that this was various different civilizations. Languages take centuries to mature. And if they have matured, that means they were growing in relative isolation from each other. I cannot make heads or tails of farsi, sindhi, baluchi, much less Tamil, Malyalam, etc. ``

So, since an Englishman may not understand French, you mean England and France are two distinct civilzations? What about the Saxon and the Norman conquest of England? That was a scarce 1000 years ago. Anyways, the point is that civilization is distinct from nation and the latter may be maifest in numerous forms.

Anyways, the rest of your post is essentially the same point. Yes, Punjabis and Pathans have the same macro culture. Let me turn your hypothesis around. Are you saying that a Punjabi and a Pathan have as many differences as say a Pathan and a Swede? After all, they are all distinct civilizations right? What about the food eaten by a Pathan and Punjabi? Or for that matter (horror of horros) the food eaten by a Punjabi and a Bihari? Maybe that food is as distinct as food eaten by an Arab?

You discount all other factors and zero in on Hinduism alone. Then you apply that to Islam and see that it does not fit. Taking that logic you now apply that back to Hinduism and ipso facto you prove that Hinduism..just like Islam...is all different civilizations..Oh well, at best we can agree to disagree.

``hahaha...similar features??? Why don`t you go on to one of the Sikh websites and try persuading them that they look Biharis???? hahahahahahahaha ``

Dude, I have met plenty of clean shaven Sikhs and they look no different from Biharis and UPites. If some Punjabis are brought up on fukked notions on racial superiority, that does not take away from facts on the ground. If you look at rcultural references, features, language...the works...the root is the same.


``From a civilizational perspective, it is India and India alone that has the right to have a moral claim on Kasshmir. The original inhabitants of Kashmir were Hindu.``

LOL! TNT indeed! In actual fact, the original inhabitants were pagans and animists. Organized religions like Hinduism and Islam came long afterwards. So what happens to your little theory now? ``

The TNT is not my theory. It is the Pakistani theory. You are right about the animists and Pagans...BUT ..surprise surprise..neither the animists, nor the pagans, nor the Hindus are asking for different countries. We do live together in India for better or for worse. The honor of asking for a unique country based on religion goes to a segment of the Muslim leadership...so fine, they walked away.

``And if you can use this kind of total bullshit argument to justify your occupation of Kashmir why can`t you use it to jusfity occupying Lahore or Peshawar? haiN? ``

I could. But the Republic of India agreed to Partition. End of Story.

Re: # 248 stuka ``Dude, I have met plenty of clean shaven Sikhs and they look no different from Biharis and UPites. If some Punjabis are brought up on fukked notions on racial superiority, that does not take away from facts on the ground.``

hahahaha...you have lost your fucken mind! No one is denying that there is overlap in the racial characteristics of all the Indo-Aryan nations but to claim that there are no differences whatsoever between them , and that they are the same even as the South Indian Dravidians is the senseless delusion of a brainwashed mind that sees only what it wants to see. Sikhs and Punjabis look like Biharis????? Even Biharis themselves don`t believe it hahahahahaha




``The TNT is not my theory. It is the Pakistani theory``

No, the issue is not the TNT per se but the notion of defining nationhood through religuon which, according to Hindus, is evil when Muslims do it but just fine and dandy when Hindus themselves do it. The hypocrisy is simply breathtaking!

``I could. But the Republic of India agreed to Partition. End of Story. ``

The Republic of India didn`t agree to shit. The Republic of India came into existence one day after the Republic of Pakistan so it couldn`t agree to anything when it didn`t even exist. The Republic of India still hasn`t come to terms with the Pakistani right to self-determination excericed in 1947, just look at the fuss about Advani`s comments Jinnah, for instance.

So ask I you again, if you can use those pile of shit arguments about being Hindu to illegally occupy Kashmir why can`t you use them also to invade, occupy and brutalize West Punjab or Sindh with a perfectly clear, serene Gandhian conscience? haiN?



Thanks in advance.

Romair#243:

``I thought you were living a life of retirement.....``

Yes, most of the time. But from time to time, some people get me involved in their projects.

Apropos, the topic. You have a point if you look strictly from a Punjab perspective. You could go down further and look it from a Multan versus Lahore perspective also, if you so want. The world historians will continue to treat the whole subcontinental civilization as one, albeit one comprising several strands, even though it is now divided into four nation states.

#241 Rmair ``Same Root Language!! The basis of civilization is not root language, but language itself. Otherwise, so many poeple become Latin and Arabs. Urdu`s roots are in Turkish and Persian. Am I a Turk? Am I an Irani?``

Not only that, Bihari-Hindustani has the same ``root language`` as Persian (Pehlavi, the ancient Persian, is almost identical to Sanskrit) and most European langauges. Using this logic Iran and Europe are a part of India too.

``Similar Religious traditions!! Yes this is the only common factor (until other religions like Islam and Christianity came in). And this is the factor that people on this thread are using.``

But this doesn`t cut it either. Firstly it is hypocrisy and absurdity of the highest order to castigate the concept of an Islamic Ummah and an Islamic state (which Indians regularily do) and then to turn around and claim the Hindu religion not only as the basis of India`s existence but also as a justification for India to occupy other nations in Sooth Asia. Secondly, Stuka claims India is some ancient Hindu civilization, but was India Hindu during the time of the Indus Valley ciivlization, before the Aryans invaded? I think not. India was also Buddhist for a very long time. Buddhism is the enemy religion of the Brahminical Hindusim that now holds sway in India and is used to claim the entire subcontinent as one Hindu nation.


Basically these guys are A-class bullshit artists. The bottom line is that both Pakistan and India are fake and phone countries who came into existence purely by historical accident. Neither of them have the ``right`` to occupy a single peice of land in the entire subcontinent against the wishes of its native peoples.

Stuka #236: ``How about similar features,``

I just cannot keep from laughing, when I read this. So I have to write some more.............

Everytime the Pakistani cricket team, which is primarily from Lahore, Peshawar and Karachi, and is Punjabi, Pushtu and Urdu speaking, is standing next to the Sri Lankan team, which is primarily Tamil and Sinhalese, I get so confused. They look so identical, that it is impossible to tell them apart, without looking at the color of their uniforms.....:-)

Whenever Harbajan Sing is standing next to Laxmikant Balaji, they look like twins. It`s impossible to tell who is from where............:-)

#242 paghal kuthha ``all your arguments about how Kashmir should really belong to Pakiland because of civilizational commonalities or some such BS are completely wasted on Indians...``

Paghal kuthay, it was your fellow Indians who were attempting a jusfication of the occupation on the basis of civilization, not me. Can you read English? Or is all that froth emanating from your mouth and covering your face obscuring your view of your monitor?


``.It`s the oldest rule of civilization..might makes right... ``

That`s the rule of the jungle, not civilization.

``take two asprins and call us when that changes in your favor... ``

Who`s wating for it to change in my favour? Not me. Do try to engage your brain first before shouting off like a mad dog.

Dost-mittar #240: ``my deadline has been extended, so I am back!]``

I thought you were living a life of retirement.....

``there are local Hindu villainous figures in history but they are not considered foreigner.``

Why aren`t they considered foreigners? This is what I am asking you. Just because someone has an incorrect assumption of history, does not make it right. Mohd bin Qasim and Ghauri are not considered foreigners by many Pakistanis. Yet, isn`t this the basic stance of yours and others that they should be considered foreign invaders of Sind and Punjab...........

``They were not mere colonisers like the British but clearly had a religious agenda as well. But in these posts, I see them wearing an external rather than a religious turban.``

I think one has to first define the boundaries of the area one is talking about. They become external invaders and Chandragupta and other Hindus become internal ones, if you draw the boudaries of a civilization extending from Bihar to Sri Lanka to Taxila.

However, this is the whole point. I am drawing the boundaries around Punjab and Sind and Bihar, and Bengal and Baluchistan and Tamils and Malyalam etc. Because, these are historically independent civilizations. All of India, or Hind or Baharat or Sub-Continent is basically just a geographical area, called Hind or Sub-Continent etc.

Anyone who invade Punjab from outside Punjab, is thus an invader. He is not a landed immigrant of Punjab. At the very least, the first time he invaded Punjab to bring it under his empire, he is definitely a foreign invader. After that, he is a subjugator, though not an invader. Your example of Babar and Akbar fits in here.

Based on this, Ghaznavi and Mauryans and British, and Darius and Alexander etc are invaders of Punjab..........They were first-time invaders. While Ranjit Singh (and probably Sher Shah) is not. They would be invaders of other areas, outside Punjab.......

A point you seem to be unwilling to accept...........To you, everyone of the above is an invader of Punjab, except the Mauryans. The only common factor I can see for your views being religion. There is no other common factor. Mauryans were first-time invaders of Punjab. Hence they were like Babar and Ghaznavi. The only difference being one was Hindu/Bhuddist and one was Muslim........

To many Mulsim Punjabis, everyone is an invader, except Ghaznavi. Again religion..........

#237 by dionysus on June 13, 2005 7:34am PT


And if you can use this kind of total bullshit argument to justify your occupation of Kashmir


all your arguments about how Kashmir should really belong to Pakiland because of civilizational commonalities or some such BS are completely wasted on Indians...

Indians don`t need to justify their ocupation of Kashmir...The fact that you can do diddly squat about the occupation is justification enough...It`s the oldest rule of civilization..might makes right...

take two asprins and call us when that changes in your favor...

Stuka #236:``How about similar features, the same root language, similar religious traditons...what the ... more consitute a common culture?``

Similar features!! And that too from a Punjabi. What`s this world coming to? Heer and Ranjha must be rolling in their graves. You have committed cultural and civilizational blashpemy!! Are you going to tell me that my features are similar to those of someone from Tamil Nadu, or Bihar or Bengal or Sri Lanka? What in the world is similar about our features?.......

My features are probably similar to yours. They have a closer similarity to the adjacent civilizations of Kashmir (on India`s side), Sind and Afghanistan and maybe even Iran, than they do with someone three civilizations away in Bihar.............I have been confused for an Indian Punjabi, an Afghani and and Irani by people. I have even been confused for a South American. My wife has been confused for an Afghani, a Latino, an Irani, an Italian, even a Russian.

But, never in our lives have we ever been confused for a Bihari or a Tamil...........And I doubt a Bihari or a Tamil would be confused for a Pathan or a Punjabi..........

Same Root Language!! The basis of civilization is not root language, but language itself. Otherwise, so many poeple become Latin and Arabs. Urdu`s roots are in Turkish and Persian. Am I a Turk? Am I an Irani?

The different languages spread across the Sub-Continent actually clearly identify the fact that this was various different civilizations. Languages take centuries to mature. And if they have matured, that means they were growing in relative isolation from each other. I cannot make heads or tails of farsi, sindhi, baluchi, much less Tamil, Malyalam, etc.

Similar Religious traditions!! Yes this is the only common factor (until other religions like Islam and Christianity came in). And this is the factor that people on this thread are using. It is the concept of an Ummah. It is no different than saying that every Muslim from Morrocco to Indonesia is part of one Muslim civilization.................This is the point I am arguing against.........i.e. too many people consider invaders to be heroes, just because of their religion.........

Common Culture!! Do Punjabis and Bengalis have a common culture? Do even Punjabis and Pathans (next door neighbors) have a common culture? Go try to impose the Punjabi culture on a Pathan or on a Sindhi. He might kill you. Do Punjabis and Tamils have a common culture? We don`t even have the same kind of nan and lassi.

The only argument anyone can make in the Sub-Continient being one civilization, is on the basis of a majority common religion, called Hinduism.............Other than that, there is no valid argument...........It was (and still is) a conglomerate of multiple civilizations, which were brough together only twice in their history.........Once by the conquests (and invasions) of Ashoka and once by the conquests (and invasions) of the British.........

Both of whose empires, by the way, invaded your homeland of Punjab and killed quite a few people........including your own (and my) ancestors.......Let`s not try to make heroes out of people who were invaders, just because they follow similar or the same religion as ours........

``My response is that whereas Indian civilzation historically existed as a Hindu civilization,``

When exactly did this happen? Do inform me. When was all of the Sub-Continent one Hindu civilization? It was only united geographically, twice for a few hundred years. If we use this argument, all of Europe is one civilization also.........And it has never been united culturally.....

``But, if a number of Muslims choose to define their identity in religious terms,. that is their right and they created Pakistan.``

I am trying to convince you and others to not define your identities, and invaders and heroes on the basis of religion. Which is why I am asking you to prove when the whole area was ever one civilization. It has no characteristics, at all, of one civilization.....

This has nothing to do with India and Pakistan. I am arguing in the terms of Punjabi, Bihari, Pathan, Tamil etc. - outside the basis of national boundaries...........

Romair#234:
[my deadline has been extended, so I am back!]

You can keep repeating the religion mantra as long as you please but we are not talking about religion here. Not even love and hate; there are local Hindu villainous figures in history but they are not considered foreigner.

It may come as a surprise to you that only secularists like Akbar, Hindu nationalists hate him; their hero is Rana Pratap Singh who fought Akbar all his life. Akbar also killed everyone at Chittorgarh. His marriage with a Hindu is not considered as a sign of Akbar`s tolerance but as a sign of capitualtion and humiliation by the house of Jaipur. In marrying Jodha Bai, he acted as a true Muslim as marriage is one of the four permissible ways of expanding dar-ul-islam; one would have considered him tolerant if he had let Jodha Bai raise her son in her own faith. In fact, Jehangir turned out to be quite a zealot and his torture of the Sikh guru laid the foundation of a militant sikhism.

Akabar is not considered an external invader because he had obtained ``landed status`` by then. Aurangzeb is hated as much as Ghazni and Ghauri, if nor more, for his forcible conversions and jazia but not labelled as foreign invader.

It would be futile to say that religion, or more accurately anti-islam feelings, had nothing to do with the hatred of Ghazni and Ghori. They were not mere colonisers like the British but clearly had a religious agenda as well. But in these posts, I see them wearing an external rather than a religious turban.

masanmuthu#233

``I disagree with this.. If I assume you`re comparing Ashok with Ghazni.. ``

No, I was comparing Ashok with Akbar.

#237

kahore is named after a son of Rama and hence shuould merge with Aryavart ;-)

give it up capt clueless....

India will always be associated with an ancient civilization and an ancient culture while Pakiland will always be a country...Just as you convincing yourself that tamil suicide bombers are what`s wrong with the world won`t send the feds snooping around hindu temples, your self-delusions won`t change what a majority of the world(world, not islamic world) thinks about India and Pakiland...

It`ll always be Indian food, Indian ocean, Indian subcontinent, East Indian company, red Indians etc etc...

And while that may not go down well in the paki echo chamber of self-delusion(reality rarely does), there`s nothing they can do about it...a majority of paki restaurant owners will still sell Indian food because nobody would come to a Pakistani food restaurant...

#236 ``How about similar features, the same root language, similar religious traditons...what the fuck more consitute a common culture?``

hahaha...similar features??? Why don`t you go on to one of the Sikh websites and try persuading them that they look Biharis???? hahahahahahahaha


``From a civilizational perspective, it is India and India alone that has the right to have a moral claim on Kasshmir. The original inhabitants of Kashmir were Hindu.``

LOL! TNT indeed! In actual fact, the original inhabitants were pagans and animists. Organized religions like Hinduism and Islam came long afterwards. So what happens to your little theory now?

And if you can use this kind of total bullshit argument to justify your occupation of Kashmir why can`t you use it to jusfity occupying Lahore or Peshawar? haiN?