| Revision as of 02:22, 9 December 2006 editNadirAli (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,436 edits →How long is this article gonna be locked?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:36, 28 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive 1) (bot |
| (635 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{FAOL|French|fr:Histoire du Pakistan}} |
|
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
{{calm}} |
|
{{WP Pakistan}} |
|
{{Pakistani English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Top|History=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject British Empire |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject India |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(31d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{To do}} |
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions","appear":{"revid":188878597,"parentid":188876748,"timestamp":"2008-02-03T20:53:17Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":824844413,"parentid":824055114,"timestamp":"2018-02-09T21:13:00Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions","appear":{"revid":188878597,"parentid":188876748,"timestamp":"2008-02-03T20:53:17Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":824844413,"parentid":824055114,"timestamp":"2018-02-09T21:13:00Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Geography == |
|
== WikiProject History of Pakistan == |
|
|
If you would like to help out on the History of Pakistan, before the partition and after indpendance add your name to the list and lets help improve the quality of these historical articles to a better status; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What step took Muslim rules to resit British ] (]) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
* For more information: ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Fasial masjid kis ne Azad karwaya == |
|
== 2002/3 Talks == |
|
|
I've fixed the BBC poll results that somebody added so they tally with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2017631.stm - if there is some other survey which matches the figures which were given here, then a source should be given for it. I also have very severe doubts about some other changes recently made by the same user (see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=439956&oldid=439933 ) - unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to fix this up myself. --] 03:28 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
UserPakAtheist removed: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fasial masjid kis ne Azad karwaya ] (]) 09:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
India defeated Pakistan in all the three wars that it launched. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== History == |
|
A recent survey conducted by ] for the ], found that 61% of Kashmiris would prefer Indian citizenship, 6% would prefer Pakistani, with 33% undecided . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
پاکستان کے وجود کے لیے اسٹیبلشمنٹ کے کردار پر تح تحقیق کریں ] (]) 08:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
-- |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. While all surveys are inherently biased, it is still useful information. It should up to the reader to beware the potential for error. I think the BBC can be trusted enough to not further any political purpose. Are there any other surveys by different organizations supporting or debunking these results? Those would help... |
|
|
|
|
|
And what's wrong with that general statement? Isnt it true? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll: |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with that particular poll is dual, first it counted votes only in indian held kashmir, secondly it the only muslim concentrated area that it gave importance was areas sorrounding sirinagar. |
|
|
|
|
|
Secondly If you are going to mention a poll in an article about "history of pakistan" which forces the user to conclude about a contentious issue which has taken more then 50 years to resolve, then it could only be a poll which takes the whole population into account without being under the influence of pakistani or indian governments. |
|
|
|
|
|
The second statement that i deleted was about the three wars, it was because the if you mention such a generalized statement then you should better come up with your authentic references, because you can only be sure about the 70's war the other two.... you cant. |
|
|
|
|
|
A survey by an indian organization finds 74% people want freedom!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001008/j&k.htm#2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vedic Civilization == |
|
|
|
|
|
I thought pakistani punjab was the cradle of the vedic civilization. I am surprised that there is no mention of it at all in the history of pakistan. The Indo-Greeks come suddenly after the Indus Valley Civilization, and there's a gap of a couple of thousand years. |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
Some user has recenty edited the article drastically to make it conform to the theory that Pakistan was never a part of India, apart from small intermittent periods from time to time, and that Pakistan was always a separate entity. |
|
|
One example is this: |
|
|
"When the Abdali kingdom weakened early in the 19th century due to internecine warfare, Pakistan did not revert to Indian control but instead an independent kingdom arose in Punjab headed by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh....." |
|
|
|
|
|
These edits seem to convey a point of view that Pakistan always existed as a separate nation for thousands of years, which was colonized by India from time to time. Someone please read the article thoroughly and make it less POV. ] 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can do it myself too, but I am tired of vandals who would come again and restore the changes, and perhaps also get me blocked. ] 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another gem: |
|
|
|
|
|
''So far one of our objects has been to underline the fact that right from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization down to the end of the Ghaznavid rule at the fall of the 12th century A.D. over a period of more than four thousand years, Pakistan has been invariably a single, compact, separate entity either independent or part of powers located to her west; its dependence on or forming part of India was merely an exception and that too for an extremely short period. It was only when the Muslims established themselves at Delhi early in the 13 century A.D. that Pakistan was made a part of India, but not in the pre-Muslim period. And once Muslims' successors in the sub-continent, the British, relinquished power in the middle of the 20th century, Pakistan reverted to its normal position of an independent country. Indian propaganda that the division of this sub-continent was unnatural and unrealistic is fake and fraudulent. Muslims had joined this region of Pakistan with India in the early 13th century A.D. when the Delhi Sultanate was formed; again Muslims have disconnected it from India giving it the normal and natural form which its geographical, ethnical, cultural and religious identity demanded.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
<small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe the article needs to state facts instead of judgement from any viewpoints. I agree with the comments above, that some sections, especially the Vedic Civilization section, needs rewording and possible removal of some "quotes" to remove POV. For example, the section "Vedic civilization"'s last part, the para from "It may be of interest to mention here that so long as the Aryans stayed in Pakistan, they did not evolve that particular religion called 'Hinduism' with its caste system and other taboos." is a plain example of POV, and even somewhat hilarious. --] 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm the guy who made some of the changes actually. It's in the Oxford History of India and isn't my POV. In addition, Vedic civilization's geography and the fact that it's religious hymns makes it difficult to place: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.answers.com/topic/vedic-civilization |
|
|
|
|
|
I also added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, no mention of the Sassanian control of the southern western regions of Pakistan prior to Muslim invasions. It's as if the western parts are being deliberately left out. |
|
|
|
|
|
All of my edits can be checked out and verified. Just google Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud of Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Ahmad Shah Durrani and the rest. And then check out the various views of ancient Pakistan. |
|
|
--] 00:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The issue is not the existence of rule by Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud, Muhammad bin Quasim. The issue is the tone you write it. Just state the facts, which should speak for themselves. The sentence I mentioned is POV, no doubt about that. The section "Vedic civilization" seems ok until judgement and theories about the emergence of caste system start to creep into the article. By the way, you referenced Answers.com which is actually a wikipedia mirror. I don't find the article ] contain any of the "references" on aryans-were-good-until-they-entered-current-day-India theory. Please stick to the facts. Thanks. --] 30 June 2005 01:00 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Okay that's fair enough. I'm going to rewrite it. I can't really reference the Oxford History of India as it doesn't seem to be on the net. I just googled it regarding Central Asian origins. I'm going to remove that part. I'm also going to edit those sections regarding Ghori, Mahmud and Qasim, but in addition the Sassanians aren't mentioned and nor are the Turkic slave dynasties before the Mughal Empire. Nonetheless I'll make changes and see what people have to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 01:05, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
-It would be nice if the "Pre-Colonial History" section be edited drastically so it doesnt assume the existance of India and Pakistan (as is today) in those ancient times. Also, its not like the area now known as the Republic of India had a complete common history of its own when much of it was also ridden with different history in different parts of the country (ie: Assam and southern India). |
|
|
-] 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]] |
|
|
|
|
|
==article focus== |
|
|
see ]; the pre-1947 material should be merged in ]. The division into Pakistan vs. Indian Republic is only aged 60 years, and it is inappropriate to organize articles about early history guided by it. Before the RoI and Pakistan, there was the ]. Before that, it was just a collection of shifting kingdoms anyway, so the only thing that unites it are geographical criteria. ] <small>]</small> 10:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree that it should be merged. It's like merging all of Europe together as a subcontinent of Eurasia. One series of events takes place in what is today Pakistan and something else in Central India. Pakistan is mostly on the subcontinent, but most of Baluchistan is on the Iranian plateau. Furthermore, western Pakistan has a history and culture that is very closely aligned to that of Afghanistan rather than India. In fact, before the British came there was little concept of India so much as that of empires both old and new. Religion, language and regional affinities were more dominant than a national identity. While Pakistan is invaded and part of the empires of the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, and others most of India has a different history. Why should that be merged? Pakistan is a modern creation indeed as are most nations, but it's history is also that of two civilizations at least and cannot be neatly placed into a single monolithic category. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I somewhat agree. Baluchistan belongs to a greater Iranian nation, legitimately belonging to Iran, occupied sometime in History by the British. North West Frontier Province (was earlier called Afghania) , again occupied by British, identifies with Afghanistan which has been closer to Central Asia in the modern times. The rest of Pakistan, consisting of an overwhelming population of Pakistan, and all that we identify today as Pakistani culture has always been a part of India. India, afterall, is named after the ] river. Afghanistan is also included an a ], which is a socio-cultural rather than a political concept. Nations are not made of kingdoms. Even if you somehow fabricate a history which shows that Pakistan was ruled for long periods by people who did not rule large parts of India, you cannot deny that most of what is today Pakistan was (and in large part still is) socially, linguistically, economically, ethnically, culturally inseparable from India. ] 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You mean part of the overall Indian (or Indo-Aryan language) linguistic and cultural sphere and I would agree that that is a consideration. The problem is that language alone does not make for a "Greater India" alone as that would make the Czechs a part of Greater Russia due to Slavic similarity (and the notion of Pan-Slavism). That's what that becomes when talking of a Greater India, it's a similar notion ot pan-Slavism rather than a more solid concept based upon history. The history part diverges and due to geography the Czechs have more to do with Germany than Russia and Sindh has more interaction with Iran than it does with central India, but maintains the cultural ties that you speak of that are obvious to note. However, the history aspect is separate at times or simply intersects with corresponding areas of India's extreme northwest. The concept of "India" as a nation does not arise until the 19th century as the most vague conceptions include references to "Hindustan" or Hind largely by Muslim invaders. Indians refer to a more vague region called Bharat. However all of that aside, Pakistan as a state today constitutes a separate nation and has a local history and that's really the point. In addition, parts of eastern Afghanistan intersect with Buddhist tradition and a brief period of Hindu rule in Kabul did take place under the Iranian Hindu Shahis, but this is so brief in terms of context and for most of its history Afghanistan is basically part of the Persian sphere of influence to the point that the Avesta is believed to have originated there. There is of course correlation with the language of Sanskrit and the Avestan Iranian dialects that makes for overlap. One can mention the many points and how the western part associates with the Iranic world and the east associates with South Asia of course. Nations and nationalities tend to man-made obviously and perception becomes a matter of view. I think the way this article is written it pays homage to the fact that Pakistan is an overlapping region rather than a historical state. I would agree though that the Panjab and Sind are culturally, linguistically, and, in part, ethnically related to corresponding regions of India, but keep in mind that there is a large Baluchi minority in Sind and there are Punjabi Pathans who overlap as well. It's a messy border region, but the article doesn't shrink away from making the point that for example, the Sikh empire arose in Lahore even though the Sikhs were a minority. Or that Hinduism and the related religion of Buddhism were predominant in the region. What can perhaps be surmised from all of this is that while the west is clearly part of Iranian civilization and the east is an extension of Indic civilization, religion and local history has also given rise to a regional civilization and a modern nation that can best be termed as Indo-Iranian as a result. This removes the notion that many people have that Pakistan seeks to emphasize the Arabs and Islamic period as that seems to me about a limited way of approaching this. Indeed, most articles emphasize the ancient ties and connections as well. What makes this difficult is that historically the western Punjabis and Sindhis have been ruled by "western" empires and this has inevitably made changes that included conversion to Islam that did not take place in India proper. Overall though, I see nothing inaccurate in what you have said. |
|
|
] 14:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:all I mean is that the same topic is covered several times. Both History of India and History of Pakistan have sections on the IVC, Vedic civilization etc. ] <small>]</small> 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No it doesn't. There are in-depth articles and then there are brief summaries. What part of the History of India talks about the Durrani Empire or the Mongols controlling Pakistan west of the Indus? The reality is that there is cursory mention because while on thing takes place in what is today Pakistan, another takes place in India. The Vedic section is short at any rate as are the other sections, while overall one gets the real sense that there is a regional history, which is the point as opposed to promoting the idea that Bengal and Baluchistan had the same history which is absurd. |
|
|
] 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removed another POV Gem: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that it became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by people of Pakistan. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the South Asia took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Indian based governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. Persian Achaemenian Empire conquered ancient Pakistan and it remained part of Persian empire for more than two hundred years. Alexander the Great also conquered Indus satrapy, modern Pakistan, and did briefly cross into India but returned after his army refused to advance further into India. Ancient Pakistan remained part of the Hellenic world for next hundred fifty years. During the Arab rule, the territories of Pakistan were known as 'Sindh' and Indian territories were known as 'Hind'. The Arab dynasties ruled Pakistan from Baghdad in Iraq and from Damascus in Syria for more than two hundred years." {{unsigned|170.61.18.228 |}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==acronym== |
|
|
surely, the acronym is a ], and the word was not "also captured in the Persian language", but rather built on it? ] <small>]</small> 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Gupta Empire== |
|
|
-Sindh was not merely a tributary state. Most archaelogical evidence shows that the area now known as Sindh was an integral full part of the northwestern regions of the Gupta empire, without the tributary states. Most maps excluding the tributary regions also show the area around the southern Indus river as an integral part of the empire. |
|
|
-] |
|
|
|
|
|
==the Taj Mahal and the "History of the Indian Subcontinent" box== |
|
|
I want to know why someone thought it was a good idea to put such an enormous and obtrusive rainbow-hued "History of the Indian Subcontinent" box, complete with photo of the Taj Mahal (which is neither in Pakistan nor has anything to do with Pakistan's history), on the very top of this article. I want to know because I would prefer that it be removed. It suggests, inappropriately and wrongly in my opinion, that the most important thing about Pakistan is it's place in the Indian subcontinent. I think this article should describe the history of Pakistan in its own terms and shouldn't burden either the editors or the readers by imposing a cumbersome conceptual framework in which Pakistan's history can only be viewed as a mere part of some essentially arbitrary larger aggregate (the Indian subcontinent) which too many people imagine to have always been an integral whole . I know that the alleged eternal unity of the Indian subcontinent is a popular POV among Indian nationalists and those who sympathize with Indian nationalism, but it is still a POV, and this article shouldn't have to be buried under it.--] 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I think for time being its ok to have this box here, till we get a suitable template for Pakistan history. I also beleive that there is no harm in this box even after we have the Pakistan history template, only its position could be re-adjusted. The main thing is that we don't have, unfortunately, many people working on Pakistan related articles. --] 17:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Well, how many people does it take to create a suitable template for Pakistan history? Is it something I could do? I'm new to wikipedia but I'd be willing to do it. Is there some page that has instructions on how this can be done?--] 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Certainly, it doesn't recquire an army to make it, please check ] for instructions ... --] 18:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Lets see, you can create say ]. If you click on it you will be in template space. Make a table, and then add <nowiki>{{Bhola}}</nowiki> in the page where you want to insert the template. I suggest that you see some template pages before creating it and see how they are used. For example you can search templates in google, say by searcing <nowiki>{{HistoryOfSouthAsia}}</nowiki> you should find the page. Then see in edit how this page is created. Then you can copy it in your template and modify it according to your needs. It will save time and you don't have to reinvent the wheel. I hope this would help. But I also suggest to see if any relevent work exists which needs modification --] 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Thanks for pointing me to the instructions. I've started to put down ideas for the design of a new template that would be more fitting for the history of Pakistan. Even though I haven't finished it yet, I've gone ahead and deleted the "History of the Indian Subcontinent" template from this article. I know that you believe that there's no harm in the box, but I feel very strongly that this article is better without it. Eighty to Ninety percent of the history of the Indian subcontinent has nothing to do with Pakistan, and making that template an element of this article, which covers an enormous topic in its own right, serves mostly to distort the focus of the article, which should be on Pakistan. --] 19:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please check the other country pages for related templates, and good luck --] 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is already a template titled Historical subdivisions of Pakistan, which is used in ], ] and other articles. Since that serves as a good, relevant template of expressing at least some of Pakistan's history, I think, for the time being, that can be used here. Thanks. --] 19:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Well said.Get that Taj-mahal off the Pakistan history page!!!.] 19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
|
|
|
==Size== |
|
|
Currently the page is 65 kilobyte long – longer than the preferable ]. Naturally, we will have to do appropriate editing to bring the page to the recommended size. BTW, I have also updated the lead section to reflect the correct position. --] 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, you updated the lead section to reflect the view of irridentist Bharatiya nationalists, which is not consistent with NPOV.--] 02:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It has nothing to do with NPOV, it is a fact. And, it has nothing to do with ]. Please contribute with a global perspective, and not from the Indian or Pakistani perspective - we are here not to re-write the history. --] 13:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This article should be written from a neutral POV. I don't believe that this article should be written from the POV of any brand of nationalism, not even Pakistani nationalism - and certainly not Bharatiya nationalism. There are Bharatiya nationalists who would prefer to claim ownership of Pakistan's past for their nation, and who would deny that Pakistan owns its own past. You might not have consciously intended to inject such an attitude into this article, but the wording you chose is consistent with it, whether you care to admit it or not. Among other things, the term "undivided India" is an unambiguous red flag of irridentist Bharatiya nationalism, even if that's not what you consciously intended, and even if you can't see why that's inconsistent with NPOV. --] 15:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::My reply to Mr. Bhola: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bhola#History_of_Pakistan --] 15:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==A request== |
|
|
My dear ], I know that you are a nice editor, and you do not have to indulge in edit-wars. You appear to be really Bhola, which means the innocent one in ] and also used in ]. Please do justice to this important ] of the ]. Regards. --] 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Pakistan is not a state of India or Indian Subcontinent.. It is a country which was one part of the ancient subcontinent.. and India itself came into being on 15th August 1947, a day AFTER Pakistan was created.. so kindly refrain from twisting and attacking other users. And kindly do remember that criticizing others for their number of edits as compared with yours, do not necessarily means that all your edits are 100 correct . Also Ragib, good job on correcting the 55 thousand year thingy.. it kinda seemed silly:)).. |
|
|
ciao ] 23:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think that you should read the real meaning of state. I feel that you are mistaking a ] for a province, Please update your self by reading about our page name ]. I can understand that you have used the word in its restricted sense whereas I used the word state wikified by me was used in its real sense. Cheers. --] 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Rollback== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have rolled back an edit which removed the extent of a particular civiliztion. This removal has undermined the extent of the history of Pakistan, a country which came into being 6 decades before, but has a long history. Please also see ]. Regards. --] 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I wish that someone should create at least a stub about the ] 0- currently it takes one to ] - a link created by me so that the world may at least know a little about ] as the Pakistan has a recorded histroy of hardly 60 years. Please create a stub at least and kindly remove the the redirection link. Thanks and regards. --] 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Totally Indian POV.. India as it exists today also is only 60 year old.. No one is denying that Pakistan is 60 years old.. However the same is true for India.. Do not mistake Ancient Indian continent for the country which exists now.. And stop trying to thrust any biased POVs.. {{unsigned|82.225.228.35}} |
|
|
Well said,I completely agree with you.Now wikipedia is being turned into a tool to hijack our history.] 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
:I would not like to comment on above comments as they are not worthy of any comment, particularly in view of being out-of-context, and specifically on account of an absolute mis-understanding of the concept of POV as enshrined in the spirit of wikipedia. However, I may inform that I have created a stub of 1100 words about ], based on the page ]. I may further add that removing my comments was vandalizing the talk page. Do we the wikipedians expect that a vandal shall build the Project! --] 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please do not think that I am pro-Indian or pro-Pakistan. While doing edits here, I am pro-wikipedia. Who did this page about It was Bhadani from India. I despise vandals. Regards. --] 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yar, i'am not accusing you of vandalism or biased, I only object to your words saying 'hardly' sixty years. Also do check out the nation-state article. What i am tryin to say is that try to use words which do not favor any particular side. I hope it can clear up our misunderstanding..] 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes ], thank you for your messages: and . I have done this to make it clear that we all can work together to give wikipedia the best. This is the spirit of ]. --] 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Improvements and Layout! == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have made number of improvements to this article, as it lacked correct heading and sub heading to various ages. I have now sorted out the ages with the correct headings to the relevant eras. I have also removed some pics that did not seem relevant like the pic of young jinnah. Tell me if you like them and suggest anything else I can do to improve the article. Thanks -- ] 03:27 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Continuing on from what i wrote above, I have decided to put the article section entitled "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" into its own article and write a short summary on the history of Pakistan post indpendance due this article seems to long at the moment. Let me know of if I should go ahead? -- ] 04:18 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Mistry of Pakistan== |
|
|
This article is a justification for Pakistan Theory, an entity that never existed before 1930, rather than History of Pakistan. Only rewrinting it on unbiased terms would be the solution. |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
:India didnt exist prior to 1947 either. You just took the former name of the sub continent. |
|
|
:While neither country existed, the people did, therefore this history belongs to the Pakistani people. Which takes Indias right away :from claiming Indus Valley for themselves, and thats why you cant tolerate this article. |
|
|
:Comment by |
|
|
|
|
|
==Overall view of the history of Pakistan== |
|
|
This is how I see it. Pakistan formerly constituted the bulk of what was once traditional northwestern India or northwestern Hindustan, as it was known locally and throughout neighboring countries. The subcontinent then, was, as it is now, a large diverse area with different regions and different local histories often interlapping with each other. Northwestern India, as a region, was like the other regions in that it had its own uniqueness while having enough in common with the others to be apart of the greater fabric of Hindustan, as the entire country was known. Its uniqueness included its geographic location next to Central Asia and (to some extent) West Asia, making it a cultural overlapping area. It was the gateway for most invaders and migrants to the subcontinent, making it a racial crossroads as well. Nevertheless, all of these foreign people were absorbed into the dominant Hindu/Buddhist culture that thrived in this region. Indo-Aryan languages dominated the area prior to the arrival of the present day Iranian populations of Pashtuns and Baloch during the millenia after Christ. Even then, Indo-Aryan languages are more influential. In fact, the common language of Pakistan today is Urdu, which is Indo-Aryan. The common culture of Pakistan or the cultural customs mostly identified with Pakistan are what were traditionally customs and cultures associated with Indian Muslims, or more specifically, Muslims from the Indo-Aryan Punjab and Sindh. The history celebrated by Pakistanis is the same as India history, just an over appreciation of the Muslim conquerors rather than a condemnation. (not to say that it is wrong). Which is no different from what is now northeast India. There, Sino-Tibetan languages come into contact with Indo-Aryan tongues. The Muslim history of this region is really no different from what is talked about as the Muslim period for India. The "different histories" such as the Durrani invasion and the Mongol occupation west of the Indus or the Achaemenid colonization are local events unique to both Pakistan and modern northwestern Indian regions such as Rajputana and the Indian Punjab. Northeast India, unlike the rest of India, was occupied by Ahoms from Thailand, South India, unlike North India, was ruled by Hindu Dynasties for centuries into the Middle Ages and had thriving trade relations with Southeast Asia and the Near East. That's how I see it. The French version of this article seems to direct the ancient history of this region to the article dealing with the history of ancient India. Perhaps, we should do the following. When introducing this article, we should say somewhere in the paragraph that Pakistan constitutes the bulk of what was once northwestern India and was the gateway to the subcontinent. Its frequent exposure to the brunt of foreign invasions and its borders with outside regions gave this part of India a multicultural face of its own, somewhat distinct from other parts of the subcontinent. Something like that could work. However, I dont think this regional history had anything to do with the formation of Pakistan. Pakistan was founded primarily as a state for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. It also included east Bengal, which has nothing to do with the local history of northwestern India. So I dont think the founders had the local pre-Islamic history in mind when considering this area a "separate" nation from India. Hope that helps! ] 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree. The "History of Pakistan" should start from the 1930's, when "Pakistan" came about. The rest of the history should be merged with the "History of the Indian sub-continent" or a different article such as "History of North-east India". However, the problem (that some people will find) is the "india" bit in the title of the articles - it is pretty clear that the author(s) of this article tries to establish a "pakistan-of-ancient-times", ie it had been a "pakistan" there for as least as long as the history of India. If that was the case then it should be argued that each of the states of India should be given the same treatment - they all have different cultures and customs that technically would equate them to be "different races"! Then the arguement against this would be is that they are all have the main religion as Hinduism (or hinduism is one of the majorities) - but this is like generalising all the European countries for being Christian. What I'm triying to say is a much more neutral point of view should be written about the history of pakistan, and anything that pre-dates the 1930's should NOT be refered to as pakistan. Just tring to help - no offense intended! ]. 16:07, 08 Oct 2006 (CST) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Indus & India== |
|
|
|
|
|
Which river does India get its name from? Its Indus not Ganga. So it means Indus and India have an inseparable association from ancient times when Indus was more important to Indians than the Ganga. So to create a history of region around Indus totally separate from India is wrong. India and Pakistan have an almost unified cultural history. It's only in the last 60 years that there has been a schism and Pakistan has broken away. India continues to have a syncretic culture to this day.Bollywood songs have more Urdu than Hindi .Indians and Pakistanis are not racially different. They are children of the same ancestors.So please don't increase the devide by creating history to separate the two. |
|
|
I agree with AfghanHistorian's perspective. |
|
|
Hari |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Hari. Nevertheless, today it is a separate state and does have a significant history of its own following partition. And, all nations on this planet have some local history. Therefore I think we should have a History of Pakistan article, with all the ancient history features. We should talk about its unique local history, but I dont believe we should use that history to make open statements in an encyclopedic article that thats what makes it different from Indian civilization and a separate civilization of its own. This is an encyclopedia, not a nationalist propaganda website. Many articles with Indian bias are on wikipedia as well, so I've dealt with both sides of the south asian rival coin for a while. Also, to say Indian civilization is whole and distinct and the same throughout is also erroneous, as India is made up of different regions as distinct from each other as the northwest (Pakistan) differs from Bengal. Many Pakistanis like to say the entirety of what is now India is a separate and distinct civilization and what I just said about different regions in India counters this argument. Nevertheless, India and Pakistan were more or less historically the same civilization. ] 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
India and Pakistan being the "the same civilization" is no more or less true than saying Afghnistan was part of this cvilization.Keep in mind Afghanistan was a colony of the indus,so in a way it is true to say that Afghanistan was "a part" of Pakistan at one time.I hope your statements that India and Pakistan were "the same civilization" are not motivated by your dislike for Pakistan for wrongly supporting the Taliban at one time.] 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
|
|
|
== History of Pakistan == |
|
|
You don't need to add India and refer to it in all sentences. I wrote the paragraph starting with "Pakistan is a child of Indus" and then the Indians changed it to "''The'' Pakistan ''region and its bordering Indian regions are the children of the'' Indus" without any discussion ! There are many sections in this article that discuss common history in South Asia. But somepeople want the word ''India'' in every sentence. This is '''History of Pakistan''' artcle!! |
|
|
] 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Would Pakistan's history before formation be considered part of Indian history? After all, British India did contain what is now Pakistan as well as other countries. ] ] 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Find any reference before the 1940's that documents a "Pakistan". ], ], ], ] etc. traveled to ], which included all of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan as well as parts of ] and Iran .] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Pakistan evolved into what it is today from the Indus just as Iraq evolved into what it is today from Babylon,not from Iran which has very little or nothing to do with Babylon,as India has almost nothing to do with the Indus. ] 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
::Wow, lifted right off of the Pakistani version of the ]. ] 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The confusion, time and again, is what "India" we are referring to here. For example, "(Republic of) India" is a subset of "India" (the region), and so is Bangladesh, and Pakistan. So, if "Indian history" is used to mean "India'''(the region)''n History", it is perfectly fine to designate the pre-1947 history of the 3 countries as "Indian history". "Bangladesh", "(Republic of) India", "Pakistan" - none of them has pre-1947 existence. However, the regions do. When we are talking about History, it is better to associate history with regions rather than modern countries and borders. So, assuming that "Indian" here refers to the region, it is fine to designate it as such. But if this "Indian" adjective is being associated with "Republic of India", it is indeed completely incorrect. Thanks. --] 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:India means India, meaning India (region).] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Remove the whole "child" part, it's unencyclopaedic anyway. ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 07:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No. I will keep that paragraph it gives unity to that paragraph. Remove the controversal "out of india" theory added recently by indians. |
|
|
:::] 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Putting your personal opinion in the article is silly. ]''']''' |
|
|
::::] <small>]</small> 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You are avoiding the issue. Firstly, you cannot modify a quoted text with reference provided. Secondly, your request to ''citation'' for every line in '''History of Pakistan''' paragraph is not acceptable. As you yourself has not provided citation to each and every line that you have added to Misplaced Pages. In any case, the matter is in arbitration. |
|
|
:::::] 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Pakistan evolved into what it is today from the Indus just as Iraq evolved into what it is today from Babylon,not Iran. ] 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
:::Delusions galore.The propaganda ministers of the ] have done a good job it seems.] 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article sounds very partisan == |
|
|
|
|
|
This wikipedia page looks more tinted with partisan colours than an objective piece. Just to site two examples - |
|
|
|
|
|
1- It says the region of present day Pakistan in ancient times had more cultural, economical and political links with West Asia than with the Gangetic valley. If that is so then why is it that the Arab influences in Pakistan today can be traced to the introduction of Islam there and the non-Arab South-Asian influence in Pakistan and India don't have any seeming link with the Arab lands. So the point mentioned in the page seems to be there for a political purpose meant to assert the separation of present day Pakistan from present day India without any logical backing behind it. |
|
|
|
|
|
2- The page says that Aryans before crossing the Sutlej river weren't Hindus. Then how come the vedas composed during those times are considered a part of Hinduism? So this point is another logical fallacy. |
|
|
|
|
|
This article does not confirm to a neutral or even correct point of view and is biased. |
|
|
I agree with what the person above says. The languages of Pakistan are related to India - Sindhi,Punjaabi and Urdu. It is true that some Arab words have crept in over the last millenium but the structure of the languages are still very Indic. Also the physical appearance of most Pakistanis is similar to that of others in the Sub continent. |
|
|
The only difference is the religion which if taken to account makes them identical to Indian muslims. Pakistani non secular historians suffer from selective amnesia. |
|
|
Hari |
|
|
|
|
|
] 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't know whether what 59.178 says is true, but I do know one thing: this article is not about the history of Pakistan, which is an idea concieved in 1933. It is the history of the region now defined by Pakistan. The language in the lede, "The Pakistan and its people possess an extensive and continuous history that can be traced back to very ancient times," shows an extreme nationalist bias. Since the anonymite and I agree, I'm going to slap a {{tl|povcheck}} tag on this for review. Sorry. ]''']'''] <small>]</small> 22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
It's no more "extreme nationalist bias" then when indians portray their country to be "anceint" or "home to the indus" (which is a total lie).] 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
::So ] was on Mars,then? ] 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So is the name Pakistan derived from Indus or is the name India. Was Vedic society founded on the Indus region or was Islamic society? ''']''' <sup></nowiki></font>]]</nowiki></font>]]</sup> 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Pakistan has a glorious pre-Islamic history.And regarding Islam,it has done nothing but enriched "Indian history".I dont know why you go around showing off the Taj-mahal if you want to distance yourself form Islam.Tsk Tsk Tsk.Such hypocracy('''sigh'')] 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
|
|
|
== How long is this article gonna be locked? == |
|
|
|
|
|
How long is this article going to be locked? |
|
|
|
|
|
I mean its been over 3-4 weeks.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Any news? ] 19:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The chap who has been edit-warring here ] (see ]) has not shown up for any discussion or dispute resolution.] 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
There's nothing to resolve.The Indus stays here.I notice you clowns gang-up on Pakistani wikipedians,just as you did on me on the history of India talk page,and just as you probably are trying on user:Siddiqui.And by the way,if you try to engage in an edit war,it will involve more than just user;Saddiqui.So I suggest you lay off.] 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
::PLease ] and ]. ] 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I do not assume good faith in vandals of all people.I think that suggestion of trolling suits you better,as that's exactly what you've been doing.] 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
:May be we should make this an indian collaboration of the week. History should be uniform throughout wikipedia.--] 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
ha, that depends on the historian's point of view.. and usually, they are biased.. ] 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
very true.] 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove the other flags == |
|
|
|
|
|
I feel uncomfortable with using all those other countries flags in the History of Pakistan page.Why are they stuck here? If there is to be a refference for the history of south asian countries and not just Pakistan,then I suggest all those other flags be moved to the ] page.The whole purpose of this article is to talk aobut Pakistan's history only and not all of South Asia.] 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
::All the flags are there in the template tag on ]. Misplaced Pages is not the place for ] paranoia, thanks. ] 01:38, 9 December 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
(Note, this is in response to previous statement made by above user, which he hastily "corrected" ).] 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Niether is it a place for your hegimonic agenda.And stop deleting what I write as it's considered ].] 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali |
|
|
(UTC) |
|
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
