We have all seen the term Ancient India before. On first thought you would think it applies to the Ancient History of India. Well, you are wrong. This term applies to the Ancient History of South Asia.
For decades, Indian historians have written the history books according to their own liking. And because of Pakistanis being ashamed of their non-Islamic past, their jobs had been made so much easier. Everything written here is backed up with facts and logic.
Before India became an English colony sometime in the 1850’s, there was no such thing as “India” that we see today. The subcontinent was scattered with provinces which were in no way united. After independence in 1947, many of the states in the subcontinent were united into a single country. The Republic of India and Pakistan.
India, just like Pakistan was born in 1947. Prior to this, the regions which are now India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh, were known as British India. When British India was partitioned, Republic of India claimed the title of “parent state” of British India, as they received the larger land mass for their country. Along with this title they also claimed the History of the region which was British India in ancient times. This region was only ever united when Britain invaded. Prior to that, the region was scattered with rivalling provinces. Logically, it doesn’t make sense that the new state of India can claim the history of people and land which never belonged to them.
The old argument of “Pakistan not existing prior to 1947, therefore there is no such thing as Ancient Pakistan” is flawed. The same logic can be applied to India. There was no such thing as a country India prior to 1947, and prior to the 1850s; the South Asian subcontinent was never united in anyway and the term “India” didn’t exist. So the current definition of Ancient India is flawed. Ancient Indian history is the history of Republic of India in Ancient times. This doesn’t include any region outside of their own borders. So called Ancient maps of India are fake. The region was referred to as Hindoostan (the land of Hindus) because South Asians were mostly Hindus prior to the Arab invasions, and it was considered to be a continent, not a country.
Therefore, grouping the history of the entire South Asian subcontinent, which has never been united prior to the 1850s and passing it on to a country which came into existence in 1947, doesn’t make sense. Indian Historians have ignored these arguments and passed on the idea that India has existed for 1000s of years, for their own nationalist purposes
Indus valley was a civilisation which existed almost enitrely in modern Pakistan. The people of the region have always been living there. However the history of the region is claimed by India, which is in absolutely no way related to the Pakistani people, neither have they ever had claim over the land which is now Pakistan. Indus Valley settlements are located all over Southern Asia. These include, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, northwest India, and of course Pakistan. However, the Main IVC cities, aswell as the majority are in Pakistan. The main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The Indus Valley history should be referred to as Ancient Pakistani. Any history which took place in what is now Pakistan should be known as Ancient Pakistani history, since it belongs to the people of Pakistan.
The Pakistani identity is being stolen because Historians hide the fact that South Asia has never been united prior to 1850s.
It is incorrect to even label IVC as Ancient South Asian history. South Asia is home to 1.6 billion people, which is way too broad to describe the people of Indus valley, which is now Pakistan. Sure this is no harm in mentioning the settlements outside of Pakistan (India, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir), however one has to remember that Pakistan is the home of it.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.