I know it's hard for you to comprehend Hindus/Buddhists/Zoroastrians and ect... leaving their religion and converting to Islam/Sikhism (which they think is better) and so, many people like you form self-speculations that these 'Hindus/Buddhists/Zoroastrians/ect...' had to be converted by force or were 'inferior low-caste'. But this is very far from the reality.
So, let me educate you with actual history.
Ironically, the person accredited for establishing Islam in Kashmir was Rinchan: A
Ladakhi Buddhist prince, who became the King of Kashmir. He converted to Islam after following the teachings of the Sufi Saint Bulbul Shah (who is still revered in Kashmir to this day).
Raja Rinchan changed his name to Sadruddin Shah and converted to Islam along with his brother-in-law and 10,000 of his subjects. Shortly after his conversion, he also built the first Mosque in Kashmir. He further invited Sufi Saints and Kashmir became Muslim-majority shortly after. Kashmir remained an
independent Muslim Kingdom until the Mughal Conquest of Kashmir in 1561.
Wahabhis never even existed back then... Egypt converted to Islam in a long and slow process.
Not a single Muslim army ever stepped into Indonesia. Islam was brought into Indonesia by traders, Islam appealed much more to the Indonesians than Hinduism and so they converted. Just accept that, rather than trying to make up some alternative stories.
What kind of a logic is this? Almost every region in the Muslim World has a pre-Islamic name...
That doesn't really matter as Quetta and Srinagar has about the same amount of population, there is nothing here to suppress. Also if you are trying to imply that Pakistan is trying to change demographics, just to let you know; there are hardly any non-Pashtun/Baluch in Balochistan whereas there are majority-Baloch towns in Sindh and Punjab. FYI, i'm from Quetta :biggrin2:
I have lived in Pakistan all my life, only here in the US for studies...
Hence why I said 'technically', alcohol is legal in Pakistan for non-Muslims and pretty much everyone can get their hands on it is barely ever enforced.
This reminds me of arguments by Afghans/Indians on PDF on this issue and here was a brilliant reply by a Pakistani Pashtun.
This is an excellent article by a Pakistani Pashtun as well that you should read.
Af-Pak – Destined for conflict
by
Asfandyar Bhittani | Published on January 4, 2017
No, Not all out war, yet, but war nonetheless. The proxy war and the war of rhetoric. Pakistan and Afghanistan are among the very few countries that hate each other while sharing the same religion, both being Islamic republics and big chunks of their respective populations sharing the same heritage, Yet we couldn’t be further apart. Like other countries, what we share doesn’t unite but actually divides us.
The Problem
For most Af-Pak commentators, the history and the problems or interference start at 1979 and they consider Mujahideen and afghan Taliban the problem. But Afghan Taliban aren’t the problem or even the Pakistani Taliban, or Daud Khan’s Invasion Of Bajaur In 1960-61, or his support for racial militants in Pakistan in the 1970s or Bhutto’s support for Massoud and Haqqani or Zia’s Support for mujahideen. None of them are problems for they all are PRODUCTS of the same problem, which is the day of July 26, 1949, when the Afghan Loya Jirga unrecognised the Durand line and unilaterally declared Durand line agreement void.
Afghan Viewpoints & Legitimacy of Durand Line
There are many arguments Afghanistan and its leaders have made but some of them have been the centerpiece or their narrative.
The biggest argument the Afghan side made is that “
The agreement had a 100-year expiry date” This claim is totally false. The expiry date myth has its roots in ‘Second Convention of Peking’ of 1898 Between Qing dynasty of China & UK, where a 99 years clause was written in the agreement, There is no mention of any time frame in the Durand line agreement. There is also a contradiction in this narrative and Afghan government actions. If the agreement was to expire after 100 years, in 1993, why declare it void in 1949?
Afghanistan answer to this question is that “
The Agreement was between Afghanistan & British India (British raj), not Pakistan, and with the end of British Raj, Afghanistan declared it void” This argument is technically incorrect. Afghanistan declared it void TWO YEARS AFTER the end of British Raj and formation of a Pakistani successor state which inherited the Durand Line agreement and Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (VCSSRT) backs the Pakistani argument on the inheritance of the agreement.
One argument Afghanistan makes is that “
It was signed by Amir Abdur Rahman Khan under duress, without consulting his government” But considering that the successive Afghan regimes ratified the agreement in 1905, 1919 & 1921, the “duress” narrative falls apart.
The third argument that Afghan politicians make is that “The border divides the Pashtun population in two.” But this argument is a two-edged sword, their own purposed Indus river border would also divide Pashtuns in two. Today there are more Pashtuns in Karachi than in Peshawar, let alone Kabul. Many others live in Rawalpindi, Lahore or like me, in Islamabad.
Another argument includes equating Durand line with Line of control (LoC) in Kashmir. This is the most absurd as both are worlds apart in reality. No one, neither India or Pakistan consider it a permanent border. It is disputed territory according to UN. Durand line on other hand is literally considered international border by everyone except Afghanistan.
And The last major argument made is that “
Pashtun land on Pakistan’s side of Durand Line belongs to Afghanistan or Pashtuns should be reunited as Pashtunistan under Afghanistan, due to similar language and customs.” There is no legal basis for this claim, otherwise, half the world will be claiming the other half & vice versa. But if the argument is even considered, logically the smaller Pashtun body should join the larger one & consider there are twice as many Pashtuns in Pakistan, this argument will only backfire on Afghanistan.
Pashtunistan is a dead horse. Even the staunch Pashtun nationalists, like ANP, don’t call for secession.
The Products of Loya Jirga rejection of Durand Line Agreement
Its only natural for a state to follow the policies its government has prescribed for it. And thus we saw Afghan army under Prime Minister Daud Khan unsuccessfully invading Bajaur twice in 1960-61. Then came 1970s, when we saw President Daud Khan hosting and arming, Mukti Bahini styled,
Anti-Pakistan militants of BPLF and politicians like Ajmal Khattak in 1973. National Awami Party leaders were
paid in Afghanistan by India for ‘Pashtunistan‘. This is confirmed by Jumma Khan Sufi, a close aide of Ajmal Khattak, in his book ‘Faraib e Natamam’. These policies also continued after communist Saur revolution.
But before Saur, naturally, came Pakistan’s first response after 26 years in 1975, Bhutto responded to Daud Khan with Ahmad Shah Massoud, Hekmatyar & Jalaluddin Haqqani. They failed in the 70s but were much more successful under Zia in 80s. Post-1979 history is well discussed and we all know how this tit for tat has been going on since then.
The Only Available Antidote
What’s the Solution? Peace Talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan like Ashraf Ghani
suggested? No. The only reason Ghani tried to reach out to Pakistan was because Afghanistan has realised it has lost the asymmetric war with Pakistan (TTP was in full retreat in 2015) like PM Daud realized that he has lost the conventional war with Pakistan in the 1960s & started an asymmetric one. These Peace talks will bear no fruit as they aren’t the antidote.
Afghanistan needs to understand, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As long as Afghanistan doesn’t recognise the Durand border agreement, its state apparatus will naturally have to keep kicking the dead horse of Pashtunistan and create trouble for Pakistan, and Pakistan will naturally reply in the same tongue.
If Afghanistan can live with their other borders, in which they had no say in, why can’t they abide with the one they once agreed to? If Afghanistan doesn’t reverse the 1949 decision made by Loy Jirga, Af-Pak region is destined for conflict.
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/blog/af-pak-destined-for-conflict/#
Author -
Asfandyar Bhittani
Source:
http://**********/threads/af-pak-destined-for-conflict.471101/#ixzz4WVlNAt00
Did he make up this name? No.
Western geography was based off of the works of Greek geographers, hence name like 'India' and ect... stuck.
Arachosia was a region (makes up modern day KPK and parts of Punjab, GB and Balochistan) that was described as Zoroastrian majority.
Again bro... like I said; just because Punjabis make up 2% of your population does not equate us with you. It's a silly logic. It would be like Sudanese (Indian) trying to claim Egyptian (Pakistani) culture, heritage, history, ethnicity and ect... because there are a very small minority of African descent people in Egypt and a very small minority of Egyptian descent people in Sudan. Makes no sense...
Bhai... do you even know who the Hazara are...?
Hazara are descendants of Mongolian remnants they have lived in Afghanistan/Pakistan as early as 1100s - although majority of them are in Afghanistan.
You could say that, but if you go abroad - you'd notice that most Sikhs don't identify themselves as 'Indian' but rather Punjabi. They also affiliate with Pakistani Punjabis more than Indians.
Most of the land in Punjab were owned by individual Baradaris (clans) and hence why Baradari conflicts were rampant for control over land. Khatris were just merchants who avoided rural areas.
Stick to your gangaland please.
That's not a case, North Indians are not homogeneous and thus shouldn't be categorized as one. Even in Indian Punjab, the only people who we have a 'shared lineage' with are Jatts and several other tribes - other than, we have little to do with 'other North Indians'.
Well once you learn the truth, you're going to mock or ridicule what your ancestors once believed in. Even your Sikh gurus did so.
"Only fools are under the influence of gods and goddesses" (Guru Gobind Sindh)
If you are a Brahmin born out of the womb of a Brahmin woman, why were you not born in a different manner (not from womb of a woman). (Kabir, Guru Granth Sahib p. 324)
Let that mouth be burnt, which says that our Lord and Master is subject to birth. ||3||
--Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 1136
ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਬਿਸਨੁ ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਰੋਗੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਾਰ ਕਮਾਈ ॥
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva suffer from the disease of the three gunas - the three qualities; they do their deeds in egotism.
ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਏ ਤਿਸਹਿ ਨ ਚੇਤਹਿ ਬਪੁੜੇ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸੋਝੀ ਪਾਈ ॥੨॥
The poor fools do not remember the One who created them; this understanding of the Lord is only obtained by those who become Gurmukh. ||2||
-- Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 852
Bilaaval Gond:
Today, Naam Dayv saw the Lord, and so I will instruct the ignorant. ||Pause||
O Pandit, O religious scholar, your Gayatri was grazing in the fields.
Taking a stick, the farmer broke its leg, and now it walks with a limp. ||1||
O Pandit, I saw your great god Shiva, riding along on a white bull.
In the merchant's house, a banquet was prepared for him - he killed the merchant's son. ||2||
O Pandit, I saw your Raam Chand coming too;
he lost his wife, fighting a war against Raawan. ||3||
The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye.
The spiritual teacher is wiser than both of them.
The Hindu worships at the temple, the Muslim at the mosque.
Naam Dayv serves that Lord, who is not limited to either the temple or the mosque. ||4||3||7||
-- Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 874
also, these are just light quotes.
Anything which contradicts your beliefs is fiction, but in reality we have had a different history and we do have distinct ethnic makeup which is supported by actual facts.
The person to envision Pakistan was from Punjab in 1930s; it was only a dozen years after that Muslim League joined along.
Well, the whole point of this discussion is that we're not Indians and we're sick of Indians trying to claim that we are 'Indians', we are also tired of you drooling over our history, culture and heritage.
What the hell...?
Karachi did not have a Hindu majority prior 1947. It was a Muslim town overshadowed by the much larget city of Thatta. The British developed and heavily invested in the town due to it's strategic location. This led to an economic boom in which many migrants from all over the British Raj settled in Karachi. Thus the Hindu-minority actually increased. During this time, some South Indian tribes also migrated such as the Chura; who now make up the majority of Pakistani Christians.
