Pakistanis Claiming Vedic Civilisation As Ancient Pakistan, Need To Counter It

[Mad Indian]

Soon baki will say Pakistan is the mother of countries

If by mean to say that they birthed many children, it is right. After all, Pakis have four-fathers

 

[mahesh]

Universal truth - Regardless of who it is, the people who claimed the Rights On Religion, land and Lush, died rotten and became soil under soil. Coz these Subjects are immortal compared to man, you can just have the 'experience' and the 'feel factor' of these in your life time not more than that.

coming back, you people (Pakistanis) were claiming something!! ??

 

[mahesh]

land and lush can be claimed to own them at some extent, but Religion and History is Pure knowledge (can you people prove more than that ?), and that to which enlightened, spread and happened when your concept of Islam was not there, so on what basis the claim in ON ?

 

[argumentum]

The concept of monotheism (known as tawhîd in Arabic) is the single most important concept in Islam. Everything in Islam is built upon it. Islam calls to the absolute oneness of God. No act of worship or devotion has any meaning or value if this concept is in any way compromised.

Monotheism can be looked at from the following three angles

1.The Oneness of God in His lordship

2.Devotion of All Worship to God alone

3.The Oneness of God in His names and attributes


I do not insult Hinduism or any other religion on this planet. Their teaching about ethics or morals is as good as any other religion. I was saying that they are two different religion when its come to concept of God, his attributes/qualities, How you should worship him or whether you allowed to associate partners with God or make certain powerful things as God etc. You say you are atheist and i would say what is difference between your atheism or atheism of those who live in west?


You read the reply of your fellow Indians here and its them who are saying that we are ashamed of our ancestors lol and we are arab and all this non sense. Why we should be afraid if they were non Muslims. . I said it before that all present races of Muslims had non Muslim ancestors not just Pakistani. Ask afghans/Turks/Persian/Pashtuns/Arabs/Indonesian what was religion of their ancestors before the arrival of Islam? or they had no race or existence prior to Islam? There are people in Pakistan with different identities or origin what's wrong with multiple identities. Dont tell me identity of Indian live in mizoram is same as people of north India. Or south Indian or Tamil share same identity or origin as people who live in gujraat or north India

You seem like a sincere person, so I'll try to respond in kind.

I didn't say that Islam doesn't teach the "oneness of God", I said that monotheism doesn't in practice mean "one god", it means "one religion". The Bhagavad Gita & other sanskrit texts claim the "oneness of God". But Islam goes further than "there is no god but god" by claiming "mohammed is his messenger". Most muslims claim that what their sect believes is true, what others believe is false, and this gives them special rights over others.

There's nothing wrong with multiple identities theoretically, but if one of those identities justifies killing, oppressing, enslaving people of other identities, there is a problem. This is what you see in Pakistan & around the Muslim world. Sunnis killing Shia, Shia killing Sunni, Salafists enslaving Yazidis, Ahmadis being declared non-Muslims, Christians being raped, killed & driven out of the Middle East, Hindus/Christians same in Pakistan, secular and liberal muslims being flogged in Saudi Arabia, or hacked to death in Bangladesh.

I meant most Pakistanis (and most other muslims) are afraid to confront this reality, for good reason .. because if they do there's a good chance they'll get killed themselves. Consider Salman Taseer who simply stood up for a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy. There are countless examples, but you get the point.

 

[argumentum]

Regarding genetics, most studies show minimal contribution of recent persian/arab/turkish dna to modern Pakistanis. The subcontinental genome is roughly 50/50 split of two ancestral groups that merged from around 3500bc to 500bc. It's graded from north-west to south-east, so Punjabis, Rajputs, Sindhis, Gujuratis are about 70% ancestral north indian (ANI), and 30% ancestral south indian (ASI), with the reverse for Tamils, Telegus, East Bengalis etc. There also is a significant, but not as strong, east asian contribution graded from the north-east to the south-west. Everyone is mixed, so there is no such thing as pure one or the other.

Pashtuns & Balochis are about 80% ANI and 20% ASI, and are thought to have greater gene flow from Iranians after the original split between those who migrated to India and those who migrated to Persia. This confirms the historical record of the mountainous areas being alternatively ruled by Indians or Persians. By the way Persians aren't any more "aryan" than Indians. While the ANI mixed with ASI in India, the Persian version mixed with various other groups in the area that is now Iran.

There are some exceptions (like syeds) who show a higher arab gene flow, and Parsis who fled Iran, but by and large the Islamic conquests did not have a huge impact on subcontinental DNA. Most that converted did so to save their lives during conquests, or to gain material advantage under the various Islamic empires.

 

[Raja.pakistani]

You seem like a sincere person, so I'll try to respond in kind.

I didn't say that Islam doesn't teach the "oneness of God", I said that monotheism doesn't in practice mean "one god", it means "one religion". The Bhagavad Gita & other sanskrit texts claim the "oneness of God". But Islam goes further than "there is no god but god" by claiming "mohammed is his messenger". Most muslims claim that what their sect believes is true, what others believe is false, and this gives them special rights over others.

There's nothing wrong with multiple identities theoretically, but if one of those identities justifies killing, oppressing, enslaving people of other identities, there is a problem. This is what you see in Pakistan & around the Muslim world. Sunnis killing Shia, Shia killing Sunni, Salafists enslaving Yazidis, Ahmadis being declared non-Muslims, Christians being raped, killed & driven out of the Middle East, Hindus/Christians same in Pakistan, secular and liberal muslims being flogged in Saudi Arabia, or hacked to death in Bangladesh.

I meant most Pakistanis (and most other muslims) are afraid to confront this reality, for good reason .. because if they do there's a good chance they'll get killed themselves. Consider Salman Taseer who simply stood up for a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy. There are countless examples, but you get the point.

I am kind with sensible mature posters. Dude you need to study the concept of oneness of God in Islamic context and then compare it how others religion differ to Islam when it come to oneness of God even current Jews and Christian don't follow oneness of God as Christian consider Jesus as son of God and believe in trinity which violate Islamic concept of touheed.

We are all following our religious or cultural beliefs because we consider these beliefs as correct or right. If you consider all religion or religious believe as equally valid or right or correct then it don't make sense to stick with one or to follow one. Then you better become someone who either consider all religion as true or false but they all cannot be true when their concepts of God or their teaching contradict with each others. Just because i don't agree with your religion or sect and consider them wrong don't give me this right to go and kill you and thats where tolerance come to let people practice what they see as right as long as they dont hurt you or dont impose that thing on you

Then the only option left for us is to follow whatever we consider right/true and let others live according to what they see as right or wrong. My understanding of Islam is that its against force as there is no compulsion in Islam. There is no use of that namzaz which you offer because there is gun over your head and because of fear of some mullah than fear of God. I know we have extremist elements who kill anyone irrespective of his nationality or sects whoever oppose their ideology or their personal interpretation of Islam . We are not unknown to this facts and we also read about Islamic history and differences among Muslims in past which led to many wars and that's why we educate to those who keep this extremist mindset and try to bring them on right track and they will die if they dont give up their twisted version of qatal as military operation is going on against them to eliminate them

We also object to those non Muslims who ignore those peaceful majority and educated Muslims and try to make tiny extremist minority and bigots as real representative of Islam or Pakistan. We cannot help such people who already made up their mind about Islam/Pakistan and then quote and find only negative stuffs or examples from their society to present them as evil. Salamn taser was liberal extremist . If a Hindu guy give up his religion Hinduism and convert into Islam then fine it may not hurt others HIndus that much but if this newly convert start bashing/abusing his/her ex religion and start mocking it in public in front of those who practice it and consider it true then it will incite the feelings of those Hindus and will bring disturbance in society which is wrong thing to do thats where salam taseer was wrong.

 

[Raja.pakistani]

Most that converted did so to save their lives during conquests, or to gain material advantage under the various Islamic empires.

Let me answer you without any bias approach . We cannot go back in history to see how every x,y,z Hindu or even non Hindu was converted into Islam. I know if it was Muslims who would have converted into Hinduism in vice versa scenario then we all would have said that all these Muslims were converted into Hinduism because they were weak, coward, or they wanted rule or high rank from invaders completely ignoring this fact the they might have like the teaching/philosophy of Hinduism/Bhuddism. This is because we feel it shame when one of us leave our beliefs and join others and we try to disown them even if he is our own blood relative brother or son. Pagans arabs disown their sons and fought wars with them after their blood relatives or peopel of same tribes converted into Islam. You tried to make all of us slave of Arabs because our ancestors were cowards Hindus(you say by insulting your own kind) long ago and adopted Islam for whatever reasons.

Personally for me its irrelevant what was the religion(bhuddist, pagan, monetheist, etc) of x,y,z thousand year ago or how and why they got converted into Islam. If some Hindus were oppressed by Muslim invaders and were forced into conversion at gunpoint then these Muslim people will be punished for their crimes on day of judgement. What matter for us is present about how current generation of Muslims feel about their religion/ Whether they are happy to keep this faith or they wanna leave it. If they are happy to keep it and are proud to be the followers of islam then it should not be problem for you guys

 

[argumentum]

I am kind with sensible mature posters. Dude you need to study the concept of oneness of God in Islamic context and then compare it how others religion differ to Islam when it come to oneness of God even current Jews and Christian don't follow oneness of God as Christian consider Jesus as son of God and believe in trinity which violate Islamic concept of touheed.

We are all following our religious or cultural beliefs because we consider these beliefs as correct or right. If you consider all religion or religious believe as equally valid or right or correct then it don't make sense to stick with one or to follow one. Then you better become someone who either consider all religion as true or false but they all cannot be true when their concepts of God or their teaching contradict with each others. Just because i don't agree with your religion or sect and consider them wrong don't give me this right to go and kill you and thats where tolerance come to let people practice what they see as right as long as they dont hurt you or dont impose that thing on you

Then the only option left for us is to follow whatever we consider right/true and let others live according to what they see as right or wrong. My understanding of Islam is that its against force as there is no compulsion in Islam. There is no use of that namzaz which you offer because there is gun over your head and because of fear of some mullah than fear of God. I know we have extremist elements who kill anyone irrespective of his nationality or sects whoever oppose their ideology or their personal interpretation of Islam . We are not unknown to this facts and we also read about Islamic history and differences among Muslims in past which led to many wars and that's why we educate to those who keep this extremist mindset and try to bring them on right track and they will die if they dont give up their twisted version of qatal as military operation is going on against them to eliminate them

We also object to those non Muslims who ignore those peaceful majority and educated Muslims and try to make tiny extremist minority and bigots as real representative of Islam or Pakistan. We cannot help such people who already made up their mind about Islam/Pakistan and then quote and find only negative stuffs or examples from their society to present them as evil. Salamn taser was liberal extremist . If a Hindu guy give up his religion Hinduism and convert into Islam then fine it may not hurt others HIndus that much but if this newly convert start bashing/abusing his/her ex religion and start mocking it in public in front of those who practice it and consider it true then it will incite the feelings of those Hindus and will bring disturbance in society which is wrong thing to do thats where salam taseer was wrong.

That's why I'm an atheist, I don't believe any religion is true. I think different religious texts may have philosophical and/or ethical insights, as do many non-religious philosophies but I don't "believe" or have "faith" in anything.

You say some sensible things, but the problem is many muslims don't agree with you. Many muslims do believe they have the right to establish sharia, demand jizya, and kill or force others to convert. We know it from history and we can see it on TV and the internet every day.

And then you called Salman Taseer a "liberal extremist" because he didn't want a woman to die for a crime that would not be a crime in any decent, humane society. Do you think he deserved to die? Or she? If so, there is no argument with such a backward and cruel belief.

A decent, grown up, humane society is able to tolerate other people offending their deepest beliefs without resorting to violence. Clearly you do not live, or apparently support, such a society. Coming from a religion whose texts say the most offensive things about infidels, apostates, "idol worshippers", a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

 

[argumentum]

Let me answer you without any bias approach . We cannot go back in history to see how every x,y,z Hindu or even non Hindu was converted into Islam. I know if it was Muslims who would have converted into Hinduism in vice versa scenario then we all would have said that all these Muslims were converted into Hinduism because they were weak, coward, or they wanted rule or high rank from invaders completely ignoring this fact the they might have like the teaching/philosophy of Hinduism/Bhuddism. This is because we feel it shame when one of us leave our beliefs and join others and we try to disown them even if he is our own blood relative brother or son. Pagans arabs disown their sons and fought wars with them after their blood relatives or peopel of same tribes converted into Islam. You tried to make all of us slave of Arabs because our ancestors were cowards Hindus(you say by insulting your own kind) long ago and adopted Islam for whatever reasons.

Personally for me its irrelevant what was the religion(bhuddist, pagan, monetheist, etc) of x,y,z thousand year ago or how and why they got converted into Islam. If some Hindus were oppressed by Muslim invaders and were forced into conversion at gunpoint then these Muslim people will be punished for their crimes on day of judgement. What matter for us is present about how current generation of Muslims feel about their religion/ Whether they are happy to keep this faith or they wanna leave it. If they are happy to keep it and are proud to be the followers of islam then it should not be problem for you guys

I wouldn't feel any such shame, beliefs are a purely personal matter, it's none of my business if my friend/family wishes to change his or her beliefs. We live in the 21st century, not the 7th.

As I've said, it doesn't matter to me what you choose to believe, in fact I'd prefer not even to know what it is that you believe. Just don't convert others by force, don't demand special privileges or sharia law, don't mistreat minorities, don't try to limit my free speech, don't support jihad (aka terrorism) anywhere for any reason. And if a muslim wants to become a hindu or christian or atheist, let them do it w/out threats or violence.

Then you're all right with me. But you'd be a minority in Pakistan and most other Muslim countries.

 

[Raja.pakistani]

That's why I'm an atheist, I don't believe any religion is true. I think different religious texts may have philosophical and/or ethical insights, as do many non-religious philosophies but I don't "believe" or have "faith" in anything.

You say some sensible things, but the problem is many muslims don't agree with you. Many muslims do believe they have the right to establish sharia, demand jizya, and kill or force others to convert. We know it from history and we can see it on TV and the internet every day.

And then you called Salman Taseer a "liberal extremist" because he didn't want a woman to die for a crime that would not be a crime in any decent, humane society. Do you think he deserved to die? Or she? If so, there is no argument with such a backward and cruel belief.

A decent, grown up, humane society is able to tolerate other people offending their deepest beliefs without resorting to violence. Clearly you do not live, or apparently support, such a society. Coming from a religion whose texts say the most offensive things about infidels, apostates, "idol worshippers", a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

You read my posts again. You are looking at glass as half empty and with this approach you will only see negativity even if they are in tiny minority but you consider them real representative of Islam while people like me who are in majority spend days and nights explaining to you guys that think outside of the box and be balances, non bias and neutral in your views when you judge a entire nation or entire religion.

I called salman taseer a liberal extremist because of mocking his ex religion openly after he left that religion. i di dnot call him extremist for saving some Christians if he ever did. I already said that majority of msulism among us are those who let others practice their beleifs even if we personally consider them wrong but we acknowledge that they should have freedom of it as long as they dont impose it on us. Its not hypocrisy to respect their rights of practising their beliefs. You dont knwo anything about jazya lol Its not more than a tax we all pay for free government services . Non Muslims did not pay zakaat which muslim does thats why they had to paid jazia tax for services of state

There is nothing offensive about words kafirs, idol worshipper. If you are idol worshipper why you should be offended if others call you idol worshippers. I dont get offended when people call me worshipper of allah which i am. I already said word kafir simply mean rejection of accepting Islam after studying and knowing what islam is and this word is not insulting word

 

[argumentum]

According to you there is nothing offensive, but it's not your choice what someone else finds offensive. My parents and many friends are Hindu, and they find it very much offensive when muslims talk about "idol worshippers" and destroy priceless idols. According to me drawing a Mohammed cartoon is not offensive, according to me, desecrating a koran is not offensive. Who is to say who is right?

Freedom cannot be "imposed" on anyone. You are imposing your religion by demanding that others do not mock Islam. What part of this do you not understand?

Also if your ancestors converted by force or for material gain, I wouldn't call it cowardly. Given the repeated invasions, enslavement and slaughter, it was probably sensible to convert to have some semblance of a life.

 

[Raja.pakistani]

I wouldn't feel any such shame, beliefs are a purely personal matter, it's none of my business if my friend/family wishes to change his or her beliefs. We live in the 21st century, not the 7th.

As I've said, it doesn't matter to me what you choose to believe, in fact I'd prefer not even to know what it is that you believe. Just don't convert others by force, don't demand special privileges or sharia law, don't mistreat minorities, don't try to limit my free speech, don't support jihad (aka terrorism) anywhere for any reason. And if a muslim wants to become a hindu or christian or atheist, let them do it w/out threats or violence.

Then you're all right with me. But you'd be a minority in Pakistan and most other Muslim countries.

what do you think is difference between freedom fighter and terrorism? I am asking this because we all know people like bhagat singn was considered terrorist by Britian/gandi but they were freedom fighters for locals. IRA were terrorist for English but they were freedom fighters for Irish. Kashmiri separatist are terrorist for India but they were freedom fighters for Kashmi or Pakistani. Some Balochi separatist are terrorist for Pakistani but they are freedom fighters for few balchi and for Indians. Hamas is terrorist for isreali but they are resistance forces for local plaestinaisn who feel that they cannot fight a conventional war with their enemy isreal so this become very much relative thing that we talk from which perspective . now who is killing burma muslism? why world is silent on terrorism of some monks? One malal become hero for them but here bhuddist monks are butchering many malala in burma but world is quiet

 

[argumentum]

Bhagat Singh was not a real terrorist, he intentionally threw his bombs so they didn't kill anyone. The IRA were both terrorists and freedom fighters, like the Tamil Tigers. That they were the latter does not excuse using the tactics of the former.

Terrorists are those who attempt to achieve political or military objectives by "striking terror into the hearts of the enemy", beyond the accepted laws of war (i.e. attacking civilian targets, suicide bombings, beheadings etc).

If you can't win by the rules of war (i.e. Hamas, Pakistan vis a vis Kashmir), you should not fight that war, period. Not being able to match the enemy "conventionally" does not excuse barbarism.

 

[Raja.pakistani]

According to you there is nothing offensive, but it's not your choice what someone else finds offensive. My parents and many friends are Hindu, and they find it very much offensive when muslims talk about "idol worshippers" and destroy priceless idols. According to me drawing a Mohammed cartoon is not offensive, according to me, desecrating a koran is not offensive. Who is to say who is right?

Freedom cannot be "imposed" on anyone. You are imposing your religion by demanding that others do not mock Islam. What part of this do you not understand?

Also if your ancestors converted by force or for material gain, I wouldn't call it cowardly. Given the repeated invasions, enslavement and slaughter, it was probably sensible to convert to have some semblance of a life.

I meant people dont know the meaning of some arabic word and take it offensively for example word jihad which has many meaning and its literal meaning are to struggle but peopple always take it as qatal arm struggle. They were your fellow hindus so whether you call them coward or weak but its like insulting your own kind or race and it was not about me but i was talking about this overall mentality on these forums as i said there were many reasons for conversion and we cannot get back in history to witness all this conversion tamsha live..Whether they were hindu, bhuddist, pagasn or monotheist in past is very much irrelevant in present. Many people still converting for spritual reasons in western world without any fear/compulsion or material gain

 

[Raja.pakistani]

Terrorists are those who attempt to achieve political or military objectives by "striking terror into the hearts of the enemy", beyond the accepted laws of war (i.e. attacking civilian targets, suicide bombings, beheadings etc).

so a soldier intentionally drop a bomb or drones on civilian population to kill them is terrorist ?

Problem is you can get away with war crimes and killing thousand civilians by using this fancy word of collateral damage even if killing civilian was intentional ..was read this beautiful article written by ex us marines

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...r/13/systemic-atrocity-afghanistan-occupation

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/fallujah-us-marine-iraq

 

[argumentum]

Oh cry me a river, the world is not at all silent on the burma situation. When a few hundred Muslims are killed, usually in communal violence (like Burma if you read carefully) its immediately called "genocide". When Israel even speaks of being a "Jewish state" it's immediately called "apartheid".

When Muslims perpetrate a real genocide that kills millions (turkey and the armenians, pakistan and the bengalis, wahhabis and darfur) they never even admit it happened. When Saudi Arabia bans non-Muslims from entire cities, labels highways "for muslims only" is that not real apartheid?

Something about Islam gives Muslims a limitless capacity for self-pity & hypocrisy.

 

[argumentum]

I meant people dont know the meaning of some arabic word and take it offensively for example word jihad which has many meaning and its literal meaning are to struggle but peopple always take it as qatal arm struggle. They were your fellow hindus so whether you call them coward or weak but its like insulting your own kind or race and it was not about me but i was talking about this overall mentality on these forums as i said there were many reasons for conversion and we cannot get back in history to witness all this conversion tamsha live..Whether they were hindu, bhuddist, pagasn or monotheist in past is very much irrelevant in present. Many people still converting for spritual reasons in western world without any fear/compulsion or material gain

Actually we can go back in history using texts and soon using genetics we will be able to see just how many converted during periods of invasion or stronger enforcement of sharia (i.e. aurangzeb) etc.

Many in the West are also converting out of Islam. By far the biggest contributions to increasing Muslims in the west are immigration & birth rate. The numbers of actual converts is miniscule (a few thousand).

 

[argumentum]

so a soldier intentionally drop a bomb or drones on civilian population to kill them is terrorist ?

Problem is you can get away with war crimes and killing thousand civilians by using this fancy word of collateral damage even if killing civilian was intentional ..was read this beautiful article written by ex us marines

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...r/13/systemic-atrocity-afghanistan-occupation

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/fallujah-us-marine-iraq

The difference is the non-terrorist follows the laws of war, which permit collateral damage as long as it's in proportion to the military advantage gained by the attack. You cannot attack just to "cause terror" and defeat a more powerful opponent. They also operate under international mandate.

Far more Muslims are killed by fellow Muslims than by the west, and this is what should concern you.

And when a legitimate atrocity is carried out by soldiers of decent countries, such as Abu Ghraib, the perpetrators are brought to justice by their own system. There are more than 20 US soldiers in jail for life for crimes committed in Iraq or Afghanistan. When can we expect the same for the Pakistani soldiers who raped and murdered millions in Bangladesh?

 

[Simple_Guy]

Waste of a thread. Same old junk has been said earlier in this:

Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

 

[Kshatriya87]

''''Many visitors to this forum especially people who have been following it for a long time might have noticed the increasing number of Pakistanis who started claiming exclusive rights over Sindhu Saraswati and vedic civilisation. Although there are still people here like umair nawaz who still believe that he is of pure Arab descent and his blood has not yet contaminated with Pakistani blood the number of such people has also come down considerably..there was a time in this very forum itself when most Pakistanis called themselves Arabs,Persians,turks etc etc to dissociate themselves from Indians..Even the number of people who claimed such foreign ancestry has come down a lot. (Of course lay man in Pakistan still considers himself as some Arab or Turk).. I would like to draw the attention of my fellow countrymen in this regard.Do not be fooled to believe that these PDF Pakistanis have started to take pride in their rich history..It is only to steal the right over the legacy of those civilizations from indians have these people started this new tamasha.They are full of jealous of Indians and want to annoy us..Pakistanis cross your heart and tell us honestly,is it not true?what brought about this change?'''

I saw this on Pakistan Defence Forum by an Indian to counter Pakistanis. It is a new strategy of Pakistanis to isolate Indians from their History and claiming whole of the vedic civilisation, sindhu civilisation and origin of faiths and culture to them.

We need to fail their trolls because if this takes a momentum to isolate us and sabotage us.
Why not to use this opportunity to create Identity crisis in them




@Kunal Biswas @Ray @pmaitra @Singh @Blackwater @LETHALFORCE @Yusuf @cobra commando @thakur_ritesh @Rowdy

Links to other forums is not allowed.

Of course they will try to steal the thunder of 8000 year old civilisation. (Harappa is now 8000 years old and not 5000 as we though before). But we need to take this seriously.

I have some Indonesian and Malaysian friends. They are the same way like Indo-Pak. One of the main reasons why Indonesians hate Malaysians is because the later stole their culture and history and claimed it as their own.

First of all, go through the following thread. It lists most of the archaeological discoveries in India. Quite a few of them belong to the same era as the Harappan civilisation. So the idea that Harappan civilisation existed only in present day pakistan, is flawed.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/archaeology-news-thread.1244/page-4#post-1164318

Also see below link. Article shows the discovery of 5000 year old artifacts and more in MP. This particular human settlement has existed from 5000 years back right up till the Gupta age of 6 century AD. I believe that is the longest surviving ancient civilisation known to man.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/bhopa...p-s-anuppur/story-NVlNbitqUTjkXSn3GHBxmO.html


Furthermore, harappa is nothing. (in comparison). The "BAAP OF discoveries" is the submerged city of Dwarka. It dates back to 32000 years old. Imagine that. It literally dwarfs any existing civilisational discoveries made anywhere in the world.

These points I think should more than shut a porki pie hole.