Was Pakistan created as a Western proxy state as it's enemies claim it to be?

Alot of anti-Pakistani Indian propagandists continuously rant on Pakistan being a western proxy state.
The "proof" they use to back up this rant is Pakistan's current support for the Americans and NATO in Afghanistan. They go even as far as to claim that Pakistan was 'created' for western interests.
Let's examine this accusation that Pakistan is a western proxy.

In case readers do not know, a popular claim amongst Indians is that the entire South Asia belonged to the country today known as the Republic of India (ROI) and that the West saw this country's existence as a threat to their interests and so they "partitioned" "India" to carve and create proxy states that would be friendly to their interests.

This claim is not only a blatant lie, but in fact the opposite of reality. The British actually opposed the idea of Pakistan's provinces not ceding to the ROI.

Before the Eighteenth century AD no one in the subcontinent had ever heard of a place called "India" the name itself was a British import.
Most of the ROI's current day boundaries were drawn up by the British Empire. A lot of the territories within the Indian state are due to the British expansion into those regions and their forceful inclusion into the British Raj which remained under the New Delhi governments control after the foundations of ROI and the departure of the British.

Never were the people of the Bengal region related to "Indians" racially or ever part of a country known as "India" prior to British occupation. Always they maintained a distinct identity with their own arts and history.

Neither were the Mongoloids found in the North Eastern parts of "India" related to their rulers in New Deli, racially, culturally or linguistically.

Neither was Nepal ever a part of "India" despite how Indians falsely claim their history as "Indian" such as Buddha and other important historic figures.

Knowing all this, the Indians in fact should thank the British for carving out their artificially designed state.

So coming to Pakistan, was it a puppet/proxy state carved out by the west? Based on the info given above the answer is simply no. As stated earlier, the British opposed Jinnah (founder of the modern Pakistani state) and his ambitions to prevent Sindh, Punjab, and other provinces of the Indus Valley region from becoming a part of this British proxy state called "India" (remember the British who coined & imported the name, not the government in New Delhi).
The reason behind it was, the British wanted a single state that would take their commands from London instead of having to deal with various countries with differing points of views and political agendas.
And one single proxy state on the map would be a far greater asset than various others coming in the way. If Afghanistan, Pakistan had become a part of "India" there would be fewer problems for the west to access great wealth in Caspian Region and most of Central Asia and the Gulf. They would simply be on "Greater India's" doorstep.
There would be no need to clear out Afghanistan from the irritant Taliban & Al-Queda or have to offer Pakistan billions of dollars in aid and in return for giving them access to the regions of interest.

All this would have been much easier with an order sent to the government in New Delhi.

The book Jinnah, Pakistan and the Islamic identity, there is historic documentation including Jinnah's arguments with British officials for trying to keep their "India" as one country.

The British took serious steps to ensure the Pakistan region remained part of the proxy state of which was drawn by the British themselves. This included offering Jinnah high positions in the Indian government, which he refused.

Even economically speaking, the landmass that the ROI is consisted of has been developed by the British as pointed out by Dr Kaiser Bengali, a Pakistani economist.
The transcript of his lecture on the history of the Pakistani & Indian economies can be found here.

So why then would the British want to support Jinnah's ambitions and the Pakistani state? What interest would that hold? When most of their infrastructure is invested in India? When India has been the west's traditional front line proxy against China.
Pakistan on the other hand has maintained good relations with China and North Korea, two countries that the west sees as a "hostile enemies."

Have people already forgotten the transfer of nuclear technology by Pakistan to North Korea?
Now North Korea threatens America with nuclear technology supplied by Pakistan.

Do the subscribers of Indian propaganda not know Pakistan and North Korea backed Iran during the Iran-Iraq war while the west and the Arab states backed Saddam Hussein's regime?

Some argue that during the Soviet-Afghan war Pakistan was a "western puppet" under Zia Ul-Haq.
This is a very narrow-minded viewpoint derived from blindness and ignorance.

During the Soviet-Afghan war, Pakistan saw the growing expansion of the USSR to it's sovereignty.
The west on the other hand feared Soviet control and access to warm water ports, hence it joined hands with Pakistan to prevent Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

How can a common goal be termed as puppetry? Zia Ul-Haq was certainly a ruthless man in many people's eyes, but he worked with the West along common interests, not because he worshiped them and would take chances for their sake.
In fact Zia Ul-Haq and the Americans had conflicting values, though they supported Islamist fanaticism in Afghanistan to counter Soviet communist propaganda, the Americans and the west do not favor this ideology, knowing how the Islamists despise western policies.

Even during the current-day Afghan war, who else can be better ally to rid itself of Mullahs and Taliban than the west?
The Taliban happen to be a target of both entities.
Anyone who'd think ridding Pakistan off Mullahs is not an interest for the country would be mad.
Supporting the war is beneficial for Pakistan:
1) Military assistance (against the Taliban) will benefit it.
2) It makes getting rid of fanatics much easier by working with NATO.
3) NATO gives economic assistance to Pakistan, to make up for all the losses in an ongoing arms race instigated by ongoing Indian aggression.

But on the long run, Pakistan and the West have differing values and ambitions. This is well known. Pakistan has an ongoing alliance with China, North Korea which the West sees as their potential enemies.
China is not only seen as a political and military rival, but also an economic one.

India wishes to gain control of some territory belonging to China to restore their imaginary "Ancient Bharat" (a country that never existed outside of the imagination of Indians). China is a common enemy of both India and the West.

This is the reason why India enjoys western support. This is why Bush agreed to assist India in civilian nuclear power development, not Pakistan.

This is why the West lifted sanctions on India after it's nuclear tests in 1998 and not Pakistan. The sanctions were lifted much later in 2001 when Pakistan joined NATO in the fight against the Taliban.

India does not pose much of a threat to China militarily, but with Western military & technological assistance they pose a higher threat than they do without it.

Many Indians argue, that without China, Pakistan would be no match for it.
While it is true that India can inflict serious damage on it, Pakistan for a country much smaller than it's arch rival has done a terrific job in defending it's boundaries and this goes back to much before China and Pakistan became allies.

The 1947 war had no Chinese assistance coming to Pakistan. The 1971 war was nothing more than a complete cheat by the Indians. Attacking a country during civil war.

The Pakistani armed forces were stranded over a thousand miles from their base, outnumbered, isolated in a sea of enemies, fighting a civil war.

What if a small pocket of Indian soldiers went to prevent a rebellion in it's islands in South East Asia? What if this small pocket was met by a larger number of Pakistani troops who'd surround them and force them to surrender.
Would not Indians cry it was an unfair fight? So why take pride in such a dishonest fight?

How about Pakistan highlighting on the fact that Indians are so dependent on Western & Israeli weapons technology?

Based on the information provided above (and further information to come) can anyone with reasoning agree on the Indian claim that an independent Pakistan would aid British ambitions?
Already as pointed out the people today known as "Indians" owe much to the British for drawing out the boundaries of their country and inventing their artificial "Indian identity" as well as inventing this thing called "Hinduism" found here.


So why make the Brits the scapegoat? Even when no part of South Asia was ever "India" why accuse someone of dividing what was never there?

If anything the information shown from above attests to the fact that the existence of the ROI and "Hinduism" is a Western/British job.

Israel and Pakistan: Behind the biased myths and comparisons

A lot of myths & comparisons have arisen in the post World War Two era between Israel and Pakistan.
These false comparisons arise from some similarities between the two countries.

You can find many similarities between many two countries, yet people don't consider them to be parallels unlike the case of Israel and Pakistan.

Firstly let's look at some of these few similarities:

-Both countries founders were said to be irreligious and associated with their religious groups (Jews & Muslims) on a political basis rather than a religious one. Mr Theodore Herzl was a minority in his European society just as Mr Muhammed Ali Jinnah led a westernized style of life under British rule.

-Both founders had secular ambitions, that is they were not too concerned with the religious practices of others, but more of a secure future for their respective religious groups.

-Both countries gained independence from British rule.

-Both countries gained independence within three years of World War Two ending and the start of the Cold War.

-Both countries were established in the middle of a wide-scale conflict.

-Both countries were were established as states to secure the future of their religious groups though this fact is exaggerated.

Myths and facts:

Here are the myths that evolved out of these facts and were later twisted to suit propaganda agendas:

Myth: Both Israel and Pakistan were religion based states that minorities (non-Jews in the case for Israel and non-Muslims in the case for Pakistan).

Fact: Though this may be somewhat true for Israel, the fact is BOTH Israel and Pakistan were established as secular states, guaranteeing religious freedom through their respective constitutions.

The main difference is that with Israel, most of it's population migrated into the land at the expense of the native population(s) wheras in Pakistan, almost all of the population is still native.

Comparing Israel's foundation to Pakistan's is rather biased in this way for the reason stated above.

Myth: Both Israel and Pakistan are 'un-natural' countries and were artificially man made.

Fact: Because most modern states have been in existence for centuries, they slowly gain the recognition of a 'natural' country.
Looking at the history of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it is very similar to Israel's founding where natives were forced out as opposed to Pakistan's. Certainly when these similarities are seen, none of these former British colonies can be hardly considered 'natural'

But because Canada, America have been around for so long they are accepted as 'natural.'

Myth: Both countries were established for western interests.

Fact: As already proven in this post, Pakistan's establishment was opposed by the West.
Even looking at Israel's modern history, the country can hardly be seen as a "creation for western interests."
The West's relations with oil rich Arab states has been difficult for decades. Even most western proxy regimes in the Middle East still oppose the West's pro-Israeli policies.

The very establishment of Israel can be seen as a thaw to western interests in the Middle East. Had the west backed their proxy regimes in the Middle East against Israel, they'd have an easier time getting energy on discounted prices.

And those who still cry about Israel acting as a western proxy have failed to show even one benefit Israel gives to them.
So far, only the opposite shows, with anti-western radical Islamist movements on the rise in that region due to their anger at western support for Israeli actions.

Much of western support for Israel has been at the expense of the Western tax payer, particularly American.

The west risks so much by backing Israel. The same is for the modern-day Pakistani state, which the West has been backing India against.
Pakistan, the country that has traditionally been allied with China and North Korea (more so China)- two traditional arch-rivals of the West, while India has been close to Britain and more recently the USA.
Today India is seen as a positive instrument to support for distracting China and preventing any peaceful resolution(s) in Asia.

In the end, reality seems the opposite of what is actually believed through this consistent myth spreading and ignorance of basic facts.

Not only have Israel and Pakistan been harmful to Western interests, it seems their arch-rivals (Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq in the case of Israel and India in the case of Pakistan) seem to be the actual Western proxies.

Afghan government asks Pakistan not to name it's missiles after "Afghan heros."

A few years ago the Afghan government asked Pakistan not to name it's missiles after "Afghan emperors." Some of these "Afghan emperors" are the Ghazvanid and the Ghoris.

Though the Ghazvanid empire might have had it's capital in present-day Afghanistan, their territories spanned all the way from Northern Iran across the Indus into present-day Northern India.
Some of their capitals were even situated in Lahore, a major city of Pakistan.

Not to mention that the Ghazvanids were originally Turkic that later mixed with the Persians. Many Afghan 'Aryan' nationalists are bigoted towards the Altaic/Turanoid Turkic Afghans, so why claim the Ghazvanid Empire as one of their own?

The Ghori empire appeared after the conquest and downfall of the Ghazvanid Empire. All this happened in the 12th century AD, more than 500 years before Afghanistan's establishment as a state.
And even if Afghans want to claim heir to the Ghori empire because it's main bases lay in present-day Afghanistan, by this same reasoning, Pakistan can lay claims to the Mughal Empire which ruled most of Northern India and Bangladesh but had it's main capitals in the Punjab region of Pakistan including Lahore.

In reality, no country can lay claim to a foreign empire just because it used their homeland as a base or a capital area. To claim empires and imperial leaders as your own, they must consist of your people regardless of their geographic locations.
Only Brits can truly claim heir to the British Empire, the French for the French Empire, the Italians for the Roman Empire and so on.

According to New World Encyclopedia, Muhammad Ghori was most likely of Tajik ethnicity.
Though this might have been possible, his army consisted of Turko-Mongols, lessening Afghan claims over this empire. Let not Afghans also forget that Ghori left his Turko-Mongol generals to be his heirs.

The Ariana-Afghanistan scam

I've never been fond of using Wikipedia as a source of information ever since I learned how it is really run. But I have to admit, I do sometimes like the references they use as evidence for their content(s).

In the case of ancient Ariana, they cite Strabo's Geographica book four as their reference, which supposedly marks out the borders of Ariana with accuracy.

The reason for my discussing this is because there has been a new propaganda campaign by Afghans to claim Ariana as the ancient name of Afghanistan. The claim is that the modern Afghan state is nothing more than a continuation of ancient Ariana which has existed for thousands of years.

Using the citation of Geographica on the wiki, I decided to further research this book. According to sources, Geographica was written by Strabo, an educated citizen of the Roman empire. The book itself is supposedly consisted of seventeen volumes and was written no time earlier than 20BC.

Also according to sources, detailed descriptions of Ariana are found in Geographica's book fifteen, chapter two, sections one to nine.
Though I don't posses a hard copy of Strabo's Geographica translated into English (the original version was in Greek), I have found what an online reproduction of the Loeb classical Library edition published in 1932.

Here is a quote I want to share of this translation of Geographica's book fifteen chapter two:

"After India ("India" in this case refers to the name coined for the Indus river region by the ancient Greeks, most accurately the provinces of Punjab and Sindh; not the modern country that is known as India, which took up the name used by the British to refer to the entire subcontinent), one comes to Ariana, the first portion of the country subject to the Persians after the Indus River and of the upper Satrapies situated outside the Tarus. Ariana is bounded on the south and on the north by the same sea and the same mountains as India; and from this river it extends towards the west as far as the line drawn from the Caspian Gates to Carmania, so that its shape is quadrilateral. Now the southern side begins at the outlets of the Indus and at Patelene, and ends at Carmania and the mouth of the Persian Gulf, where it has a promontory that projects considerably towards the south; and then it takes a bend into the gulf in the direction of Persis."

According to this site, the Caspian Gate is mentioned in several ancient sources as a mountain pass on the road between Rhagae in modern Iran and the Parthian capital on the border region between Turkmenistan and Iran.

This coincides with Wikipedia's [sourced] statements that Ariana most likely consisted of Iran and western Afghanistan. Ariana's borders have not yet been strictly defined and they are still disputed amongst scholars.
But in any case the historic consensus is that Ariana cannot have been centered only within Afghanistan and the western Pakistani provinces that Afghans have claimed for decades and still claim.

The above quote from Geographica's fifteenth book and other mentioned/linked sources directly contradict Afghan claims on Ariana being their country's ancient name.
If Afghans are willing to continue making these false claims on being the direct heirs to Ariana, they cannot continue without extending their claims to Iranian territory and parts of Central Asia.

Why should Afghanistan be allowed to claim itself as a modern form of Ariana? Why not Iran or Pakistan or countries on the eastern Caspian sea shores? Given that these territories consisted of the modern countries/territories mentioned?
Already some Iranians claim Afghanistan be be part of "greater Iran" possibly based on the Ariana region.

It is common to see people claiming ancient names of people(s) and places as part of their heritage without any proof or evidence.
Afghans can also be found claiming other historic names of peoples and places for themselves such as claiming descent from the Parthians despite the Parthians having their capitals in Eastern Iran.

Afghans also claim Scythian descent, despite Scythians being a separate Iranic people from Pakhtuns, Tajiks or Persians. The map below shows the spread of the Scythian and Parthian empires mostly over Iran Central Asia as well as Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Western India.


Who are the Afghans to be claiming this all exclusively as part of Afghan history? Most of these mentioned peoples and places are now extinct. Boundaries of states and nations change over time. Races appear and disappear from Earth or assimilate into larger/stronger races forming a new race which is a compound of two or more. Good examples of these are the Tocharians forming with Turko-Mongol tribes forming the modern-day Uyghurs.
Or the ancient Europeans who invaded South Asia and mixed with the local population forming the modern-day Pakistanis.

Many Afghans who believe Afghanistan to be ancient Ariana and Pakistan a brand new state only sixty plus years old with no ancient history and holding on to "ancient Afghans lands" are misinformed and don't have a proper insight to the history of the region or just plain ignorant.

By this same token, Pakistan can also lay claims to ancient territories such as Sapta Sindhu, which is the ancient Sanskrit name for most of Pakistan and the Ganges river belt in Northern India which translates to "land of the rivers" since Pakistan and the Ganges valley are home to several rivers. Some are larger, others are smaller.

Recent findings have lead to theories that the ancient Sumerians referred to the Indus Valley/Pakistan as "Melluha" which possibly meant land of the waters, though these are just theories.

All theories and claims by countries over ancient settlements and peoples must be backed up by evidence. Weather this evidence is artifacts, ancient texts, fossils or any other form of evidence.
The Afghan claim over Ariana has none of these, while the idea of Ariana spanning through Afghanistan, across the Middle East/South Asia/Central Asia has plenty of evidence contradicting the Afghan claim with the above information being only one of them.

Many Afghans uneducated in history and other ignorant people think of Afghanistan as some sort of six thousand year old state. This is possibly because the name "Afghanistan" has been around for two and a half centuries while the name Pakistan has been around for about a little over half a century.

The history of the Afghan state begins in 1747 AD. The country was formed by Ahmed Shah Durrani, a Pashtun leader who conquered various provinces including that of Turkic and Tajik speaking people and forged them into one state.

Ever since 1747 the history of the Afghan state has seen many invasions and wars, which is too long to discuss in detail. The main point is that Ariana is in no way a "predecessor" to Afghanistan, nor is the Afghan state six thousand years old as some of it's people claim.

This post ends with a quote from the CIA world fact book on the background of the the modern Afghan state:

Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747. The country served as a buffer between the British and Russian empires until it won independence from notional British control in 1919.

Giving Russia all the credit for the achievements of other nations

Though there is no doubt in my mind that Russia and Russian people have done many things and given many contributions to human development, I feel too much credit to the country and it's people has been given for things that they have not achieved.
As I surveyed the list of famous Azerbaijanis born into Russian society, it seems they were not noted for their ethnic origin, but rather their country of birth has been given all the credit for their achievements and history remembering them as "Russian achievements."

While it's true that these famous people used Russian resources and most were probably educated in Russian society, they deserve the credit of being non-Russian contributors to Russia and the world. So do their countries deserve credit for producing such brilliant people.

For instance if there was an achievement or contribution to humanity by a Russian scientist or any other profession, it would be known as a Russian achievement.
Likewise, the achievements of these great Georgian, German, Azerbaijani and others should also be credited to their respective nations.

At first I did not trust the Wikipedia list of famous Azerbaijani contributors to Russian society and humanity, but further research showed it to be true.
For example Kerim Kerimov was the head of the Soviet space program.
Mr Karimov was ethnically Azerbaijani, so Azerbaijan does deserve some credit for his work and brilliance.

General Maksud Alixanov was another ethnic Azeri who was a general in the Czarist imperial army.
Hazi Aslanov was a famous hero in the Soviet army killed in World War Two.

Joseph Stalin was an ethnic Georgian. Though a brutal leader, he should still be known as a Georgian instead of Russian or best as a Georgian leader of a Russian dominated society (the Soviet Union).
A friend of mine told me the other day that Catharine The Great was an ethnic German.

To my knowledge, Catherine conquered most of the landmass that today constitutes the Russian Federation.
So some credit at least should be given to Germany for her conquest and the formation of the Russian state.

Likewise there are many famous "Russians" that most people ignorantly think of when they think of Russian achievements, not knowing that these "Russians" were Azerbaijanis, Georgians or others.

People will be surprised that many of Russia's best known achievements from poetry, linguistics, space exploration to discovery of energy resources inside the modern Russian Federation are owed to Azerbaijanis and other mostly former Soviet nationalities, yet the credit goes almost entirely to Russia- wrongly so.

As I stated earlier in this post, the achievements of a nation like Russia are nothing small and there are many Russians who should be credited for their contributions to humanity, but at the same time it is wrong to credit non-Russian scientists, generals, millionaires and others who made great achievements as simply "Russian."

To give full credit to a country for the achievements of other nations is a way of stealing history, which many people now days have noticed and speak against.
Moreover it's an immoral thing to steal others achievements and so history needs to be reviewed to prevent such thievery from happening.

The videos below show some famous Chuvash and Azerbaijani people who seem to have been amongst the most successful people in Soviet history: