My thoughts on Urdu/Hindi: An artificial divide

Author's note: This post is still under completion.

An interesting Pakistani author (possibly of Indian origin from his writing) by the name of Abdul Jamil Khan has written a book called "Urdu-Hindi: an artificial divide" which has gained plenty of popularity amongst Indians.
As people know, anything about Pakistan that is dismissed as "Indian" or even linked as "Indian" gains popularity very fast in India or anything from a different South Asian country which is thrown under the "Indian" label causes joy amongst Indians, especially the expansionist ones.

I haven't read the book, save for a few pages from the first chapter, so I cannot comment on the entire book. However, everywhere I search this book on the internet, I read the same description of the points he makes in his book:
• Hindi evolved not from Aryan Sanskrit but from Pre-Aryan Dravidian and Austric-Munda rooted in Middle-East/Mesopotamia;
• Hindi’s script evolved from Aramaic system of writing similar to Greek;
• Urdu has not evolved as an offshoot of a prototype Indo-European language but it has its roots in Mesopotamian and Sumerian civilization;
• The ‘myth’ of Indo-European family of languages was created by Germans to satisfy their own theory of a superior German/Aryan race;
• Ancient Africa served as the melting pot of languages.

I'd like to give my personal views on each point of his hypothesis (however crazy it may sound) based on all the knowledge I have on the subject of linguistics which I'm well read on.

*On his first point regarding Hindi being of non-Indo-European origins, I cannot personally counter that claim since I am no qualified linguist, however based on the knowledge I have so far, I can see no evidence to this claim.
Linguists classify Hindi & Urdu as Indo-European languages because of their grammatical structure which counts more than anything else.
Both these languages display the use of gender like most Indo-European languages and are non-agglutinative, which means they do not represent actions or ideas in shortened suffixes (and prefixes in the case of certain agglutinative languages).

Mr Jamil Khan's hypothesis uses hardly any grammatical evidence, but instead simply what appears to be loanwords, borrowed consonants particularly from Dravidian languages.

He also mentions Hindi & Urdu being Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) languages, which is a trait common to most Indo-European languages.
This only goes against his claims of trying to link the two languages to Mesopotamian or Dravidian languages, which are definitely agglutinative, not SOV.

I agree with his 1.3 classification section regarding myths surrounding languages, however what he seems to be doing is no different, except by pushing in a different direction of his own.

Since he hardly uses any grammatical evidence, his theory has really has no basis.

*The claim that Hindi has it's script borrowed from Aramaic is possible according to many, since many Alphabets worldwide seem to be based on scripture used in the middle east, such as the Phoenician writing system.
However, Mr Jamil Khan is not the first to claim this.

*The author claims the Indo-European (IE) hypothesis was started of in Nazi Germany. This is an outright lie.
Hitler's belief of the Aryan race was promoted during the rise of the Nazi party in the early 19th century, whereas the IE family was proposed as early as the 18th century.
The first proposal for the existence of a common Indo-European was by Sir William Jones

Mr Jamil Khan then touches on Sir Willaim Jones's proposal, which contradicts his later statements of Nazi Germany having been the founder of Pan-Aryan nationalism.



*On ancient Africa being the 'melting pot' of languages, there's mistakes and truths on that. Firstly Africa is a diverse place when it comes to languages. Various, unrelated language families there exist as is for most continents of the world save for maybe Europe which is almost entirely Indo-European speaking.

'Melting pot' usually means cultures and races coming together and combining into new races and cultures. I do not know what the author means in this context. If he means many languages breeding into single languages, that is not always possible. Languages that are not genetically related unless they have corresponding structures which are entirely coincidental.

Outside of these points, I'd like to draw on is the other bias/inaccuracy/serious flaw I see in his material that I've read so far:
-The claim of Urdu & Hindi being the 'natural' common language of the subcontinent and Dividing Hindustani somehow divided the populations. Never in the recorded history of the subcontinent was there a single language people spoke. Even today India is so diverse linguistically (Pakistan too, but to a much lesser degree), so dividing a single language such as Hindustani into Urdu and Hindi can hardly have an impact on the majority of the people since neither Hindi nor Urdu was their first language.

The use of both languages as common forms of communication around Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, other parts of South Asia and parts of the Arabian/Persian Gulf region is a recent practice.
At no time before the Eighteenth century was Urdu used in the region of Pakistan or other parts of South Asia as a lingua Franca.

In short how can you use one or two commonly used languages to represent the people of an entire diverse region?

The Europeans previously used French to reach a common level of understanding one another a few centuries back and now they use English. Can either one or both of these languages be used to represent Europeans on linguistic, cultural or racial grounds as a whole?

As stated before, I read the first few pages of his book here .
A small note to add is that the overuse of Hindi in India and Urdu/Undri in Pakistan as a common language has caused rebellion in the past and still does. When I write overuse, I mean to say that these two languages are being enforced on those who do not speak it as a first language, at the expanse of their native languages.
So using these two or any two languages to represent a diverse region as the subcontinent cannot be taken seriously.

-More pro-Indian bias can be seen at his mention of the mythical "partition of India" already disproven here.

-The author mentions Aramaic to be the "mother" of Arabic, which no other linguist to my knowledge claims. According to linguistic knowledge, Aramaic is a cousin to Arabic, both being derived from a Proto-Semitic language. Refer to the chart below:


-His claim for Semitic & Persian influences on Urdu/Undri being 'ingredients' of the language further discredits his hypothesis on linguistic lines, since borrowed words in a language are not included in it's structural study in the process of it's classification.
More so, borrowed words are a frequent occurrence in almost every language known. Urdu or any other language can randomly borrow words from related or unrelated languages to enhance it's vocabulary; provided there is no grammar conflict with the language and the foreign/alien word it is borrowing.
That being said, all the Arabic words in Urdu are borrowed free of conflict with Urdu's Indo-European grammar and can easily be replaced with words from almost any other language family, again, provided there is no grammar conflict.

Examples are Turkish and Farsi borrowing from Arabic. Plenty of Arabic loanwords can be found in both these languages.
Yet they are considered unrelated because their grammatical structures differ. Farsi belongs to the Indo-European family (like Hindi & Urdu) as Arabic belongs to the Afro-Asiatic family, as Turkish belongs to the Altaic family.

And yet no one who screams of Urdu/Undri being a "mixed language" seems to take this into consideration.
By the logic of the author the modern English language has roots in Japan and he middle east because of loanwords like 'tycoon' from Japanese or 'bazaar' from Arabic.

-The claim that only about 7-10% of Urdu's vocabulary is derived from Sanskrit is irrelevant, since linguistics does not allow classification of languages based on their vocabulary, but rather the grammar they are laid out in.
Not only that, but such kind of classification as done by Jamil Khan, goes completely against the rules of the scientific study of languages themselves.

Languages with common sounding words are proposed relatives, but if you don't have corresponding grammar, the words are accepted as borrowed and/or coincidental. Languages with similar grammar, but lacking common root words and having distinct geography are regarded as having coincidental similarities; hence unrelated to each other.

Other observations that I find in his book which are interesting but hardly credible. In his first chapter where the author tries to 'prove' a Mesopotamian origin for Urdu & Hindi, he also tries to draw what seems to be genetic similarities between Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Altaic, Uralic & Dravidian.
Possible genetic similarities between these language families have been proposed by linguists before, which has led to the Nostratic theory .

If there is any credibility in this theory, it still won't prove Mr Khan's claims of Urdu & Hindi's "Dravidian, Mesopotamian roots", but rather a possible common origin between Dravidian & Indo-European languages alongside Semitic, which is a part of the Afro-Asiatic language family:


Below is a basic chart of the proposed Nostratic family:

There was no 'partition' of "India"

THERE WAS NO “PARTITION”: For Britain ” ‘Indian’ Empire” included Somalia, Iraq, Burma, Singapore etc. For the French “India” included Vietnam (Indo-China). For the Dutch “India” included “Indo-n-asia”.




Some truly educated historians and many educated Pakistanis in particular take deep umbrage and dislike the usage of the term “partition” because “partition” implies the division of a whole. As the maps show, the term “India” was very ephemeral and put in vogue by the British. Before British times, there was no such word. Because there never was a country called “India” there was no "partition"

“India is no more a country than the Equator“ Winston Churchill
Initially when Lord Clive of the East Indian company defeated Shirijud Daulah, he called it British Bengal. When the British formally came to the Subcontinent in 1857, they encountered more than 570 states. When they left the Subcontinent they left more than 570 independent states and two dominions, India and Pakistan. The states on the banks of the Indus decided to live together as Pakistan, as they had lived together for thousands of years. The states on the Gangetic plain banded together to form “Bharat”. The state on the Brahamaputra became its own state.
Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj:

Each state had its own currency, laws, jails, flag, crest, passport, military, treasury, and British forces were not allowed to enter the state. Many were ruled by Muslims rulers like Hydrabad, Bhopal, Junagarh etc. Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj.

The separation of Burma is not called “partition”. The independence of Sri Lanka is not called “partition”. the removal of Iraq from the British Indian Empire is not called “partition”. The independence of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan is not called “partition”. Aden and Somalia became independent in the British Indian Empire and are not lamented as being “partitioned” off. For the French, separating Vietnam from their Indian Empire is not called “partition”. For the Dutch, removing Indonesia from Dutch “India” is not called separation.

The Western states had lived together in the Valley of the Indus for more than 5000 years together so it was natural for them to live together

THE BASIS FOR THE THESIS
“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. 5000 years ago Pakistan was probably not called “Pakistan”. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.

Kushan Parthian maps show different parts of the world.

The British Indian Empire included Somalia, Iraq, Aden, Burma and other states. Then there was the French “Indian” Empire, Dutch “Indian” Empire, “Portuguese” Indian Empire and even a Danish “Indian” Empire. Each one had a different meaning of “India”.The French “Indian” Empire included Vietnam etc. The Dutch Indian Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and Indonesia. Columbus called America “India” and the local inhabitants Indian. Other islands in the new world were called East Indies. South East Asia was called Indo-China

The French “Indian” Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and (Indo-China) Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos in it

The Dutch “Indian” Empire included Indonesia in it

Portuguese map shows. Notice Pakistan labeled Sindh and "India" as Hind. Also note that the name "Hind" is derived from Sindh. So yes, even the roots of the words "Hind" "Hindi" "Hindu" "Hindustan" all originate in present-day Pakistan. These words are a result of the corruption of the original name "Sindhu" meaning land of the rivers which was Pakistan's name in 3000 BC.



Independent princely states during 17th century British presence:

Map of Timur's empire, which included Pakistan, but not "India"

THERE WAS NO PARTITION
The Pakistan proposal “Now or Never” was not based on any partition. It was based on the Muslim majority areas coming together.

Countless maps of pre-47 Pakistan can be found including different time eras most of them excluding present-day "India"

“Notwithstanding [a] thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for one hundred fifty years had failed to achieve cannot be realized by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it. Quaid E Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Founder of modern-day Pakistan and the Father of the state.

THE PROOF OF THE THESIS
How could a country be partitioned from "India" when it has existed for more than 5000 years as a separate entity. One hundred and Fifty years as part of the British empire does not make “India” a country

Pakistanis and historians detest the word that incorrectly describes the genesis of the country that has existed since time immemorial.

So why do people believe this whole falsified term "partition of 'India'" Indians have been involved in a massive propaganda campaign for the past 60 years including making movies, writing books, articles, promoting historic distortion.

Hitler had a saying. Speak a lie, keep repeating it and everyone will believe it.

The term “India” stems from the Arab usage of the word Hind from for the inhabitants who lived on the Sindhu (Indus) river. From Sindh to Hindh. In time all residents beyond the Indus were also called Hindus.

The Western states, Kalat, Bhawalpur, and provinces Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, and NWFP banded together to form “Pakistan” and decided to live together as one country just like they had lived together for thousands of years before the British arrived in the Indus Valley Civilization that existed almost entirely on the banks of the Indus. The states of the Gangetic Civilization that existed on the banks of the Ganges banded together to live form Bharat(constitutional name of “India”). Pakistan had objected to the name “India” being used by Bharat.

These maps show the British Indian Empire which included many states. The other maps detail the condition of the Subcontinent on the eve of the British departure.There never was a country called “India.” The Arabs never ventured past Sindh. The nomenclature was for those on the river Indus as Sindhu or Hindu. ”India” is a colonial derivative of the word. During British Times vast areas of Asia came under the jurisdiction of Britain. Iraq, Somalia, Burma and 526 states in the Subcontinent were all part of the British Empire. When the British were leaving all the parts were made independent.Of these, Somalia, Iraq, Burma, and Pakistan are some of the countries that got liberated. There never was any partition because there never was a “whole” to divide.
At one point Afghanistan was also part of the British "Indian" Empire. Curzon’s retreat from Afghanistan, and its separation from the “Indian” Empire was not called “partition”.

The separation of Iraq from the Indian empire was not called partition. The separation of Aden from British India was not called partition. the separation of the gulf states from “India” was not called partition. The independence of Burma from the British raj in 1933 was not called “partition”. Why is the Pakistani independence called “partition”, as if it was part and parcel of a “whole”.

THE FOUR SUPERPOWERS OF EARLY HISTORY: China, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan. The Nile, the Tigris-Euphrates delta, the Yangtze Delta, and the Indus, are the wombs of all civilizations on our earth. These river valley spawned and nurtured humanity. Imagine a world with four superpowers at peace with each other. Imagine a planet where each civilization was immersed in humongous construction projects, urban edification and trade. . How did these proto-world powers interact with each other? Imagine a civilization without any implements of war. Let us look into pre-history and peek into the “seeds” of time. Let us look at the valleys of the world that engendered the Superpowers of the ancient world..

PAKISTAN 5000 YEARS AGO:-The Indus Valley Civilization of South Asia was one of the inceptive civilizations on the planet. It was contemporaneous with the Chinese, Egyptian, and Sumerian civilizations. These were the times when the Egyptians were building huge monuments to their God-kings,the pyramids and the Sphinx. These were the centuries when the Chinese were building palaces for the Shun dynasty. These were exciting eons in the Holy lands too.

These were the centuries when Moses was battling the pharaohs, Abraham was building the Kaaba, David was ruling the kingdom, and Solomon was building the Temple of Yahweh. It was during these centuries that the Indus Valley Civilization flourished and reached its zenith in South Asia.

The IVC built well planned municipalities for its citizens. While the Egyptians spent three generations of their labor force (estimated between 20,000-10000) building useless mausoleum-pyramids to bury the God-kings, the Harappans were successful in eradicating, disease, hunger, and malnutrition.

The Harappans of the IVC did not build huge commemorative, deifying, dedicatory, cenotaphs. The Harappans of Meluhha-IVC built the finest cities of the third millennium BCE.

Because the Subcontinent was never “one” country, there are deep fissures in “Bharat.” The Kashmiris, the Naxalites, the Northeastern states, as well as East Punjab, and Tamil Nadu on the South all want to revert to the pre-1947 era.

The so-called "graveyard of empires."

That's the description we hear for Afghanistan these days especially with the rising casualties of NATO forces at the hands of the insurgents.
This label is useful in a lot of ways. For one it sells books, news stories and documentaries. That's true for just about every type of slogan or claim that sells.

But just how true is this title beyond the media slogan? Let's take a look at history. Firstly, every empire rises and falls. No matter how strong an imprint it leaves behind weather cultural, religious, linguistic or racial, every empire has met it's downfall.
Then there are empires that conquer with success and others that fail.

In reality, Afghanistan has been colonized various times going back thousands of years from the Mauryan Empire to the Punjabi Sikh Empire. The Greeks also colonized modern Afghanistan and Pakistan before blending into the native populations.

Likewise, many empires colonized various countries and regions. Good examples are the Achaemenian Empire that ruled Pakistan. The Ottoman Empire in Europe and the Middle East, the Roman Empire also in Europe.

The Mongol Empire is an unforgettable one with their vast conquest of many parts of Eurasia- including parts of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But in the end all these empires fell. The Ottomans retreated from Europe eventually as did the Arabs before them and so on. Despite all this, no media or historian to my knowledge called Europe, "the 'graveyard' of empires."
Despite that even after about five centuries of Ottoman Islamic rule, the Europeans drove them out.

The Romans and the Crusaders that came before them suffered a similar fate in their conquest of the Middle East.
So why haven't these places been granted the grand award of "the graveyard of empires?"

The best comparable example is the Soviet Union's war with Finland under Stalin. Finland was a country of only about three and a half million. The thousands of Soviet soldiers killed in one night of fighting and the clever tactics of the Finns had devastating affects on the Soviet military.

Afghanistan killing only about 15,000 Soviet soldiers in a period of about ten years is incomparable. Even before the Soviet-Finnish wars, Finland freed itself from Swedish and Czarist occupations many times despite being a colony for centuries. If any country should be recognized as the "graveyard of empires" it must be Finland. But why is it not seen as such?

Because Finland is a small, quiet country that doesn't sell many dramatic profitable news stories besides a few school shootings.

The sad truth also lies in the fact that both news publications and history are often manipulated to fit the tastes of those who are reporting them.
In the case of Afghanistan, they selectively pick all the empires that failed to conquer and establish a presence or a governing system while deliberately leaving out all the Punjabi, Persian, Arab and Turkic empires that occupied it with success.

Yet the defeat of the Soviet Empire and presently the rising casualties of NATO seems to have many political pseudoscientists, pseuodo-historians and the Afghan Mellat bellowing the drum "graveyard of empires" while ignoring the ground realities on purpose.

The reality is that the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan could probably never have happened had it not been for American military aid, Saudi money, various foreign jihaddists, Pakistani training and intelligence sharing.

What else could a small, unsophisticated country use against a giant military superpower?
How else could the Afghan mujahideen shoot down Soviet jets if not for American anti-aircraft stinger missiles? What else to strike hard against Soviet ground forces if not for anti-tank missiles and other sophisticated weaponry?

Any person who thinks the mujahideen could have succeeded without outside assistance lacks common sense and critical thinking.

Then there's the casualties that many also ignore. The casualties of the muhajideen- which consisted of many foreign nationals in addition to local Afghans- was far greater than that of the Soviets which was about only fifteen thousand.

On the subject of casualties, a fact to note is that if the USSR or NATO did not care for civilian lives, the insurgency would have been stamped out within a short period of time. Both NATO now and the Soviet Union then had the technology to blow up every town, city and village in Afghanistan.
But because that would be deemed as an immoral act and generate worldwide fear, it could trigger a third world war against that invading country/entity for no country today would commit such an atrocity to avoid isolating itself.

One doesn't have to look for contradicting statements or messages to refute a claim or a widely believed myth.
All one has to do is look for common sense or research further to come up with their own conclusion which does not have to agree with the collective belief of the majority, but at the same time carry with it this evidence to prove itself correct.

Post update: This article confirms what I've been expressing all along.

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.