This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've fixed the BBC poll results that somebody added so they tally with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2017631.stm - if there is some other survey which matches the figures which were given here, then a source should be given for it. I also have very severe doubts about some other changes recently made by the same user (see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=439956&oldid=439933 ) - unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to fix this up myself. -- Camembert 03:28 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)
UserPakAtheist removed:
India defeated Pakistan in all the three wars that it launched.
A recent survey conducted by Mori for the BBC, found that 61% of Kashmiris would prefer Indian citizenship, 6% would prefer Pakistani, with 33% undecided [1].
--
I disagree. While all surveys are inherently biased, it is still useful information. It should up to the reader to beware the potential for error. I think the BBC can be trusted enough to not further any political purpose. Are there any other surveys by different organizations supporting or debunking these results? Those would help...
And what's wrong with that general statement? Isnt it true?
-- Jiang 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Poll:
The problem with that particular poll is dual, first it counted votes only in indian held kashmir, secondly it the only muslim concentrated area that it gave importance was areas sorrounding sirinagar.
Secondly If you are going to mention a poll in an article about "history of pakistan" which forces the user to conclude about a contentious issue which has taken more then 50 years to resolve, then it could only be a poll which takes the whole population into account without being under the influence of pakistani or indian governments.
The second statement that i deleted was about the three wars, it was because the if you mention such a generalized statement then you should better come up with your authentic references, because you can only be sure about the 70's war the other two.... you cant.
A survey by an indian organization finds 74% people want freedom!!!
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001008/j&k.htm#2
[I think whoever gave this link here should consider taking a course in English!] ~rAGU
Some user has recenty edited the article drastically to make it conform to the theory that Pakistan was never a part of India, apart from small intermittent periods from time to time, and that Pakistan was always a separate entity. One example is this: "When the Abdali kingdom weakened early in the 19th century due to internecine warfare, Pakistan did not revert to Indian control but instead an independent kingdom arose in Punjab headed by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh....."
These edits seem to convey a point of view that Pakistan always existed as a separate nation for thousands of years, which was colonized by India from time to time. Someone please read the article thoroughly and make it less POV. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)
I can do it myself too, but I am tired of vandals who would come again and restore the changes, and perhaps also get me blocked. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Another gem:
So far one of our objects has been to underline the fact that right from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization down to the end of the Ghaznavid rule at the fall of the 12th century A.D. over a period of more than four thousand years, Pakistan has been invariably a single, compact, separate entity either independent or part of powers located to her west; its dependence on or forming part of India was merely an exception and that too for an extremely short period. It was only when the Muslims established themselves at Delhi early in the 13 century A.D. that Pakistan was made a part of India, but not in the pre-Muslim period. And once Muslims' successors in the sub-continent, the British, relinquished power in the middle of the 20th century, Pakistan reverted to its normal position of an independent country. Indian propaganda that the division of this sub-continent was unnatural and unrealistic is fake and fraudulent. Muslims had joined this region of Pakistan with India in the early 13th century A.D. when the Delhi Sultanate was formed; again Muslims have disconnected it from India giving it the normal and natural form which its geographical, ethnical, cultural and religious identity demanded.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.203.202.156 ( talk • contribs) 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC).
http://www.answers.com/topic/vedic-civilization
I also added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire.
Also, no mention of the Sassanian control of the southern western regions of Pakistan prior to Muslim invasions. It's as if the western parts are being deliberately left out.
All of my edits can be checked out and verified. Just google Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud of Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Ahmad Shah Durrani and the rest. And then check out the various views of ancient Pakistan. -- Tombseye 00:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Tombseye 01:05, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-It would be nice if the "Pre-Colonial History" section be edited drastically so it doesnt assume the existance of India and Pakistan (as is today) in those ancient times. Also, its not like the area now known as the Republic of India had a complete common history of its own when much of it was also ridden with different history in different parts of the country (ie: Assam and southern India). -[[ Afghan Historian 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]]
see Talk:History of India; the pre-1947 material should be merged in History of the Indian subcontinent. The division into Pakistan vs. Indian Republic is only aged 60 years, and it is inappropriate to organize articles about early history guided by it. Before the RoI and Pakistan, there was the British Raj. Before that, it was just a collection of shifting kingdoms anyway, so the only thing that unites it are geographical criteria. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that it should be merged. It's like merging all of Europe together as a subcontinent of Eurasia. One series of events takes place in what is today Pakistan and something else in Central India. Pakistan is mostly on the subcontinent, but most of Baluchistan is on the Iranian plateau. Furthermore, western Pakistan has a history and culture that is very closely aligned to that of Afghanistan rather than India. In fact, before the British came there was little concept of India so much as that of empires both old and new. Religion, language and regional affinities were more dominant than a national identity. While Pakistan is invaded and part of the empires of the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, and others most of India has a different history. Why should that be merged? Pakistan is a modern creation indeed as are most nations, but it's history is also that of two civilizations at least and cannot be neatly placed into a single monolithic category.
Tombseye 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I somewhat agree. Baluchistan belongs to a greater Iranian nation, legitimately belonging to Iran, occupied sometime in History by the British. North West Frontier Province (was earlier called Afghania) , again occupied by British, identifies with Afghanistan which has been closer to Central Asia in the modern times. The rest of Pakistan, consisting of an overwhelming population of Pakistan, and all that we identify today as Pakistani culture has always been a part of India. India, afterall, is named after the Indus river. Afghanistan is also included an a Greater India, which is a socio-cultural rather than a political concept. Nations are not made of kingdoms. Even if you somehow fabricate a history which shows that Pakistan was ruled for long periods by people who did not rule large parts of India, you cannot deny that most of what is today Pakistan was (and in large part still is) socially, linguistically, economically, ethnically, culturally inseparable from India. Muwaffaq 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
You mean part of the overall Indian (or Indo-Aryan language) linguistic and cultural sphere and I would agree that that is a consideration. The problem is that language alone does not make for a "Greater India" alone as that would make the Czechs a part of Greater Russia due to Slavic similarity (and the notion of Pan-Slavism). That's what that becomes when talking of a Greater India, it's a similar notion ot pan-Slavism rather than a more solid concept based upon history. The history part diverges and due to geography the Czechs have more to do with Germany than Russia and Sindh has more interaction with Iran than it does with central India, but maintains the cultural ties that you speak of that are obvious to note. However, the history aspect is separate at times or simply intersects with corresponding areas of India's extreme northwest. The concept of "India" as a nation does not arise until the 19th century as the most vague conceptions include references to "Hindustan" or Hind largely by Muslim invaders. Indians refer to a more vague region called Bharat. However all of that aside, Pakistan as a state today constitutes a separate nation and has a local history and that's really the point. In addition, parts of eastern Afghanistan intersect with Buddhist tradition and a brief period of Hindu rule in Kabul did take place under the Iranian Hindu Shahis, but this is so brief in terms of context and for most of its history Afghanistan is basically part of the Persian sphere of influence to the point that the Avesta is believed to have originated there. There is of course correlation with the language of Sanskrit and the Avestan Iranian dialects that makes for overlap. One can mention the many points and how the western part associates with the Iranic world and the east associates with South Asia of course. Nations and nationalities tend to man-made obviously and perception becomes a matter of view. I think the way this article is written it pays homage to the fact that Pakistan is an overlapping region rather than a historical state. I would agree though that the Panjab and Sind are culturally, linguistically, and, in part, ethnically related to corresponding regions of India, but keep in mind that there is a large Baluchi minority in Sind and there are Punjabi Pathans who overlap as well. It's a messy border region, but the article doesn't shrink away from making the point that for example, the Sikh empire arose in Lahore even though the Sikhs were a minority. Or that Hinduism and the related religion of Buddhism were predominant in the region. What can perhaps be surmised from all of this is that while the west is clearly part of Iranian civilization and the east is an extension of Indic civilization, religion and local history has also given rise to a regional civilization and a modern nation that can best be termed as Indo-Iranian as a result. This removes the notion that many people have that Pakistan seeks to emphasize the Arabs and Islamic period as that seems to me about a limited way of approaching this. Indeed, most articles emphasize the ancient ties and connections as well. What makes this difficult is that historically the western Punjabis and Sindhis have been ruled by "western" empires and this has inevitably made changes that included conversion to Islam that did not take place in India proper. Overall though, I see nothing inaccurate in what you have said. Tombseye 14:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Tombseye 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Removed another POV Gem:
"The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that it became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by people of Pakistan. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the South Asia took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Indian based governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. Persian Achaemenian Empire conquered ancient Pakistan and it remained part of Persian empire for more than two hundred years. Alexander the Great also conquered Indus satrapy, modern Pakistan, and did briefly cross into India but returned after his army refused to advance further into India. Ancient Pakistan remained part of the Hellenic world for next hundred fifty years. During the Arab rule, the territories of Pakistan were known as 'Sindh' and Indian territories were known as 'Hind'. The Arab dynasties ruled Pakistan from Baghdad in Iraq and from Damascus in Syria for more than two hundred years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.61.18.228 ( talk • contribs)
surely, the acronym is a backronym, and the word was not "also captured in the Persian language", but rather built on it? dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
-Sindh was not merely a tributary state. Most archaelogical evidence shows that the area now known as Sindh was an integral full part of the northwestern regions of the Gupta empire, without the tributary states. Most maps excluding the tributary regions also show the area around the southern Indus river as an integral part of the empire. - User: Afghan Historian
The article has been listed for a peer review by the History Wikiproject. Green Giant ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article is locked, but the following meaning does not make sense.
The Indo-Greek Menander I (reigned 155-130 BCE) drove the Greco-Bactrians out of Gandhara and beyond the Hindu Kush, becoming a king shortly after his victory
Menander was a Greco-Bactrian himself, though ruling in the Indian provinces of their short-lived empire. He surely did not drive out any Greco-Bactrians; what he did was to take control of some territories that were previously ruled from Bactria. And these territories were most likely mainly in south-eastern Afghanistan, not Pakistan. And this is supposed to have happened at the end of his reign. The paragraph about Heliocles I is also outdated; since 50 years, scholars agree that a separate king named Heliocles II ruled in Pakistan.
I request a temporary unlocking so I can re-write the Indo-Greek sequence in accordance with the main article. (To which I am one of the main contributors). Kindly, Sponsianus ( talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan got the first..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.148.129 ( talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the article is locked, I couldn't figure out how to make copyedits, but I noticed a few things that should be changed in the last few paragraphs. maybe someone else can can make them? Thanks!
"A General Election was held in Pakistan" . . . should be "general election" uncapitalized.
"On August 7 The deadlock between ruling parties ended when the coalition government of Pakistan decided to move for the impeachment of the President and then head for the restoration of the deposed judiciary. moreover they have decided that the President of Pakistan now faces charges of weakening the federation, creating economic impasse and violating the constitution.[101]"
"The" is capitalized unnecessarily, and the first sentence is too long and should be broken up. "Moreover" should be capitalized.
"Also He had been required to seek the vote of confidence from the senate and parliament"
"He" shouldn't be capitalized, and there should be a period at the end.
--
72.93.0.112 (
talk)
22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for some information on why Dominion Status prolonged till 1956, but this article did not help: only thing it said is the date when it ended in 'First military era (1958-1971)' section. Main articles listed in the section are 2 biographies and one on Bangladesh Independence War.-- GDibyendu ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I put it there, because its one of the most important images representing the Indus Civilization followed by the dancing here. Since the article contains the Indus Valley era, it's important to keep the priest image here.03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Taeyebaar ( talk)
This article is too long. About half of its content is also offtopic and rehashes material treated elsewhere ( WP:CFORK). All the material pertaining to periods pre-dating the Pakistan movement should be exported, and at best be summarized very briefly. "History of Pakistan" parallels History of the Republic of India, it is fallacious to compare it to History of India. dab (𒁳) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns are unfounded. Every country article on Wikipedia has a prehistory section which goes into detail. By Omitting information, you are showing a distinct bias. This IS the history of Pakistan. The fact that Pakistani people were involved and this took place in Pakistan is not being questioned. You are simply questioning the relevance of this because you dont agree with the partition of British India, hence consider this as part of Indian history? Dont make this into a "Political history" article. This is as relevant as it gets. Omitting relevant information is clearly a biased stance, and hence vandalism. Xinjao ( talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand what you mean. "History of Pakistan" is not only the political history of Pakistan. I am not here to argue what has been included in the History of India article, but why do you insist on removing relevant information from the history of Pakistan article?
Imo, "The rise of the Muslim League" doesnt belong in this article in the first place. This is all political. And as for using the term "India" for the whole subcontinent, it is obviously very misleading, but its not what this argument is about.
I ask you to expand the pre history content. A lot of people worked very hard for this relevant information to appear on the right page. Its very disheartening that people who know very little about the region can remove huge chunks of information because they dont like it. I assume good faith and want you to realise that "History of Pakistan" involves pre 1947 events too. Thank you for reading and regards. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Xinjao (
talk •
contribs)
12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not about shared History Max. The point is that this information is relevant and belongs on this page. In the past nobody had a problem with an extensively detailed pre history Section. And even now, the pre history section is included, but a tiny amount is said about it. This simply doesnt add up. If you go to any Pakistani Government site, they acknowledge the Indus valley and Ghandara as Pakistans ancient history. There is no question about whether this information is relevant, but some users are just not happy adding this information here because they want it to be a strictly political article. The correction here is that this is a History article. This article suits the description of Political History of Pakistan. When readers search for History of Pakistan, that is simply not what they are looking for. I am assuming good faith in you, and please help me make this article more relevant. Xinjao ( talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support Unknown. I am just trying to point out that countless of people worked very hard to include relevant information to this article, but along come some other people who remove the information and insist on it only being included in the History of India article even though all this took place in Pakistan. We are not arguing the content of History of India article, but the fact that the modern nation of Pakistan has obviously been affected by its 5000 year old past. Is there any reason not to include it besides Politics and Nationalism? Unless someone comes up with an amazing reason not to include the Indus Valley and Ghandara stuff in this article soon, I will go ahead and expand this article. Thank you. Xinjao ( talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Max today responded by further removing EVERY reference to the Pre history and making this purely a Political article. This is a first, and I will personally report this vandalism if you remove information from this page again. Please see above, people are agreeing to expand the Pre History section, not remove it entirely. Xinjao ( talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, keep the pre-history it certainly had a place here and the images are just as important. If politcial history then maybe we can start a seperate article called politcial history of Pakistan and write about history of Pak politcias, but since this is a general history, everything relivent should stay here. Taeyebaar ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've went ahead and changed the setup of the article, and added some early history to the introduction page. I would request everyone to please look over my edits because I may have made a few mistakes (which I think I may have). I think this set up is much easier to read and more organized. I hope we can further add to the article from this point onwards. There are still many spelling mistakes and errors I've noticed throughout the article so I request everyone to please look into them. Thank you.
-- MirNaveed ( talk) 12:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The comment that the princely state of kashmir illegaly ceded to india is utterly blasphemous . Can you please be neutral and not promote divisive and agenda based wetern version of our history ?
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/01/arts/arts-artifacts-textiles-as-rich-and-varied-as-the-history-of-pakistan.html?pagewanted=1 Mughalnz ( talk) 07:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please mention Sapta Sindhu which was Pakistan's original name. It is from Sapta Sindhu the names Indus and Hind were derived from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 ( talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Are some people trying to be exceptionally smart by removing half of the information as "irrelevant"? This has to be the most vandalised page on Wikipedia. I urge moderators to take action. Certain people with blatant bias insist on removing large parts they dont "like". Truly pathetic. -- Xinjao ( talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you get back in your taxi indian and concentrate on making ends meet instead of wasting your precious time on Pakistani Wiki articles. The region of Babylon was never called Iraq shall we assume Iran has claims to it now? You indians are ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHPak ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I came onto this page hoping to find some information on my native Sindh, but could find absolutely nothing, It came to my attention that another article has been made on this matter. Pages on the History of Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, and so on and so forth need to be merged with this please, remember the Indigenous people of these regions are the ones who are currently tagged as Pakistani, most of the peoples whos ancestors contributed to this history are also tagged as Pakistani therefore we have a right our ancient history be merged with the history of our country, Also there seems to be an Anti-Pakistan presence in all Pak related discussions on wikipedia, as with most other sites, Id kindly like to remind you this isn't the website for bias so please step out and stick to your anonymous forums, people who actually come from within Pakistan should be given responsibility to look after this page and edit it as the readers demand.thanks.Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassinbaloch091 ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This article, as also other articles on Pakistan, are modified so often reflecting some nationalistic 'ajenda' against them. It harms the articles as well as the reliability of Wikipedia. I wish editors could appoint a group to monitor Pakistan-related articles regularly for such biased edits. Is it Possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.100.114 ( talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
"Ordinance XX was introduced to limit the idolatrous Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims." This is an opinon, not a fact. Who is the writer to say Ahmadi's are idolatrous and are misrepresenting themselves by calling themselves Muslims? 30 July, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by InaniloquentES ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is incomplete. It does not include the foundation and eventual establishment of the Afghan empire to which Pakistan was an integral part. Infact, the founder is believed to have come from a city in modern day Pakistan. This important component of Pakistan's history needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.132.39 ( talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
My ancestors are Hindus from Sindh, Pakistan. Why is there no mention of Hindus?
25% of Sindh's population was Hindu at time of partition in 1947. Even though there was no violence in the streets, it only started when the mohajirs started to pour into Sindh. They started looting the homes of Hindus and we lost everything. They took our homes and businesses. It is a horrible crime and it should be acknowledged and respected in this article.
There should be respect for Hindus there is common ancestry between Muslims of Pakistan and Hindus of Pakistan.
what you write may be true however this is not the appropriate place for it. Political history needs to be kept out of scientific and anthropological history- 99.227.90.213 ( talk) 06:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats because, the hindus and other minorities of Pakistan were native to the soil. While they were a small minority, They identified more culturally with the native soil of pakistan culturally and linguistically. This religious nationalism that you speak of does not exist for the hindus of Pakistan. They are Pakistani's, Sindhis etc.. and consider themselves Pakistani's and part of ancient Pakistan's history. There is no specific hindu period in Pakistan unlike the rest of South Asia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.90.132.39 (
talk)
03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Zia ul haq.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC) |
Little to nothing is known about the Achaemenid subordination and control over parts of the Indian sucbontinent. All of what is known to academics is presented in this paper published by the University of Cambridge: http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf. However, for some unknown reason some users here insist of writing-up a bogus and fantasy section for Achaemenid rule over parts of modern Pakistan. The only facts known to historians are that Darius I inherited or even invaded himself the Indian subcontinent and defeated the petty Indian kingdoms he encountered along the Indus and subodinated these to the Persian Empire, thus requiring the Indians to pay tributes to the Persian Kings. Nothing is known however about the administration or anything else about these Indian tributaries as there is only scant mention of them in either Persian or Greek sources and there is not a single achaeological site anywhere in Pakistan that has been positvely identified with the Persian Empire. Why on Earth therefore some people want to write-up some fantasies about the lands now forming Pakistan as being "the most populous and richest" satrapies of the Achaemenid Empire when this is entirely bogus and not cofirmed by any historical source is very puzzling indeed.
Some strange person even added the Achaemenid satrap of Media as including Pakistan which is totally absurd as Media is located in the northwest of Iran which is thousands of miles away from the Indian subcontinent. Totally preposterous!
Below i have re-written the section, all of which has been sourced from a paper on the subject published by the University of Cambridge. Regretfully though, some people keep reverting the changes and want to stick with their psuedo-history and personal fantasies of Pakistan being at the center of the Achaemenid Empire when in relaity the Persians paid little or no attention to their subordinated Indian tributaries. The only role "Pakistan" played in Achaemenid history was paying tributes to Persia after the Persians had came, invaded and defeated the Indians in war.
My re-write:
Little is known about the Achaemenid Persian invasion of modern-day Pakistan as historical sources and evidence are scant and fragmentary containing little detail. There is no archaeological evidence of Achaemind control over modern-day Pakistan as not a single archaeological site that can be positively identified with the Achaemenid Empire has been found anywhere in Pakistan, including at Taxila [1]. What is known about the easternmost satraps and borderlands of the Achaemenid Empire are alluded to in the Darius inscriptions and from Greek sources such as the Histories of Herodotus and the later Alexander Chronicles (Arrian, Strabo et al). These sources list three Indian tributaries or conquered territories that were subordinated to the Persian Empire and made to pay tributes to the Persian Kings: Gandhara, Sattagydia (Thatagus) and Hindush [2].
Gandhara and Sattagydia (Thatagus) are listed amongst the provinces inherited by Darius when he seized the throne in 522 BC in his commemorative Behistun inscription, however, the dates of the initial annexation of these two regions is not certain [3]. The locations of Sattagydia and Hindush and the extent of their boundaries have not been identified either though it is certain that these two tributaries existed along the river Indus as the name Hindush is analogous with the Indus and was derived by the Persians from the Sanskrit word Sindhu.
Additionally, much of what constitutes Balochistan province in southwest Pakistan formed part of the Achaemenid satrap of Gedrosia [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.179.188 ( talk • contribs)
Warning to all parties concerned: the blanket reverts (+3,450 bytes, -3,450 bytes, etc.) need to stop. This goes for both sides. Take it bit by bit, and explain precisely what you object to in each passage. Anybody found to be making yet more blanket reverts involving multiple unrelated differences across the whole article (like here will be blocked, and for a longish period. The same goes for anybody who accuses the other side of vandalism.
I am semi-protecting the article to keep the socks out. If the IP user 92.4.179.188 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who instigated the contentious rewrite, wishes to continue taking part in the process, they are advised to create an account. If you contact me under your new account identifying yourself as this IP editor, I will tag your account as "confirmed" so you can immediately edit through the semiprotection like the other participants. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the line "prevented Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims" to "calling themselves Muslims" since i believe the previous line was blatantly POV. Hope nobody minds 120.56.163.227 ( talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
pakistan is the country of happiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.201.167.66 ( talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
was this region ever known by the name of Pakistan before 1947? If not then this article is not in tune with wikipedia's ideas. the title of the article should be changed immediately. All history textbooks give the name as Indian Subcontinent and that will be the right article to include this information. What some authors here are trying to do is spinning their notion of being an ancient country to others. The information being conveyed is totally inaccurate at the moment.
Sorry to interrupt, People like to read unbiased history mostly supported by unbiased third party scholars. I can see that in this page there is no contribution by foreigners, 3rd party scholars etc..because they don't trust this page and they don't participate in your discussion. Probably you have lost your readers and you are trying to convince yourself of history. This will rather increase your problem, as world can still look into history and your credibility is at stake.
when you say, "It is after nearly two and a half thousand years of subjugation to outsiders, that the sons of the soil are ruling their motherland for any length of time as per the...". Who were these outsiders and what was their religion at the time of attack? Who were those insiders ? So, where did the outsiders go? did outsiders went back to Iran /saudi Arab? Did they gave rewards to local inhabitants after winning wars or looted land of local inhabitants and drove them out of their homes ? Where did hindus go with women and children after their kings lost wars and their men were beheaded or made slaves? Did Hindus cherished their rights and religion after loosing wars? Is there any source in history of pakistan which says that after wining wars , women and children were highly protected by invaders and honorable position was maintained? Was there no chaos post war. Did peace came post war, and people lived with smiling faces?
you may also say, " people who actually come from within Pakistan should be given responsibility to look after this page and edit it as the readers demand..." .History has nothing to do with religion/nationality/feelings. History is only related to facts and events without biasness. sorry this is not confrontation but, only truth should be accepted everywhere. History has cultural importance and connections. Wiki is for everyone, it has nothing to do with Pakistan but only the truth.
These are questions of millions of readers of history. When they don't find answers in your history, they look into facts supported by neutral 3rd party scholars. The history writers of pakistan don't mention about what happened after dreaded events of war !!! you may say " this is not the appropriate place for it " but , history must not forget its people and legitimacy of history is in revealing not hiding. Hiding history is not legitimate under any situation or logic.
Put your hands on your heart and then say that you respect or beleive in vedic history of indus valley !!! Can you associate yourself with them? Is there any respect for their culture in modern independent pakistan? Indus valley culture is still respected in India by majority and they can put their hands on their heart and say that their ancestors lived there. It is a part of their modern day culture and tradition. Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If there is hiding of history, then next generation of pakistan will never learn to live in peace with India bcz for them we are not legitimate.
"Greater India", "Greater Iran" or "Greater Central Asia" are not valid national/civilizational names. These are all constructs of modern 20th-21st century nationalism! The region of what is now Pakistan consists of the Indus Valley (including adjacent Punjab), the foothills of the Afghan mountains, the HImalayan regions of Kashmir and the Baluchistan desert plateau. All of these are different and were part of varying empires. But they are nevertheless connected and viewed in toto as constituting a sub-region of a particular part of the world, the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Pakistan is basically the frontier of the subcontinent. Just because certain languages are spoken there, does not make it part of an "ethnic bloc". "Greater Iran" was never a real unity but a varying region of where Iranian languages were spoken (not just the plateau but in the steppes of Central Asia too). Persian nationalism considers it homogenous but this is BS. In fact, the Khyber region and eastern Afghanistan were often aligned with other border cultures in South Asia proper, rather than being monolithically tied to a "Greater Iran". "Greater India" is also a modern construction of a supposedly unified culture based in the subcontinent. This is just as erroneous. There was no "India", eternal and ever lasting. There were various related or disjointed civilizations in a common region for thousands of years that the British sowed up in their empire. But this general confluence of regions was always defined as being the gateway to the Indian subcontinent, for both Central Asians and Middle Easterners. It was never viewed in any other capacity other than that. I'm sorry but that's how it is. It does not make the idea of "Greater India" viable but it shows how the area was perceived as being part of a loose region or "subcontinent" that was considered to be of economic value. All of you grow up. Afghan Historian ( talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think these Dynasties deserve to get some space separately in the article (maybe as sub heading under Major heading of Dehli sultanate). Period comprising of these dynasties was very important one as Science and Literature was thriving in the area during that time, and played major role in forming the modern day Pakistani culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhayb.Manzer ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
tida pati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.185.189 ( talk) 13:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the current reference http://www.webcitation.org/5kwqOxl5F, the empire stretched upto Indian Punjab and Rajasthan. There is no point Gupta Empire" getting a long section in History of Pakistan. So should be the section be completely removed or there should a mention of states that paid tributes to Gupta Empire? -- Fasi100 ( talk) 19:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
ČČ
Pakistan was made in 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.151.214 ( talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes,agree,Pakistan's history starts from Pakistan movement,the area which Pakistan has has rich history cause it was part of India. Ovsek ( talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Pakistani Areas were not part of India untill , Britishers Annexed these regions of Sikh and Afghan Empires into "British India". Infact there was no "India" untill Britishers Created it. Can u proove the existance of India before Britishers came here??? Come on, grow up. "Greater India", "Greater Iran" or "Greater Central Asia" are not valid national/civilizational names. These are all constructs of modern 20th-21st century nationalism! The region of what is now Pakistan consists of the Indus Valley (including adjacent Punjab), the foothills of the Afghan mountains, the HImalayan regions of Kashmir and the Baluchistan desert plateau. All of these are different and were part of varying empires. But they are nevertheless connected and viewed in toto as constituting a sub-region of a particular part of the world, the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Pakistan is basically the frontier of the subcontinent. Just because certain languages are spoken there, does not make it part of an "ethnic bloc". "Greater Iran" was never a real unity but a varying region of where Iranian languages were spoken (not just the plateau but in the steppes of Central Asia too). Persian nationalism considers it homogenous but this is BS. In fact, the Khyber region and eastern Afghanistan were often aligned with other border cultures in South Asia proper, rather than being monolithically tied to a "Greater Iran". "Greater India" is also a modern construction of a supposedly unified culture based in the subcontinent. This is just as erroneous. There was no "India", eternal and ever lasting. There were various related or disjointed civilizations in a common region for thousands of years that the British sowed up in their empire. But this general confluence of regions was always defined as being the gateway to the Indian subcontinent, for both Central Asians and Middle Easterners. It was never viewed in any other capacity other than that. I'm sorry but that's how it is. It does not make the idea of "Greater India" viable but it shows how the area was perceived as being part of a loose region or "subcontinent" that was considered to be of economic value. All of you grow up.
The area of Pakistan has rich history, but Pakistan as a nation does not have. It was created, India was not a nation in modern sense, it was Civilizational unit, binded by Indian religions, a Tamil from South india and a Bengali from East India despite massive differences shared one similarity, that was common religion. Pakistan has nothing like this. 117.201.124.179 ( talk) 17:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ferishta":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Capitals00 has been removing content from the article without providing a clear and proper explanation. When I reverted the edits back to the official last edit, I was told Don't create empty irrelevant sections, get consensus for your edits. As I have mentioned earlier, and for those who are unaware, I have taken a break from editing the History of Pakistan to avoid confrontation and to avoid getting banned. I made it clear that I would begin editing again sometime in December. I added many sections which I would eventually come around to and added an "expand section" template. Without any explanations these sections were removed. Also, within the context of removing these empty section, small edits were made to the top note whereby the part that reads "this is about the history of the Indus Valley" was replaced with "this is about the history of Pakistan". Also, the first sentence "The history of Pakistan ( Urdu: تاریخ پاکستان) encompasses the history of the Indus Valley" was edited to "The history of Pakistan ( Urdu: تاریخ پاکستان) the history of the region constituting modern-day Pakistan." once again with providing an explanation. Could Capitals00 please provide a reason for the last two edits. -- PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to improve this article by amending the 1st paragraph which isn't very inspiring. The first paragraph starts by saying Pakistan has a shared history with its neighbours. This is a very weak start to another wise good article – I mean can you name any country on the planet that doesn’t have a shared history over the centuries with other countries which share a border? This sentence about shared history is so general as to render it meaningless.
Can I sugggest the opening paragraph later on in the first paragraph when it states: 'The region of present-day Pakistan served both as the fertile ground of a major civilization and as the gateway of South Asia to Central Asia and the Near East.[2][3]'
Thanks Za1255 ( talk) 16:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Princesssasha2 and Indianbandar: Please stop trying to insert references to Riwat 55 into the lead or Palaeolithic section. Nobody is disputing that the site is ~50k years old, but this is utterly unremarkable: there are many, many Palaeolithic sites in Pakistan, and many that are much older. This is already stated in the article, right after the sentences you are trying to insert. It makes no sense to say that the prehistory of Pakistan "started" with Riwat 55. It's not even the oldest site at Riwat... – Joe ( talk) 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@ पाटलिपुत्र:, @ Fowler&fowler:, @ Sutyarashi: Fowler reverted some recent edits because of "too much WP:UNDUE material". My question is why my contributions got deleted. I believe I literally improved the page with my contributions. Could someone explain to me how my edits were wrong? Jamal047 ( talk) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This one. Firstly, the article was already too long at the 180K raw bytes version that F&F reverted to, and now is 218K, which is just far too long. As far as I can see, the bulk of the difference is a series of edits by User:Jamal047 and User:Sutyarashi in August and September, mostly copying over material from satellite articles such as those on various medieval kingdoms. Some of this may be a good idea, but there is too much of it. At the least the material needs to be thinned out. Johnbod ( talk) 14:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The lead that is currently in the article has been in place for nearly 15 years. History if Pakistan is the history of the region that is today Pakistan. In other words, "ancient Pakistan" is an apt term. The old notion that Pakistan exists only after 1947 was settled long ago in many discussions both on this talk page and in the History of India and History of South Asia pages. It was decided that History of India is the history of the region that is today the Republic of India; if is UNDUE to include Mohenjo-daro or Gandhara or Taxila beyond a cursory mention in a history of India; the same applies, for example, to Dacca Muslin and the deindustrialization of Bengal. It is mostly a part of the history of Bangladesh. It is also UNDUE to claim the region of Pakistan in the realms of all sorts of Indian kingdoms the evidence of whose sovereignty in Pakistan is meagre or nonexistent. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
If you think the wording has to be improved, why don't you edit in a collaborative manner as we all do? Mass deletion and edit-warring is certainly not the way to go, and I think you know it. Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
If an editor has made changes you don't like remove them, don't disruptively mass revert articles and reintroduce errors and unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
If an editor has made changes you don't like remove them, don't disruptively mass revert articles and reintroduce errors and unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've fixed the BBC poll results that somebody added so they tally with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2017631.stm - if there is some other survey which matches the figures which were given here, then a source should be given for it. I also have very severe doubts about some other changes recently made by the same user (see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=439956&oldid=439933 ) - unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to fix this up myself. -- Camembert 03:28 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)
UserPakAtheist removed:
India defeated Pakistan in all the three wars that it launched.
A recent survey conducted by Mori for the BBC, found that 61% of Kashmiris would prefer Indian citizenship, 6% would prefer Pakistani, with 33% undecided [1].
--
I disagree. While all surveys are inherently biased, it is still useful information. It should up to the reader to beware the potential for error. I think the BBC can be trusted enough to not further any political purpose. Are there any other surveys by different organizations supporting or debunking these results? Those would help...
And what's wrong with that general statement? Isnt it true?
-- Jiang 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Poll:
The problem with that particular poll is dual, first it counted votes only in indian held kashmir, secondly it the only muslim concentrated area that it gave importance was areas sorrounding sirinagar.
Secondly If you are going to mention a poll in an article about "history of pakistan" which forces the user to conclude about a contentious issue which has taken more then 50 years to resolve, then it could only be a poll which takes the whole population into account without being under the influence of pakistani or indian governments.
The second statement that i deleted was about the three wars, it was because the if you mention such a generalized statement then you should better come up with your authentic references, because you can only be sure about the 70's war the other two.... you cant.
A survey by an indian organization finds 74% people want freedom!!!
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001008/j&k.htm#2
[I think whoever gave this link here should consider taking a course in English!] ~rAGU
Some user has recenty edited the article drastically to make it conform to the theory that Pakistan was never a part of India, apart from small intermittent periods from time to time, and that Pakistan was always a separate entity. One example is this: "When the Abdali kingdom weakened early in the 19th century due to internecine warfare, Pakistan did not revert to Indian control but instead an independent kingdom arose in Punjab headed by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh....."
These edits seem to convey a point of view that Pakistan always existed as a separate nation for thousands of years, which was colonized by India from time to time. Someone please read the article thoroughly and make it less POV. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)
I can do it myself too, but I am tired of vandals who would come again and restore the changes, and perhaps also get me blocked. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Another gem:
So far one of our objects has been to underline the fact that right from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization down to the end of the Ghaznavid rule at the fall of the 12th century A.D. over a period of more than four thousand years, Pakistan has been invariably a single, compact, separate entity either independent or part of powers located to her west; its dependence on or forming part of India was merely an exception and that too for an extremely short period. It was only when the Muslims established themselves at Delhi early in the 13 century A.D. that Pakistan was made a part of India, but not in the pre-Muslim period. And once Muslims' successors in the sub-continent, the British, relinquished power in the middle of the 20th century, Pakistan reverted to its normal position of an independent country. Indian propaganda that the division of this sub-continent was unnatural and unrealistic is fake and fraudulent. Muslims had joined this region of Pakistan with India in the early 13th century A.D. when the Delhi Sultanate was formed; again Muslims have disconnected it from India giving it the normal and natural form which its geographical, ethnical, cultural and religious identity demanded.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.203.202.156 ( talk • contribs) 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC).
http://www.answers.com/topic/vedic-civilization
I also added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire.
Also, no mention of the Sassanian control of the southern western regions of Pakistan prior to Muslim invasions. It's as if the western parts are being deliberately left out.
All of my edits can be checked out and verified. Just google Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud of Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Ahmad Shah Durrani and the rest. And then check out the various views of ancient Pakistan. -- Tombseye 00:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Tombseye 01:05, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-It would be nice if the "Pre-Colonial History" section be edited drastically so it doesnt assume the existance of India and Pakistan (as is today) in those ancient times. Also, its not like the area now known as the Republic of India had a complete common history of its own when much of it was also ridden with different history in different parts of the country (ie: Assam and southern India). -[[ Afghan Historian 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]]
see Talk:History of India; the pre-1947 material should be merged in History of the Indian subcontinent. The division into Pakistan vs. Indian Republic is only aged 60 years, and it is inappropriate to organize articles about early history guided by it. Before the RoI and Pakistan, there was the British Raj. Before that, it was just a collection of shifting kingdoms anyway, so the only thing that unites it are geographical criteria. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that it should be merged. It's like merging all of Europe together as a subcontinent of Eurasia. One series of events takes place in what is today Pakistan and something else in Central India. Pakistan is mostly on the subcontinent, but most of Baluchistan is on the Iranian plateau. Furthermore, western Pakistan has a history and culture that is very closely aligned to that of Afghanistan rather than India. In fact, before the British came there was little concept of India so much as that of empires both old and new. Religion, language and regional affinities were more dominant than a national identity. While Pakistan is invaded and part of the empires of the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, and others most of India has a different history. Why should that be merged? Pakistan is a modern creation indeed as are most nations, but it's history is also that of two civilizations at least and cannot be neatly placed into a single monolithic category.
Tombseye 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I somewhat agree. Baluchistan belongs to a greater Iranian nation, legitimately belonging to Iran, occupied sometime in History by the British. North West Frontier Province (was earlier called Afghania) , again occupied by British, identifies with Afghanistan which has been closer to Central Asia in the modern times. The rest of Pakistan, consisting of an overwhelming population of Pakistan, and all that we identify today as Pakistani culture has always been a part of India. India, afterall, is named after the Indus river. Afghanistan is also included an a Greater India, which is a socio-cultural rather than a political concept. Nations are not made of kingdoms. Even if you somehow fabricate a history which shows that Pakistan was ruled for long periods by people who did not rule large parts of India, you cannot deny that most of what is today Pakistan was (and in large part still is) socially, linguistically, economically, ethnically, culturally inseparable from India. Muwaffaq 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
You mean part of the overall Indian (or Indo-Aryan language) linguistic and cultural sphere and I would agree that that is a consideration. The problem is that language alone does not make for a "Greater India" alone as that would make the Czechs a part of Greater Russia due to Slavic similarity (and the notion of Pan-Slavism). That's what that becomes when talking of a Greater India, it's a similar notion ot pan-Slavism rather than a more solid concept based upon history. The history part diverges and due to geography the Czechs have more to do with Germany than Russia and Sindh has more interaction with Iran than it does with central India, but maintains the cultural ties that you speak of that are obvious to note. However, the history aspect is separate at times or simply intersects with corresponding areas of India's extreme northwest. The concept of "India" as a nation does not arise until the 19th century as the most vague conceptions include references to "Hindustan" or Hind largely by Muslim invaders. Indians refer to a more vague region called Bharat. However all of that aside, Pakistan as a state today constitutes a separate nation and has a local history and that's really the point. In addition, parts of eastern Afghanistan intersect with Buddhist tradition and a brief period of Hindu rule in Kabul did take place under the Iranian Hindu Shahis, but this is so brief in terms of context and for most of its history Afghanistan is basically part of the Persian sphere of influence to the point that the Avesta is believed to have originated there. There is of course correlation with the language of Sanskrit and the Avestan Iranian dialects that makes for overlap. One can mention the many points and how the western part associates with the Iranic world and the east associates with South Asia of course. Nations and nationalities tend to man-made obviously and perception becomes a matter of view. I think the way this article is written it pays homage to the fact that Pakistan is an overlapping region rather than a historical state. I would agree though that the Panjab and Sind are culturally, linguistically, and, in part, ethnically related to corresponding regions of India, but keep in mind that there is a large Baluchi minority in Sind and there are Punjabi Pathans who overlap as well. It's a messy border region, but the article doesn't shrink away from making the point that for example, the Sikh empire arose in Lahore even though the Sikhs were a minority. Or that Hinduism and the related religion of Buddhism were predominant in the region. What can perhaps be surmised from all of this is that while the west is clearly part of Iranian civilization and the east is an extension of Indic civilization, religion and local history has also given rise to a regional civilization and a modern nation that can best be termed as Indo-Iranian as a result. This removes the notion that many people have that Pakistan seeks to emphasize the Arabs and Islamic period as that seems to me about a limited way of approaching this. Indeed, most articles emphasize the ancient ties and connections as well. What makes this difficult is that historically the western Punjabis and Sindhis have been ruled by "western" empires and this has inevitably made changes that included conversion to Islam that did not take place in India proper. Overall though, I see nothing inaccurate in what you have said. Tombseye 14:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Tombseye 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Removed another POV Gem:
"The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that it became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by people of Pakistan. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the South Asia took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Indian based governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. Persian Achaemenian Empire conquered ancient Pakistan and it remained part of Persian empire for more than two hundred years. Alexander the Great also conquered Indus satrapy, modern Pakistan, and did briefly cross into India but returned after his army refused to advance further into India. Ancient Pakistan remained part of the Hellenic world for next hundred fifty years. During the Arab rule, the territories of Pakistan were known as 'Sindh' and Indian territories were known as 'Hind'. The Arab dynasties ruled Pakistan from Baghdad in Iraq and from Damascus in Syria for more than two hundred years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.61.18.228 ( talk • contribs)
surely, the acronym is a backronym, and the word was not "also captured in the Persian language", but rather built on it? dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
-Sindh was not merely a tributary state. Most archaelogical evidence shows that the area now known as Sindh was an integral full part of the northwestern regions of the Gupta empire, without the tributary states. Most maps excluding the tributary regions also show the area around the southern Indus river as an integral part of the empire. - User: Afghan Historian
The article has been listed for a peer review by the History Wikiproject. Green Giant ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article is locked, but the following meaning does not make sense.
The Indo-Greek Menander I (reigned 155-130 BCE) drove the Greco-Bactrians out of Gandhara and beyond the Hindu Kush, becoming a king shortly after his victory
Menander was a Greco-Bactrian himself, though ruling in the Indian provinces of their short-lived empire. He surely did not drive out any Greco-Bactrians; what he did was to take control of some territories that were previously ruled from Bactria. And these territories were most likely mainly in south-eastern Afghanistan, not Pakistan. And this is supposed to have happened at the end of his reign. The paragraph about Heliocles I is also outdated; since 50 years, scholars agree that a separate king named Heliocles II ruled in Pakistan.
I request a temporary unlocking so I can re-write the Indo-Greek sequence in accordance with the main article. (To which I am one of the main contributors). Kindly, Sponsianus ( talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan got the first..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.148.129 ( talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the article is locked, I couldn't figure out how to make copyedits, but I noticed a few things that should be changed in the last few paragraphs. maybe someone else can can make them? Thanks!
"A General Election was held in Pakistan" . . . should be "general election" uncapitalized.
"On August 7 The deadlock between ruling parties ended when the coalition government of Pakistan decided to move for the impeachment of the President and then head for the restoration of the deposed judiciary. moreover they have decided that the President of Pakistan now faces charges of weakening the federation, creating economic impasse and violating the constitution.[101]"
"The" is capitalized unnecessarily, and the first sentence is too long and should be broken up. "Moreover" should be capitalized.
"Also He had been required to seek the vote of confidence from the senate and parliament"
"He" shouldn't be capitalized, and there should be a period at the end.
--
72.93.0.112 (
talk)
22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for some information on why Dominion Status prolonged till 1956, but this article did not help: only thing it said is the date when it ended in 'First military era (1958-1971)' section. Main articles listed in the section are 2 biographies and one on Bangladesh Independence War.-- GDibyendu ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I put it there, because its one of the most important images representing the Indus Civilization followed by the dancing here. Since the article contains the Indus Valley era, it's important to keep the priest image here.03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Taeyebaar ( talk)
This article is too long. About half of its content is also offtopic and rehashes material treated elsewhere ( WP:CFORK). All the material pertaining to periods pre-dating the Pakistan movement should be exported, and at best be summarized very briefly. "History of Pakistan" parallels History of the Republic of India, it is fallacious to compare it to History of India. dab (𒁳) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns are unfounded. Every country article on Wikipedia has a prehistory section which goes into detail. By Omitting information, you are showing a distinct bias. This IS the history of Pakistan. The fact that Pakistani people were involved and this took place in Pakistan is not being questioned. You are simply questioning the relevance of this because you dont agree with the partition of British India, hence consider this as part of Indian history? Dont make this into a "Political history" article. This is as relevant as it gets. Omitting relevant information is clearly a biased stance, and hence vandalism. Xinjao ( talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand what you mean. "History of Pakistan" is not only the political history of Pakistan. I am not here to argue what has been included in the History of India article, but why do you insist on removing relevant information from the history of Pakistan article?
Imo, "The rise of the Muslim League" doesnt belong in this article in the first place. This is all political. And as for using the term "India" for the whole subcontinent, it is obviously very misleading, but its not what this argument is about.
I ask you to expand the pre history content. A lot of people worked very hard for this relevant information to appear on the right page. Its very disheartening that people who know very little about the region can remove huge chunks of information because they dont like it. I assume good faith and want you to realise that "History of Pakistan" involves pre 1947 events too. Thank you for reading and regards. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Xinjao (
talk •
contribs)
12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not about shared History Max. The point is that this information is relevant and belongs on this page. In the past nobody had a problem with an extensively detailed pre history Section. And even now, the pre history section is included, but a tiny amount is said about it. This simply doesnt add up. If you go to any Pakistani Government site, they acknowledge the Indus valley and Ghandara as Pakistans ancient history. There is no question about whether this information is relevant, but some users are just not happy adding this information here because they want it to be a strictly political article. The correction here is that this is a History article. This article suits the description of Political History of Pakistan. When readers search for History of Pakistan, that is simply not what they are looking for. I am assuming good faith in you, and please help me make this article more relevant. Xinjao ( talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support Unknown. I am just trying to point out that countless of people worked very hard to include relevant information to this article, but along come some other people who remove the information and insist on it only being included in the History of India article even though all this took place in Pakistan. We are not arguing the content of History of India article, but the fact that the modern nation of Pakistan has obviously been affected by its 5000 year old past. Is there any reason not to include it besides Politics and Nationalism? Unless someone comes up with an amazing reason not to include the Indus Valley and Ghandara stuff in this article soon, I will go ahead and expand this article. Thank you. Xinjao ( talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Max today responded by further removing EVERY reference to the Pre history and making this purely a Political article. This is a first, and I will personally report this vandalism if you remove information from this page again. Please see above, people are agreeing to expand the Pre History section, not remove it entirely. Xinjao ( talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, keep the pre-history it certainly had a place here and the images are just as important. If politcial history then maybe we can start a seperate article called politcial history of Pakistan and write about history of Pak politcias, but since this is a general history, everything relivent should stay here. Taeyebaar ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've went ahead and changed the setup of the article, and added some early history to the introduction page. I would request everyone to please look over my edits because I may have made a few mistakes (which I think I may have). I think this set up is much easier to read and more organized. I hope we can further add to the article from this point onwards. There are still many spelling mistakes and errors I've noticed throughout the article so I request everyone to please look into them. Thank you.
-- MirNaveed ( talk) 12:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The comment that the princely state of kashmir illegaly ceded to india is utterly blasphemous . Can you please be neutral and not promote divisive and agenda based wetern version of our history ?
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/01/arts/arts-artifacts-textiles-as-rich-and-varied-as-the-history-of-pakistan.html?pagewanted=1 Mughalnz ( talk) 07:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please mention Sapta Sindhu which was Pakistan's original name. It is from Sapta Sindhu the names Indus and Hind were derived from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 ( talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Are some people trying to be exceptionally smart by removing half of the information as "irrelevant"? This has to be the most vandalised page on Wikipedia. I urge moderators to take action. Certain people with blatant bias insist on removing large parts they dont "like". Truly pathetic. -- Xinjao ( talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you get back in your taxi indian and concentrate on making ends meet instead of wasting your precious time on Pakistani Wiki articles. The region of Babylon was never called Iraq shall we assume Iran has claims to it now? You indians are ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHPak ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I came onto this page hoping to find some information on my native Sindh, but could find absolutely nothing, It came to my attention that another article has been made on this matter. Pages on the History of Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, and so on and so forth need to be merged with this please, remember the Indigenous people of these regions are the ones who are currently tagged as Pakistani, most of the peoples whos ancestors contributed to this history are also tagged as Pakistani therefore we have a right our ancient history be merged with the history of our country, Also there seems to be an Anti-Pakistan presence in all Pak related discussions on wikipedia, as with most other sites, Id kindly like to remind you this isn't the website for bias so please step out and stick to your anonymous forums, people who actually come from within Pakistan should be given responsibility to look after this page and edit it as the readers demand.thanks.Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassinbaloch091 ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This article, as also other articles on Pakistan, are modified so often reflecting some nationalistic 'ajenda' against them. It harms the articles as well as the reliability of Wikipedia. I wish editors could appoint a group to monitor Pakistan-related articles regularly for such biased edits. Is it Possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.100.114 ( talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
"Ordinance XX was introduced to limit the idolatrous Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims." This is an opinon, not a fact. Who is the writer to say Ahmadi's are idolatrous and are misrepresenting themselves by calling themselves Muslims? 30 July, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by InaniloquentES ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is incomplete. It does not include the foundation and eventual establishment of the Afghan empire to which Pakistan was an integral part. Infact, the founder is believed to have come from a city in modern day Pakistan. This important component of Pakistan's history needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.132.39 ( talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
My ancestors are Hindus from Sindh, Pakistan. Why is there no mention of Hindus?
25% of Sindh's population was Hindu at time of partition in 1947. Even though there was no violence in the streets, it only started when the mohajirs started to pour into Sindh. They started looting the homes of Hindus and we lost everything. They took our homes and businesses. It is a horrible crime and it should be acknowledged and respected in this article.
There should be respect for Hindus there is common ancestry between Muslims of Pakistan and Hindus of Pakistan.
what you write may be true however this is not the appropriate place for it. Political history needs to be kept out of scientific and anthropological history- 99.227.90.213 ( talk) 06:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats because, the hindus and other minorities of Pakistan were native to the soil. While they were a small minority, They identified more culturally with the native soil of pakistan culturally and linguistically. This religious nationalism that you speak of does not exist for the hindus of Pakistan. They are Pakistani's, Sindhis etc.. and consider themselves Pakistani's and part of ancient Pakistan's history. There is no specific hindu period in Pakistan unlike the rest of South Asia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.90.132.39 (
talk)
03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Zia ul haq.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC) |
Little to nothing is known about the Achaemenid subordination and control over parts of the Indian sucbontinent. All of what is known to academics is presented in this paper published by the University of Cambridge: http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf. However, for some unknown reason some users here insist of writing-up a bogus and fantasy section for Achaemenid rule over parts of modern Pakistan. The only facts known to historians are that Darius I inherited or even invaded himself the Indian subcontinent and defeated the petty Indian kingdoms he encountered along the Indus and subodinated these to the Persian Empire, thus requiring the Indians to pay tributes to the Persian Kings. Nothing is known however about the administration or anything else about these Indian tributaries as there is only scant mention of them in either Persian or Greek sources and there is not a single achaeological site anywhere in Pakistan that has been positvely identified with the Persian Empire. Why on Earth therefore some people want to write-up some fantasies about the lands now forming Pakistan as being "the most populous and richest" satrapies of the Achaemenid Empire when this is entirely bogus and not cofirmed by any historical source is very puzzling indeed.
Some strange person even added the Achaemenid satrap of Media as including Pakistan which is totally absurd as Media is located in the northwest of Iran which is thousands of miles away from the Indian subcontinent. Totally preposterous!
Below i have re-written the section, all of which has been sourced from a paper on the subject published by the University of Cambridge. Regretfully though, some people keep reverting the changes and want to stick with their psuedo-history and personal fantasies of Pakistan being at the center of the Achaemenid Empire when in relaity the Persians paid little or no attention to their subordinated Indian tributaries. The only role "Pakistan" played in Achaemenid history was paying tributes to Persia after the Persians had came, invaded and defeated the Indians in war.
My re-write:
Little is known about the Achaemenid Persian invasion of modern-day Pakistan as historical sources and evidence are scant and fragmentary containing little detail. There is no archaeological evidence of Achaemind control over modern-day Pakistan as not a single archaeological site that can be positively identified with the Achaemenid Empire has been found anywhere in Pakistan, including at Taxila [1]. What is known about the easternmost satraps and borderlands of the Achaemenid Empire are alluded to in the Darius inscriptions and from Greek sources such as the Histories of Herodotus and the later Alexander Chronicles (Arrian, Strabo et al). These sources list three Indian tributaries or conquered territories that were subordinated to the Persian Empire and made to pay tributes to the Persian Kings: Gandhara, Sattagydia (Thatagus) and Hindush [2].
Gandhara and Sattagydia (Thatagus) are listed amongst the provinces inherited by Darius when he seized the throne in 522 BC in his commemorative Behistun inscription, however, the dates of the initial annexation of these two regions is not certain [3]. The locations of Sattagydia and Hindush and the extent of their boundaries have not been identified either though it is certain that these two tributaries existed along the river Indus as the name Hindush is analogous with the Indus and was derived by the Persians from the Sanskrit word Sindhu.
Additionally, much of what constitutes Balochistan province in southwest Pakistan formed part of the Achaemenid satrap of Gedrosia [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.179.188 ( talk • contribs)
Warning to all parties concerned: the blanket reverts (+3,450 bytes, -3,450 bytes, etc.) need to stop. This goes for both sides. Take it bit by bit, and explain precisely what you object to in each passage. Anybody found to be making yet more blanket reverts involving multiple unrelated differences across the whole article (like here will be blocked, and for a longish period. The same goes for anybody who accuses the other side of vandalism.
I am semi-protecting the article to keep the socks out. If the IP user 92.4.179.188 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who instigated the contentious rewrite, wishes to continue taking part in the process, they are advised to create an account. If you contact me under your new account identifying yourself as this IP editor, I will tag your account as "confirmed" so you can immediately edit through the semiprotection like the other participants. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the line "prevented Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims" to "calling themselves Muslims" since i believe the previous line was blatantly POV. Hope nobody minds 120.56.163.227 ( talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
pakistan is the country of happiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.201.167.66 ( talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
was this region ever known by the name of Pakistan before 1947? If not then this article is not in tune with wikipedia's ideas. the title of the article should be changed immediately. All history textbooks give the name as Indian Subcontinent and that will be the right article to include this information. What some authors here are trying to do is spinning their notion of being an ancient country to others. The information being conveyed is totally inaccurate at the moment.
Sorry to interrupt, People like to read unbiased history mostly supported by unbiased third party scholars. I can see that in this page there is no contribution by foreigners, 3rd party scholars etc..because they don't trust this page and they don't participate in your discussion. Probably you have lost your readers and you are trying to convince yourself of history. This will rather increase your problem, as world can still look into history and your credibility is at stake.
when you say, "It is after nearly two and a half thousand years of subjugation to outsiders, that the sons of the soil are ruling their motherland for any length of time as per the...". Who were these outsiders and what was their religion at the time of attack? Who were those insiders ? So, where did the outsiders go? did outsiders went back to Iran /saudi Arab? Did they gave rewards to local inhabitants after winning wars or looted land of local inhabitants and drove them out of their homes ? Where did hindus go with women and children after their kings lost wars and their men were beheaded or made slaves? Did Hindus cherished their rights and religion after loosing wars? Is there any source in history of pakistan which says that after wining wars , women and children were highly protected by invaders and honorable position was maintained? Was there no chaos post war. Did peace came post war, and people lived with smiling faces?
you may also say, " people who actually come from within Pakistan should be given responsibility to look after this page and edit it as the readers demand..." .History has nothing to do with religion/nationality/feelings. History is only related to facts and events without biasness. sorry this is not confrontation but, only truth should be accepted everywhere. History has cultural importance and connections. Wiki is for everyone, it has nothing to do with Pakistan but only the truth.
These are questions of millions of readers of history. When they don't find answers in your history, they look into facts supported by neutral 3rd party scholars. The history writers of pakistan don't mention about what happened after dreaded events of war !!! you may say " this is not the appropriate place for it " but , history must not forget its people and legitimacy of history is in revealing not hiding. Hiding history is not legitimate under any situation or logic.
Put your hands on your heart and then say that you respect or beleive in vedic history of indus valley !!! Can you associate yourself with them? Is there any respect for their culture in modern independent pakistan? Indus valley culture is still respected in India by majority and they can put their hands on their heart and say that their ancestors lived there. It is a part of their modern day culture and tradition. Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If there is hiding of history, then next generation of pakistan will never learn to live in peace with India bcz for them we are not legitimate.
"Greater India", "Greater Iran" or "Greater Central Asia" are not valid national/civilizational names. These are all constructs of modern 20th-21st century nationalism! The region of what is now Pakistan consists of the Indus Valley (including adjacent Punjab), the foothills of the Afghan mountains, the HImalayan regions of Kashmir and the Baluchistan desert plateau. All of these are different and were part of varying empires. But they are nevertheless connected and viewed in toto as constituting a sub-region of a particular part of the world, the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Pakistan is basically the frontier of the subcontinent. Just because certain languages are spoken there, does not make it part of an "ethnic bloc". "Greater Iran" was never a real unity but a varying region of where Iranian languages were spoken (not just the plateau but in the steppes of Central Asia too). Persian nationalism considers it homogenous but this is BS. In fact, the Khyber region and eastern Afghanistan were often aligned with other border cultures in South Asia proper, rather than being monolithically tied to a "Greater Iran". "Greater India" is also a modern construction of a supposedly unified culture based in the subcontinent. This is just as erroneous. There was no "India", eternal and ever lasting. There were various related or disjointed civilizations in a common region for thousands of years that the British sowed up in their empire. But this general confluence of regions was always defined as being the gateway to the Indian subcontinent, for both Central Asians and Middle Easterners. It was never viewed in any other capacity other than that. I'm sorry but that's how it is. It does not make the idea of "Greater India" viable but it shows how the area was perceived as being part of a loose region or "subcontinent" that was considered to be of economic value. All of you grow up. Afghan Historian ( talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think these Dynasties deserve to get some space separately in the article (maybe as sub heading under Major heading of Dehli sultanate). Period comprising of these dynasties was very important one as Science and Literature was thriving in the area during that time, and played major role in forming the modern day Pakistani culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhayb.Manzer ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
tida pati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.185.189 ( talk) 13:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the current reference http://www.webcitation.org/5kwqOxl5F, the empire stretched upto Indian Punjab and Rajasthan. There is no point Gupta Empire" getting a long section in History of Pakistan. So should be the section be completely removed or there should a mention of states that paid tributes to Gupta Empire? -- Fasi100 ( talk) 19:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
ČČ
Pakistan was made in 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.151.214 ( talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes,agree,Pakistan's history starts from Pakistan movement,the area which Pakistan has has rich history cause it was part of India. Ovsek ( talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Pakistani Areas were not part of India untill , Britishers Annexed these regions of Sikh and Afghan Empires into "British India". Infact there was no "India" untill Britishers Created it. Can u proove the existance of India before Britishers came here??? Come on, grow up. "Greater India", "Greater Iran" or "Greater Central Asia" are not valid national/civilizational names. These are all constructs of modern 20th-21st century nationalism! The region of what is now Pakistan consists of the Indus Valley (including adjacent Punjab), the foothills of the Afghan mountains, the HImalayan regions of Kashmir and the Baluchistan desert plateau. All of these are different and were part of varying empires. But they are nevertheless connected and viewed in toto as constituting a sub-region of a particular part of the world, the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Pakistan is basically the frontier of the subcontinent. Just because certain languages are spoken there, does not make it part of an "ethnic bloc". "Greater Iran" was never a real unity but a varying region of where Iranian languages were spoken (not just the plateau but in the steppes of Central Asia too). Persian nationalism considers it homogenous but this is BS. In fact, the Khyber region and eastern Afghanistan were often aligned with other border cultures in South Asia proper, rather than being monolithically tied to a "Greater Iran". "Greater India" is also a modern construction of a supposedly unified culture based in the subcontinent. This is just as erroneous. There was no "India", eternal and ever lasting. There were various related or disjointed civilizations in a common region for thousands of years that the British sowed up in their empire. But this general confluence of regions was always defined as being the gateway to the Indian subcontinent, for both Central Asians and Middle Easterners. It was never viewed in any other capacity other than that. I'm sorry but that's how it is. It does not make the idea of "Greater India" viable but it shows how the area was perceived as being part of a loose region or "subcontinent" that was considered to be of economic value. All of you grow up.
The area of Pakistan has rich history, but Pakistan as a nation does not have. It was created, India was not a nation in modern sense, it was Civilizational unit, binded by Indian religions, a Tamil from South india and a Bengali from East India despite massive differences shared one similarity, that was common religion. Pakistan has nothing like this. 117.201.124.179 ( talk) 17:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ferishta":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Capitals00 has been removing content from the article without providing a clear and proper explanation. When I reverted the edits back to the official last edit, I was told Don't create empty irrelevant sections, get consensus for your edits. As I have mentioned earlier, and for those who are unaware, I have taken a break from editing the History of Pakistan to avoid confrontation and to avoid getting banned. I made it clear that I would begin editing again sometime in December. I added many sections which I would eventually come around to and added an "expand section" template. Without any explanations these sections were removed. Also, within the context of removing these empty section, small edits were made to the top note whereby the part that reads "this is about the history of the Indus Valley" was replaced with "this is about the history of Pakistan". Also, the first sentence "The history of Pakistan ( Urdu: تاریخ پاکستان) encompasses the history of the Indus Valley" was edited to "The history of Pakistan ( Urdu: تاریخ پاکستان) the history of the region constituting modern-day Pakistan." once again with providing an explanation. Could Capitals00 please provide a reason for the last two edits. -- PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to improve this article by amending the 1st paragraph which isn't very inspiring. The first paragraph starts by saying Pakistan has a shared history with its neighbours. This is a very weak start to another wise good article – I mean can you name any country on the planet that doesn’t have a shared history over the centuries with other countries which share a border? This sentence about shared history is so general as to render it meaningless.
Can I sugggest the opening paragraph later on in the first paragraph when it states: 'The region of present-day Pakistan served both as the fertile ground of a major civilization and as the gateway of South Asia to Central Asia and the Near East.[2][3]'
Thanks Za1255 ( talk) 16:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Princesssasha2 and Indianbandar: Please stop trying to insert references to Riwat 55 into the lead or Palaeolithic section. Nobody is disputing that the site is ~50k years old, but this is utterly unremarkable: there are many, many Palaeolithic sites in Pakistan, and many that are much older. This is already stated in the article, right after the sentences you are trying to insert. It makes no sense to say that the prehistory of Pakistan "started" with Riwat 55. It's not even the oldest site at Riwat... – Joe ( talk) 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@ पाटलिपुत्र:, @ Fowler&fowler:, @ Sutyarashi: Fowler reverted some recent edits because of "too much WP:UNDUE material". My question is why my contributions got deleted. I believe I literally improved the page with my contributions. Could someone explain to me how my edits were wrong? Jamal047 ( talk) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This one. Firstly, the article was already too long at the 180K raw bytes version that F&F reverted to, and now is 218K, which is just far too long. As far as I can see, the bulk of the difference is a series of edits by User:Jamal047 and User:Sutyarashi in August and September, mostly copying over material from satellite articles such as those on various medieval kingdoms. Some of this may be a good idea, but there is too much of it. At the least the material needs to be thinned out. Johnbod ( talk) 14:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The lead that is currently in the article has been in place for nearly 15 years. History if Pakistan is the history of the region that is today Pakistan. In other words, "ancient Pakistan" is an apt term. The old notion that Pakistan exists only after 1947 was settled long ago in many discussions both on this talk page and in the History of India and History of South Asia pages. It was decided that History of India is the history of the region that is today the Republic of India; if is UNDUE to include Mohenjo-daro or Gandhara or Taxila beyond a cursory mention in a history of India; the same applies, for example, to Dacca Muslin and the deindustrialization of Bengal. It is mostly a part of the history of Bangladesh. It is also UNDUE to claim the region of Pakistan in the realms of all sorts of Indian kingdoms the evidence of whose sovereignty in Pakistan is meagre or nonexistent. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
If you think the wording has to be improved, why don't you edit in a collaborative manner as we all do? Mass deletion and edit-warring is certainly not the way to go, and I think you know it. Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
If an editor has made changes you don't like remove them, don't disruptively mass revert articles and reintroduce errors and unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
If an editor has made changes you don't like remove them, don't disruptively mass revert articles and reintroduce errors and unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)