Talk:Pakistan

Welcome to the Pakistan talk page.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Communities of British descent

 -In the demographics section, it mentions that there are communities in Pakistan of Arab, British, and Greek descent. Who exactly are these people of British descent? Does the reference refer to the Anglo-Indians? From visits to Pakistan, I was aware of a Eurasian population. From what I read, pure Europeans mostly left after 1947, and the few that stayed were mostly businessmen and nostalgic individuals who died out with the passing of time. Would omeone please clarify for me? I would really like to know. User: Afghan Historian

Contradictory statements

Look at these two sentences as they appear in the article

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.

Second sentence indirectly implies that Gangetic Valley and Indus Valley were ruled together for long periods by the states which were based in one or the other river valley. So it contradicts the premise that Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities.

This is what we get when a state searches desparately for a nation. :-)

I will leave this para as it is for it surely gives Pakistanis something to think about the identity crisis they are facing.

Sisodia 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I would agree that this wording creates a lot of ambiguities about the ancient past that are largely speculative and needs to be reworded. It also some sort of power relations that are too connected to the present. Lastly, Pakistan does have an identity crisis as it has an Indo Muslim east and an Afghan-Iranian west with religion being the only component that unites them. That and borders drawn up by the British. As for searching for a nation, every country on earth does that. Pakistan does have a regional history as the historical currents of its region are theirs. That's how it is for every country on earth. Tombseye 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Pakistan ??? with all due respect WTF ??

Someone please modify the so called ancient pakistan thing written in the article.Pakistan is 60 years old and the history they try to steal is of India. True the reigons fall in pakistan eg.Sindu Valley(Indus Valley) etc. but the history of these reigons predates the idea of partiton and even the birth of Islam so a thing as "ancient pakistan" does not exist. Modify it.Or i will.Freedom skies 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Pakistan and not India. The area that is pakistan now has its own history too. So leave the article as it is.

Uh,the idea is to remain neutral and tell the truth.You seem to be doing neither.Before partiton the concept of pakistan was unheard of.Pakistan only has a 60 year history and you should tell the world like it is. I'll make it simple so even you can understand ..see ??......If you asked Babar "Hey! Does Pakistan rock or what ??".He would have gone "Pakistan .What the F**K is that ??".So much for your ancient Pakistan theory.The reigon at the time which you call ancient did not fall under the nation state of pakistan(pakistan did not even exist then,neither did jinnah).It was india and if you try and lie to the world and say the state is that old then i'll have to take an hour off my schedule and fix the mistakes which you made.Freedom skies 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article already says that the history overlap with India and even other countries made before India like Iran and even that Pakistan was once part of india. If we want to remain neutral the article should be about Pakistan not for India. Go edit the india article.

Go edit the India article ....even other countries made before India like Iran......?? WTF have you been smoking ??...anyways i guess you can't afford the good stuff.......Listen,the article is for pakistan no one is disputing that so stop crying foul over that....my problem is a thing as ancient pakistan does not exist.Ancient india existed but pakistan is just 60 years old and what you call "ancient pakistan" was a reigon of india at the time so it does'nt even deserve a mention.Why mention india's history and say pakistan was there but it was just ancient......pakistan is just 60 years old if you want to give a history of the reigons falling under the 60 year old state of pakistan then you must do it neutrally and truthfully.Otherwise i'll have to......just be truthful and tell it like it is.these reigons were a part of india when they were ancient and then a newly formed state came into being approx. 60 years ago.......saying the history overlap with India is hedging the truth and trying to underhandedly steal another country's history.Freedom skies 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

i worked about 2 hours to bring material for the new pakistan page to find it relatively suitably edited...........i did add a heading line though ,just in order to avoid confusion.Freedom skies 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say neither existed really. the modern nation-states claim vast territories as a collective when in fact there is no collective. There are numerous regional histories and to more accurate, Pakistan falls into two regions, one Indic and one Iranic. South Asia is a more accurate term simply because it refers to a region rather than an entity that was invented in the 19th century when the British named their new colony India. In fact there are lots of cases of new nations claiming historical continuity. When, for example, did the Azeris start calling themselves Azeris as opposed to simply Turks? Also, this question came up with a region like Moldova. Linguistically close to Romania, some say identical, but with some regional variations that Moldovans believe constitute their 'separate' identity. the modern nation-state has an interest in promoting its territorial integrity and that includes its claims to borders and a history that corresponds to said borders. However, these borders are often porous and Pakistan is no different in this regard. More accurately, Pakistan's eastern provinces relate to India, while the west relates to Afghanistan in the modern sense. Stretching back further we are alluding to modern perspectives with varying degrees of accuracy and nationalism.Tombseye

Sorry my friend, but you are completely wrong when you say both did not exist. India has always existed as a separate nation since last five millennia. Freedomskies has put it quite accurately and humorously. Babur, if asked whether India rocks or what, would have said “Yah man, it sure does”! Only difference is that he would have understood the word Hind instead of India. (And, probably would more likely have replied, no man, Hind sucks big time. He wrote so in his memoirs! Quite a bit of racist he was. Anyway that is beside the point.). Alexander when led his army into India more than two thousand years ago, knew he was entering into India, and not into some undefined collection of kingdoms. On the other hand both Babur and Alexander would have failed a quiz question on Pakistan.

Pakistan was not just renamed or discovered in 1947. It was created in 1947. It did not have any existence prior to that. India was just transformed into a sovereign republic from its prior status as a British colony. This is a huge difference. Sisodia 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're missing the point here. 'India' as we know it did not exist. The region has been constantly changing. The reason most people support the view that they have an older history is because of modern nationalism. I've read the Baburnama and he actually wasn't too fond of India except for gold and other sources of wealth. Hind was a vague term used by outsiders to denote a region that they largely didn't explore themselves. And it's borders vary. Sometimes it's west of the Indus and sometimes it includes the Indus. Alexander actually separates the region as well. One part is Gandahara, another part India (the Punjab), and another part overlaps onto Gedrosia. This usage of 'India' is then later applied further. I agree that there was no 'Pakistan' at any rate until 1947, but I don't agree that it didn't have its own regional history that didn't include Hind/India. Just look at the events that involved the region and did not involve modern India. British India is what was partitioned, not India. If the British had not arrived, it's not difficult to contemplate a bunch of countries in South Asia with Afghanistan taking back its territories in the west. Tombseye 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Tombseye is correct. There was the Maurya Empire which covered nearly all of British India, but prior to the British Raj there was no single political entity corresponding to "India", there were just so many Moghulates and kingdoms. The famous IVC covered a small part of British India (but a large part of modern Pakistan). Modern India and Modern Pakistan are the result of a split of British India, and neither has a claim of precedence over the other, don't be misled by the names chosen by the modern states. Or, if you want to claim that the Republic of India is a continuation of British India, while Pakistan is an independent creation, well, then "India" was created in 1857, and Pakistan in 1947, neither being "ancient". Of course, "Ancient Pakistan" is not a very good term. This is about as sensible as talking about the "Ancient USA" or "Ancient Germany". It would be better to talk about the Punjab, or the Indus Valley, or whatever is appropriate. "Ancient India" would refer to the subcontinent as a whole, but there will rarely ever be a statement to be made about the entire subcontinent, as a unity, in ancient terms, except maybe in climatic or geological terms. dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all correct. Originally, my point in making edits was denote a regional history that Pakistan has, but not to create this gross generalization that it has a completely separate history from that corresponding regions in India either. It's not an end sum situation here. Pakistan is an overlapping REGION. Its western provinces, while historically often associated with the West, show strong cultural ties to adjacent modern Indian regions. All of these renditions are part of a modern nationalist bent. It is more accurate to simply say the Indus region when referring to the Punjab and Sind and/or saying the Pakistani region even, but ancient Pakistan as a historical entity is as meaningless as claiming that British India simply equals India. This has more to do with nationalist claims led by elite rulers who impart upon their populations their 'rights' to foreign territories and extend these as historical claims. This can be seen with Iranians and Azerbaijan and it can be seen with the Serbs and Greater Serbia and the Russians and the Ukraine. There are numerous examples of this same type of rival history and historical claims usage. The complexities involved transcend the common usage that is quite easy to apply, but very difficult to defend. Tombseye 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Moghulates???

Anyway, ignoring such naiveté, what exactly is meant by such sweeping statements like ‘prior to the British Raj there was no single political entity corresponding to "India"’. Two and a half millennia ago a Greek historian called Herodotus wrote that in the easternmost parts of the world lies India. He even narrated many fascinating stories about India, some true, some plain nonsense. What country was he referring to? What country did Columbus and Vasco de Gama set sail for? They surely were not going for an unnamed bunch of ‘Moghulates’ and kingdoms. On the other hand, had anybody in the ancient world ever heard of anything called Pakistan?

Politically fragmented or united, India has always existed in the recorded history. Most of the ancient nations like China, Japan, Iran etc have gone thru repeated cycles of fragmentation and unification in the course of history. That does not mean these countries ceased to exist during the periods of fragmentation. Similarly, change of form of governance (like from monarchy to republic, democratic republic to communist republic etc etc) can not dispute the undisputable fact that the country exists.

The criterion to judge whether a country existed at a certain period or not, if you are discernible enough, is actually that whether the nation that gives the country its name existed or not. We talk about ancient China, India, or Greece because the nations called Chinese, Indians, or Greeks existed in ancient periods and hence gave the country where they resided their name. Pakistani nation itself was a creation of Partition of India. Hence the country called Pakistan itself couldn’t have existed prior to 1947. Ancient Pakistan is nothing but Ancient India, because the nation that resided in those lands was known as Indian.

>>>Of course, "Ancient Pakistan" is not a very good term. This is about as sensible as talking about the "Ancient USA"

Well you are right for once. Similarity between USA and Pakistan has been noted by many others too. Both are the states founded on an Idea. That states always need some territory to exist is the sole reason we have a territory defined as USA and a territory defined as Pakistan. It will be totally illogical to extend the name of Pakistan or USA retrospectively to their respective territories to the periods before these states were founded.

Sisodia 05:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not reading the sources correctly. As British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote on the subject, to the ancient Greeks and Persians "India" was the Punjab and SOMETIMES applied to vague areas to the west by Herodotus and others. The reality is that there is no single Indian cultural unit and ignoring Pakistan's regional history is not a solution either. These are all extreme positions. Columbus set sail for the Indies, this hardly means that everything from Indonesia to the Punjab is 'India'. A lot of Indian historians with credibility don't buy into the notion that this is anything other than modern nationalism which projects the view that there is complete historical continuity in order to cement the notion that these lands which have historical connection should thus be subject to one perspective. The Mongols invaded and the Ilkhans occupied western Pakistan. The Greeks don't cross the Sutlej. Neither do the Persians. How is this the history of modern India if these people don't even go there? Whether people like it or not these countries exist and their regional histories are theirs. Claiming a greater historical sphere is simply pointless, although showing historical links is another matter and is quite valid (such as the 100 year Mauryan period and the conversion to Buddhism by many if not most people in the Pakistani region). Terminology aside, regional perspectives make more sense than some massive collective that tends to weed out the details that a majority population doesn't like. Look at the History of India page and you see a history that basically gives the Islamic period 2 paragraphs, while the other periods get long explanations. Don't think that just because nationalists are re-writing Pakistan's history that Indians aren't doing the same. It's endemic of people in most countries to write a glorious history so as to lay claims of various sorts. Tombseye 07:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Too many external links?

Does any one agree with me that this article has too many external links? Many of the links seem to be pointing to completely commercial websites. I propose to remove all but the Government website links. Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Not particularly excessive for an article about a country. For example, the article global warming has way more. They are relevant to be included somewhere, so if they could be for example moved to some article concerning the media in Pakistan, that would be okay, (as long as this article links to it and mentions it). -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

I understand that too many external links may be bothersome atleast in appearance but it depends on other users whoo look up this article for information and reference and might find certain external links useful which you may not and if you remove them,then searching is made a little bit more difficult.Remember its an encyclopedia and it helps to find resources right from one place.--Usmanreddy 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, see WP:NOT, which states Wikipedia is NOT Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, an encyclopedia is not a repository for all links, search engines like Google are available for the links/directories. Wikipedia is never meant to be the one-stop-shop for external links on any topic. --Ragib 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you argue that Pakistan is only 60 years old the same argument would apply to india. Before this it was under British rule. The argument does not hold water.

Map caption

I removed the caption of the location map, which commented on the view of the Government of India on the map's inclusion of Kashmir. Adding non-standard comments like this can start edit wars on both India and Pakistan's top level country pages, because both sides can add similar comments to each other's location maps. Also the issue is well discussed in the article on Kashmir. Thanks. --Ragib 19:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the comment removal has been reverted by Hemanshu, would you care to discuss it rather than reverting it? Thanks --Ragib 19:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hemanshu (talk · contribs), this is *NOT* fair at all, you have not bothered to discuss anything here, but are continuing to revert the page. As an admin, you should have come to place your arguments here. My point was clear.... unless you can come up with a non-nationalistic reason why any Pakistani should not place a similar caption in the map in India, the caption you are putting here is POV. Thanks. --Ragib 19:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

For making it clearer, I place my arguments here:

• The statement placed there by Hemanshu (talk · contribs), is "Map shows area of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan as part of Pakistan. The Government of India considers the complete state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India.". My question is, the Government of Pakistan has the opposing view, so do I see such a statement in the map of India in the country page?

• The statement is POV in the side of India, because it states the words "occupied". Well, that may or may not be true (I'm not to judge the comment), but the Pakistan Govt certainly doesn't agree. I looked up other country level articles, NONE of them had an explanatory note from an opposing country pasted into the location map.

• Placing such statements in the top page of a country and especially using that is certainly flame-baiting. Sure, Indian's may have that view. But Pakistani's have the opposing view. I really don't see the reason for making a non-standard addition, which has the above issues attached to it.

I would expect Hemanshu to reply to it, which he is not bothering to do so far. Please come to this discussion rather than saying what you believe is true ... others may not have your point of view.

Thanks. --Ragib 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As a temporary compromise, I have converted the caption in question to a footnote, and placed the footnote-reference beside the map. --Ragib 20:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Labakkudas

I feel Pak should better be moved into Middle-east rather than South Asia. It is obvious that Pak is the odd man out in South Asia whereas it gels with Middle-east in all matters comfortably... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labakkudas (talk • contribs)

IMHO, Pakistan is far more similar to other South Asian countries than Middle Eastern countries. Anyhow, it's not up to us to "move" countries into regions. We're describing the geographical categorization that exists in the real world: geographers consider Pakistan to be in South Asia. If in the future the consensus-opinion among geography scholars changes then the article can be changed to reflect that. FactNTact 05:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, jus because it is Muslim does not mean it belongs in the ME. Would that also make Bangladesh in the ME, and the Muslims of India and Sri Lanka Middle Eastern? Pakistan is in the Indan subcontinent and in common with other S Asian nations does not benefit from natural resources as its main source of income. It's economy is based in agriculture and has a strong industrial base in Karachi. How exactly is it like any Middle Eastern country, besides religion? Only people who have very little knowledge of Pakistan would make a statement like that. Fkh82 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dont know where you got that from Pakistan has been part of South Asia ans is still a part of it. I understand its religion might be inclined to the Middle-East but I think thats about it... Modern day Pakistan was the birthplace of the Indian civilzation. It was also part of the Moghul empire and later British India. Almost all middle-east countries are desert lands rich in oil. Pakistan, on the other hand, relies on agriculture and industry. Somehow I can't see your point about Pakistan being the "odd man".

More realistically, Pakistan is both Middle Eastern and South Asian as well as Central Asian. It can be broken into three parts: the NWFP can be either Mideastern or Central Asian, the northern Areas Central Asian, the Punjab and Sindh are South Asian, but have had shared thousands of years of history with the Mideast and Central Asia, while Baluchistan is pretty much Mideastern. These regions all overlap in Pakistan in ways similar to Turkey's situation or that of the Caucasus where it is European culturally and Asiatic in some ways as well such as geographically although the line between Europe and Asia is clearly artificial. As for being the birthplace of Indian civilization, that is true to some extent, but a lot of activity and civilization formation took place along the Ganges rather than the Indus which was constantly coming under western attacks starting with the Aryans onwards. Culturally, Pakistan is Iranian in the west and North Indian in the east and nationally the two overlap in various capacities although the Iranian influence is more considerable in the east as opposed to Indian influence in the west, although Indian movies are popular. Also, academics often put Pakistan in two or more regions without worry as that is what is realistic. Tombseye 09:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

WTF ??? Modern day pakistan was the birthplace of Indian civilization ??......i knew that pakistan had a poor education system but this is just too bad even for a pakistani..... The demographics of the reigon were different and the reigon predates both the idea of partiton and the the religion of islam.The people who settled in the reigon where pakistan's Indus valley is now situated were Indians,unpartitoned and undivided.The concept of pakistan was non-existant at the time and so it remained till the 20th century.Pakistan only has about 60 years of history before that the history is all indian until a mass transfer of population and formal begining a a new state.See the good thing is that this is wikipedia,read any well respected neutral source and you'll see that pakistan only has 60 years of history befor that it was INDIA.Freedom skies 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming Pakistan was the birthplace of Indian civilization. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote to better understand what I wrote. Secondly, 'Indians' is a British term from the 19th century. Lots of Indian historians relate this fact. This is the case with a lot similar examples all over the world. Modern nation-states have all changed. Indians in this case would, I assume, mean people who spoke Indo-Aryan languages and that's true in eastern Pakistan, while western Pakistan is at the very least a border-land of Iranian and Indo-Iranian origins. I'm not Pakistani so I'd appreciate it if you'd try to not get personal. well, the good sources you're referring to neglect to mention the millennia of history that for example engulfed where Pakistan now exists and not India such as the Durrani Empire, the various Persian Empires, the Ilkhans, Greeks, etc. It's a regional history we're talking about, not a national one. Tombseye 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

-Actually, Tombseye, you're a little off. The area known today as Pakistan was ruled by the Achaemenid Persians as "Hindustan" or India. And, in most geographical groupings predating partition, the region was known as part of India. The culture practiced by most Pakistanis is identical to the culture of the North Indians, particularly the Muslims. As to the Iranian culture in the west that differentiates it, India itself is a diverse place and different cultural currents occured in different regions. Whole regions of India have cultural influences unique to them that separate them from the rest of the country. The area known as India was and is never culturally homogenous throughout. Pakistan is no more different from the rest of North India than South or Eastern India is. The Iranian languages, though they now dominate the western areas, are actually a bit recent. The Baloch arrived in the first millenium after Christ (circa 1000 AD), prior to which, the region was populated partially by Dravidian-speakers, as academics have written. The Pashtuns also only spread into the north west frontier region as a result of migration in the past millenium. Before that, the area was the center of a mixed-Greco-Indian Buddhist civilization. Also, just because languages in a region are Iranian doesnt mean they signify Middle Eastern influence in a region. It is true that one of the most well-documented Iranian languages, Persian, is Middle Eastern, but, for many centuries, Iranian languages were also more or less concentrated in southern central Asia. In fact, Iranian languages were historically found mostly in central Asia(Parthian, Scythian, Sogdian, Bactrian, Kamboja, Alani) and only two Iranian languages, Mede and Persian, were historically found in the Middle East. In the modern era, however, most Iranian tongues are located in the plateau in the Middle East, ( the most notable Iranian language other than Persian in the Middle East being Kurdish) and the Turkic languages pushed out the older Iranian languages out of most their Central Asian stronghold. So the Iranian influence in the are today known as Pakistan was more of a Central Asian brand. And, the Iranian influence in eastern Pakistan was part of Islam and was mostly through an Indic prism. Also, the Baloch and the Pashtuns practice a culture that cant necessarily be called "Middle Eastern" but Central Asian, especially the Pashtuns. Middle Eastern influence does exist in the region, as it does in India. Historically, only four mid-eastern political units dominated the region today called Pakistan: the Achaemenid empire, the Sassanian empire, the Selucid empire ( very briefly), and the Ummayad empire. Opposed to this, 10 political units have kept it united with the rest, or part of the Indian subcontinent: Gandhara, the Mauryan empire, the Indo-Greek kingdom, the Indo-Parthian kingdom(separate from the Parthian empire), the Indo-Scythian kingdom(s), the Kushan empire, the Hindu Shahi kingdom, the Delhi sultanate, the Moghal empire, and British India. These units united the area with both the Indian subcontinent and/or Central Asia. Overall, this region today known as Pakistan was in the past, Northwestern India, a crossroads between South and Central Asia with some Middle Eastern cultural currents (via Islam) through an Indic prism. So, I guess I would classify Pakistan as a South/Central Asian region with some Middle Eastern influence. This is the "Afghan historian" from the Afghanistan thread, just so you know. And I dont and wont discourage you from differing. -"Afghan historian"

Actually, I'm not off. The Punjab was ruled as Hindush, which in modern translation was applied by the British to all of South Asia through the Greek as India. Secondly, Pakistan is a border-land like Turkey, while the eastern provinces share the closest relationship with corresponding adjacent regions. There is no national identity. It all comes later. the same is true with modern Iran and its relationship with ancient Persia. everyone was not a Persian in Iran then and they aren't today. The Baloch are recent, but the Pashtuns are not actually. In addition, the languages in many of these western areas are Indo-Iranian and thus show a gradiation point. Greco-Indian is a modern term as well. A more accurate view would be Graeco-indo-iranian in terms of languages and cultures in the region. The 4 entities you mentioned constitute over nearly 1000 years. I'm not sure that's inconsequential. The Indian subcontinent geologically ends at the Indus river and the brink of the Hindu Kush mountains. Also attaching Indo to everything misleads people into thinking the Scythians were Indian when they were actually Iranic and the Kushans were Tocharians and the Hindu Shahi kingdom was based in Kabul where the majority population was Iranic and buddhist. Lastly, you have to ask yourself why is this region different and a nation-state? The easy answer is that its political events of the 20th century, but the other view is that nation-states form because of history. The region is different enough that people wanted to have a country and if its based upon religion or language then that's the way it is. Yeah, you're the 'Afghan' history who seems to talk more about the Kambojas than about Afghans I know just like the other guy. Tombseye 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what afghan Historian ?? That was the most beautiful rebuttal i've heard in a long time...I could'nt have said it better myself even if i switched from engineering to taking history.Freedom skies 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

-Still,in a cultural context, Indo-Aryan and Ancient Indian culture thrived here throughout. Zoroastrianism never really took root here, even though there is a Parsi community from Gujarat. And, the Selucids ruled for at most 5 years before being driven out by the Mauryans. I guess overall 500 years as opposed to about 1,000 + years under other units that united it with both south and central Asia. I never said the Scythians were Indic, (duhhh!! of course their Iranic How could I not know that) I said their kingdom united mostly the area of Pakistan with the much of the area now covered by the Republic of India. The Scythians also played a prominent role in the development of post-Mauryan south asian culture and were absorbed into the population in modern day Punjab and Rajasthan. The Hindu Shahi kingdom also extended into the area of Pakistan where most people were Buddhist and Hindu. As for Greco-Indian, if the term "Indian" is unsuitable, lets use a term used more commonly used in those far off days, Gandharan. The mixed Greek-Indian art style in NWFP and Eastern Afghanistan was called the Gandharan school of art (translation). I would like some citing for the Pashtun existence here prior in ancient times, though. And, even though the political entity "India" never existed, most people, including the the Greeks, the Persians, the Arabs, the Turks and the Chinese recognised it as a common socio-economic/cultural area of Intu, Hindustan, Indikos, etc. Even the locals referred to the region as Aryavarta or Bharat without any political unification. As for the reason for separation, I dont think the justification for partition should be an issue in this section. In fact, my great-grandparents were strongly supportive of a union with Afghanistan or the formation of a Pashtunistan, but this is not my view, which is irrelevant. Funnily, this logic should apply to half the area now known as the ROI because South India, historically, racially and cuturally, to a certain extent, was independent of the north and the area of Assam also remained cut off from Northern India for many years, with the exception of language and ethnicity to a certain extent. I think I read somewhere that there were some separatist movements in both those places at some time. No wonder. User: Afghan Historian

how about you talk about the thousands of human rights violations commited every year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.150.41 (talk • contribs) August 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Balawaristan" — a term seldom used neutrally

Google search results for Balawaristan and related terms

Term(s) searched for	Hits found by Google
"Northern Areas" Pakistan	73600
Gilgit	108,000
Baltistan	21,200
Balawaristan	977
Balawaristan -"National Front" -BNF	529

A Google search on the term Balawaristan, even after attempting to exclude the National Front ( Balawaristan -"National Front" -BNF ), still yields results that are mostly related to separatist/nationalist groups or movements, or to discussions about them. I know of people native to the Gilgit area who had not heard of the name Balawaristan until recently. Conclusion: Balawaristan is not a widely-used term, and its use is linked to separatism/nationalism. Criticforaday 22:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "Balawaristan" seems to me to have emerged only recently, when it was chosen for a minor separatist movement. Althought they have a small web-presence, I have never heard of them in Gilgit itself.

Hindi?

I just read the language section of the article - it has no mention of Hindi. I have never been to Pakistan, however, I have met and known quite a few Pakistani people. I have always commmunicated with them in Hindi. At times, the urdu "tehzib" gets into the conversations, however, the common language is definitively Hindi. So, why does the language section omit Hindi? Or is it true that there is Hindi is not as popular to recieve an independent mention? doles 15:15, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

:) Once i also thought like this. but Linguists think of Hindi and Urdu as the same language, the difference being that Hindi is written in Devanagari (Devanāgarī) and draws vocabulary from Sanskrit, while Urdu is written in the Persian script and draws on Persian and Arabic.WiseSabre 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible. Both are the outgrowth of the Hindusthani language; the difference being that Hindi has more Sanskrit words while Urdu has more Arabic/Persian language words. But I think in Pakistan, almost no one speaks Hindi in particular. doles understood Urdu speakers the same way as an Urdu speakers would understand a Hindi speaker. :) Thanks. --Ragib 17:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Bahut khoob! Shukriya/dhanyavad! I learnt something new! So is there a wikipedia article that could be spell this for ignorants like me? doles 19:29, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Try Hindustani language for starters. Urdu language and Hindi are currently under attack by an editor who just can't accept the idea that Hindi and Urdu are one language at heart. --Skoosh 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pakistanis do not like anything to do with "Hindu" or "Hindi" or "India". Hence they will not like to say that a Pakistani speaks Hindustani, they would rather say that a Pakistani speaks a Pakistani! Little realising that the word "stan" comes from the Sanskrit root "sthal, sthan" meaning a place. The very word Pakistan has Sanskrit root which is anathema for a Pakistani.

While your first point may be valid, I am curious about your second comment, that "stan" comes from Sanskrit. Then why does Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan etc are named so? For what I know, those places are quite far away to be under the influence of Sanskrit. One thing that may be true is the pervasiveness of the Indo-European language family, of which Sanskrit is a member. --Ragib 08:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit is one of the earliest attested member of the IE language family! Ragib you might want to read up on the wikipedia page on Sanskrit!! And your contention that Afghanistan is very far away from the influence of Sanskrit? You must be joking or your reading of the wikipedia itself is very very poor or you do not want to admit that you are more Indian than Arab. Taxila or rightly Takshashila was a seat of Sanskrit learning and is located near Rawalpindi just off the NWFP. Also "Kandahar" [Corruption of word sanskrit Gandhar] near where the Bamiyan Buddhas of 4th century CE were destroyed by the Taliban is in the very heartland of Afghanistan. Note that Gandhar is mentioned as a vassal state in Mahabharata.

Actually, 'stan' is a Persian derivative for land of and is not Sanskritic in origin. You might want to look up the Avestan while you're up talking about Sanskrit. The Iranian languages are as old if not older than the Indo-Aryan tongues actually. Nor is the etymology of Kandhar at all settled at it being a corruption of Gandhar as the number of still unproven theories include it being a localized version of Alexandria. You also do realize that the Mahabharata is about as 'factual' as the Bible since much of it may simply be legends and folktales right? Names that sound similar does not equal unequivocal proof either. And for the record, this has nothing to do with the Arabs.Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-"Afghan Historian" speaking, Tombseye. Here, I'm going to agree with you, finally. Whoever said Pakistan comes from Sanskrit is deluding themselves. The root "stan" does exist in Sanskrit, however, as its an Indo-Iranian language but in a different form and the Sanskrit version of the root was definetley not the root from which "Pakistan" comes from. "Stan" is Persian. The word "Pakistan" itself, however, is not Persian, instead, it comes from the Urdu word meaning "land of the pure". Interestingly, it's also a kind of acronym for Punjab, Afghanistan, and Kashmir, I think. I'm Pakistani, I would know this. But, Tombseye, linguists have already demonstrated that Indo-Aryan languages are older in recorded form than Iranian languages. And, the Mahabharatha is not the only source of evidence about Gandhara. The Persian Achaemenids themselves referred to the region as Gandara in their inscriptions. Whether Kandahar is Gandhara or not is still doubtful, although I believe it is so, based on what I've studied. The Bible, despite being a religious work, has been used by scholars to reconstruct the ancient Middle Eastern political situation plenty of times, many times with some amount of accuracy. The Mahabharata might just as well be a similar case. The Indo-Aryans/Ancient Indians were not particularly good with record keeping so they often combined fact with fiction to create their stories and recount history. Already, we've used the Rig Veda to reconstruct much about the early lifestyle of the ancient Aryan-speaking peoples, with some accuracy. There might very well be grains of truth in the mass of legends and myths that is the Mahabharata. I wouldnt discredit it entirely, at least, not yet. -"Afghan Historian" (My real name is Khalil, however, if you want to know, Tombseye)

And funnily, Pakistanis do not also like Punjabi. Eventhough 48% speak punjabi and only 8% speak Urdu in the entire of Pakistan, they call Urdu as a national language!! What about Sindhi, Balochi, Brahmi and Pashtuni?

Depends who you talk to. Punjabis increasingly prefer Urdu that is true. There is no Pashtuni, but there is Pashto among many other languages and dialects. Urdu was chosen as a 'neutral' language and it is the lingua fraca so to speak. I can guarantee you though that the Pashtuns do not prefer to speak Urdu over Pashto. Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm overlooking the personal attacks, but you still haven't answered the question, why do central asian states like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have something in Sanskrit as part of their names? Also, you can drop the aggressive stance, I was just curious about the similarities, and asked a question. Any clear answer to that would definitely enlighten me. I have read Mahabharata and know about Gandhar being mentioned there, but the question was about the central asian nations and other places having "stan" as a suffix. As I said, I'm still curious about how this prefix ended up in central Asia. Nothing wrong in enlightening me, I may not know a lot of things in the world, no need to bite me for that. Finally, my ancestors definitely lived in South Asia for at least a few thousand years, Bengal being a melting pot of the local natives, aryans, arabs, persians etc. No need to launch any attacks on that, too. By the way, please sign your messages. Thanks. --Ragib 07:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay the list is now down to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan :-) So you do accept the fact about the "influence" on Afghanistan. Now Afghanistan was at the cross road of the silk route. One of the route led all the way from the heartland of presend day India to Europe. Naturally linguistic influences followed all the way into Europe. Buddhism travelled via the silk route into China. So there you go the influence of language and religion. That is why Sanskrit is called the root of IE language family. Also note that just as Takshashila was an eminent University of that time, Nalanda university in present day Bihar rivaled it. Coming to your contention of making a personal attack - I was geniunely surprised initially by the lack of reading. And when did Indian subcontinent became South Asia? When the partition took place? That is the problem with Pakistan, trying to reinvent new roots since they do not have yet come to terms with their own roots. And regarding anonymity, I will choose to remain anonymous as long as wikipedia allows me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.198.33 (talk • contribs)

No one hear is, including Ragib, is going to claim that Pakistan is inventing 'new roots', but are you willing to admit that Pakistan is an Indo-Iranian nation as well? The entire western area is composed of Iranian peoples. The reality is that the region that is today Pakistan is a borderland where things overlap. Secondly, you are incorrect as to the origins of 'stan. It is ancient Iranian, not Indic. As for the influences upon Afghanistan, yes indeed there is influence and the majority was probably Buddhist when the Arabs first arrived and the Kushan era statues were even more unique in that they also show the last vestiges of Greco-Bactrian influence there. Lastly, South Asia is a better term because a large chunk of Pakistan sits on the Iranian plateau which is not geologically in the subcontinent. Also, Sanskrit is NOT called the root of the IE family. It is an offshoot and is one of the earliest known IE languages that were written etc. as is the case with ancient Greek, Latin, and Avestan which all show affinities with each other and Sanskrit. THAT is the reality that any academic Indo-European studies professor will attest to. Religious influence does not always equal language. Otherwise, where are all the Aramiac speaking Christians in the world?Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You can be surprised to any fact, that's up to you. If I gain some information by asking you a question, that's my advantage, not my audacity or my loss. As I said, you don't have to bite someone to make a point, simply answering my question is enough. Regarding my mention of South Asia, the region is alternatively named so. See SAARC and many other similarly named organizations, and US/UK and other govt agencies/offices on the area. You are also free to find problems with other countries, that's your problem. As for anonymity, Wikipedia talk page etiquette asks you to leave comment signatures, you can leave signature/date stamps by ending your messages with ~~~~. Anyway, thanks again for enlightening me with some information, I'll check the relevant articles and other sources. I'm now really curious about the flow of language elements you mentioned. Wikipedia is great, everyday you learn some theories and some facts, and enhance the breadth of your knowledge. --Ragib 03:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I've heard, Hindi and Farsi (lang in Iran) have common words like paneer [1]. I also know that Afghans can understand Hindi. User:Nichalp/sg 15:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Farsi and Hindustani share ancient common origins as Indo-Iranian tongues, plus Iranian peoples were amongst the most prominent invaders of ancient India and include the Persians, Scythians, etc.Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I have heared many afghans speaking urdu.i think they might have learned in Pakistan.they usually change the genders.its always intersting to hear there Urdu.there are many words of persian in urdu and for some time people in this sub continent knew persin very well. Indian sub continent has produced many great persian poets like Allama Iqbal.Urdu speaking people can unerstand the little persian.(i my self contibute to the persian ,urdu and arabic wikipedia ,i can easily get the plot in persian but arabic is more harder for me to understand).

Afghan refugees became quite multilingual (and they were already) when they came to Pakistan and Iran. They had to adapt. Arabic is much tougher because Arabic is a Semitic language whereas Urdu and Persian have a lot of links and similarites with most of the influence going from Persian to Urdu. Tombseye 09:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu differ mainly in their higher vocabularies. What isn't commonly realised by many people is that the languages across a wide area of Pakistan, northern India and Bangladesh are actually very closely related. It is often better to describe a series of related dialects than languages. The main reason Urdu is regarded as a separate language is some of the vocabulary and the Arabic-based alphabet. Where I am from, we actually speak several related languages - Jhelumi, Potowari, Majhi-Panjabi (the language of the middle Panjab around Lahore and Amritsar) and Urdu. We can easily communicate with almost anyone from Peshawar (e.g. Hindko) to Bihar (Awadhi). Contrary to what one user claims, we have immense pride in speaking both Panjabi and Urdu. The reason for Urdu being the national language is that it does not identify with one particular ethnic group but it is mutually intelligible with most languages in Pakistan.

A request to serious editors

Due to the continous vandlism of User:Truth aspirant-- the article Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman has become a ‘business-propaganda-feature’ rather an ‘encyclopedic article.’ Just see history of the article [[Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and Talk:Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman page--You are requested to take intrest in this serious editorial issue and make things straight in this global phenomena (Wikipedia). Thanx. Wiki4u 878

Flag image

My crude drawing in SVG

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I was wondering if this drawing of the Pakistan flag is correct. Thank you. Zach (Sound Off) 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going ahead and replacing all Pakistani flags with this SVG image, and yall can join in if you want to. Zach (Sound Off) 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What are your reasons for replacing? The current flag image seems satisfactory already. Yours is slightly darker though. Well go for it if you feel confident. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Lately, Wikipedia has aqquired the ability to upload images in the SVG. We can scale these SVG images to any size we need without losing image quality. I was told that all flag images need to be drawn in SVG, so I am complying with their request. While the colors of the flag I chosen were darker, these were the shades used by the Government of Pakistan on their flags. Zach (Sound Off) 04:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No losing image quality? Well, I'm satisfied. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonym, see User:Zscout370/Sandbox#Pakistsan flag test as an example of this "lossless quality." Zach (Sound Off) 04:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please someone correct the flag (I'm too ashamed even to suggest correction!) The panel dimensions are wrong. The position of the heraldic star and the waning crescent is wrong. The size and tilt of the crescent is way wrong. The co-ordinates on which crescent and star are placed are wrong. The color green's shade is wrong. Post it right or don't, please. And kindly spare the "why don't you do it if you know it" because there seem to be many here who claim to be authority on such a vast number of areas, so let's see if someone here really knows the correct flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.97.100 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you register with whatever name you want (that isn't already taken) and save yourself all that pain of getting your signatures right?Tommstein 14:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the CIA World Factbook's version of it: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/flags/pk-flag.html.Tommstein 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of the CIA, why not use the authoritative reference from the Government of Pakistan :p

                     http://www.infopak.gov.pk/flag/flag_description.html

Foreign relations

It's a bit weird how this section has no mention of Pakistan's relationship with India, which probably is the nost important part of its foreign relations.

Lack of References

Maybe one reason why this article seems to come short in some aspects (and sometimes controversial) is probably attributable to the fact that there are no sources. I suggest that editors who have been working on this add them to improve the credibility aspect for future readers. Idleguy 12:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article comes up short. It may have some key points of weakness which we can discuss and research, but overall it is fairly accurate. I think the main reason for "controversy", frankly, is because many Indians prefer to see Pakistan's history as written subordinate to or as a part of "India" which according to an interesting article written by an Indian historian in a book I recently read called 'Religion and Peacekeeping' (ed. by Harold Coward, but can't remember individual writers names) arguable did not exist as a "nation" until modern times. That's just one guy. Arnold Toynbee believes the same and considers Pakistan an overlapping region similar to Turkey. We're all writing from the vantage point of modern-nation states and how they came to be as they are today. The sources are the other articles that corroborate, otherwise the article would come-up "short." In fact, read each linked word and see if what the history article claims is true or false. We might as well hold a higher standard to every single history article at wikipedia since most do not reference much of anything. In addition, there aren't many citations at the History of India article that I can discern, which seems to view the 8 centuries of Muslim rule as worthy of a scant paragraph while every other period receives in-depth analysis. Not to mention treating the Rigveda as history, which is kind of liking using the Bible for the same purpose even though for example there is no archaeological evidence that Moses existed. How about you explain what parts you don't think are correct and we can go from there? Tombseye 09:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

See why Wikipedia:Cite sources is relevant? I've not been editing this article until very recently and there seems to have been issues with this article in the past. I was merely pointing that the best way of resolving them forever is to have credible sources. There were some glaring errors like stating in the History section that Hyderabad Deccan is still disputed. And the economy section would reveal that there are few sources for figures and facts. Infact the reference section was started days ago by me just so that there can be a greater amount of credibility instead of believing it to be up to the mark or otherwise. And if the article were truly not coming up short, it should have been a Featured article. It has a long way to go there and I thought I could do something to make it FA considering India, Nepal and Bhutan already are in the English language Wikipedia (Sri Lanka is a FA in Tamil language edition. --Idleguy 10:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you make a very good point regarding Hyderabad for example. I have no idea who would insert that it is still disputed as that's just nuts. I misunderstood where you were coming from and I now think you have a valid argument. It gets difficult to keep track of the edits. I'm going to go over the history section again and add some references as well and make sure glaring mistakes such as the one you pointed out do not creep back in. The Featured articles sometimes leave something to be desired in my opinion, but again you make a good case. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Tombseye 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

5 million Hindu, Sikhs Muslims killed in Pakistan's creation?

Can someone please find me any written record of death toll (combined) of Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims to match the idiotic total of 5 million. The total death toll of WW2 in 8 million direct and indirect casulties included.

The commucal roits in India lasted for week. During the week of 14th August all trains were directed to run in bound to Pakistan to bring in Muslims of India to Pakistan - and the official british death toll of the incidents of MUSLIM CASULTIES is 470,000 - where as the Pakistan government claims it to be over a million on the basis of those left behind.

The official british and Indian figures of Hindu casulties is in tens of thousands. So I do not understand where does the Vendalistic mis-statement of fact comes from that 1 to 5 million Muslims Hindus and Sikhs died.

Secondly, why do our fellow Indian friends are so interested in the Pakistan page they are more than welcome to go and mis-state death counts on their own countries page.

If you don't mind can you stop rewriting history? Hyderabad Deccan is still disputed? Are you in the 1950s? :) And Udampur is just one of hundreds of places in the Indian Kashmir and when Kashmir the region is mentioned, there is no reason to dwell on each and every village, hamlet and town of Kashmir as disputed.

The casualties of the partition vary. People claim from as low as 250,000 to 5 million. Actually there's been little data on the exact casualties of each religion, and the line clearly states estimates from 1- 5 million accordingly. It does not matter which page in Wikipedia, but the facts remain the same. Tx Idleguy 16:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The History section is supposed to be a brief overview

There is the History of Pakistan which covers the history in-depth and then there is the lead-up page that is now being expanded for some reason I cannot fathom! I'm going to shorten it back as it's absurd to retread as the History of Pakistan section is already accused of repeating information. Tombseye 06:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the section and re-added some information that was removed. Not much has changed, but it is definitely longer in ancient history section and a lot shorter in information about political systems. I would like all users who are thinking of making so many major edits to please discuss this first.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss this. The links provided can be accessed to attain more information about various events in the history overview section. the Partition of British india refers to the communal riots in detail for example. Mentioning things without massive explanation is preferable as this article is already much longer than most country articles. A lot of it is superfluous and repeated information too. For example saying at the beginning caption that Pakistan is a centre of ancient history events is again repeated in the history overview section and then in the History of Pakistan article. The top caption is to give an overview of the modern state and not superfluous info. that is repeated ad nauseum later. It would help to stream-line things and leave those who want to know more with links to other articles. The history of Pakistan section discusses everything and more that the short overview does so what's the point? Also, the pictures of forts etc. has little to do with context or history and why are minor tribes like the Ghakars important to mention since they are largely a regional group? These are all problems with this article that make it unappealing and too cumbersome. Many people will simply gloss over it anyway, whereas if it was shorter and written better, people would get the gist of much more information and also have the opportunity to check out linked items. These are my main points of contention here as I don't see why information has to be repeated over and over again. There needs to be clear delineation. Tombseye 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tombseye that the article has too much details on history. Also, the number of external links of the article is horribly long!!! It has degraded to a list of links to stuff like TV channels and university websites. --Ragib 20:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. However, most info was added yesterday by a new user. Also I think it is fine for now as long as it doesn't get any longer. I will try to shorten it later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up here Ragib. Also, regarding the addition of images, how about people limit them and possibly add more to related articles which often need a lot of work instead? For example, some of the images selected are really bland and random, whereas if there was one spectacular image chosen and limited to one or two sections, the article would look much better. Also, I believe the section on Pakistan's mass media probably should have its own article at this rate as the massive number of external links further dilutes the overall presentation as Ragib correctly points out. I could be wrong, but this article may be longer than the one on the United States and is definitely bigger than the article on China at this point! And not in a good way either. Tombseye 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree with you tombseye in most things, and I agree with Ragib about links. I will work on cutting down the links sections later. About pictures, however, I think that we should try to have more images as possible in the needed areas, but yes they should be limited to certain sections. So the Derawar fort picture should stay until we can find better ones. Btw, I wasn't arguing with you I was actually agreeing that anon IPs and new users who have edited this article, should discuss their edits. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Anonym. The main problem is presentation. The article still looks too disparate and sloppy. The pictures should be relevant (forts are fine, but how are they relevant to the say the historic events discussed?) and better than some of the selections we've seen lately. Also, what's interesting is that while people are adding to the main article on Pakistan, no one wants to add to the connecting articles, which, theoretically, should be where you can find in-depth information. We need to compare this article to the presentation of articles like the one on the United States or the United Kingdom for example which are much more presentable and accessible while having as much information as possible. The wording could be re-done, but people just seem to want analysis which, frankly, reduces the article's quality in my opinion as there should be overviews and links to in-depth articles in a useful encyclopedia. Less is more in this case I'd say. Thanks. Tombseye 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Economic History - table probably confusing for most

The section titled "Recent economic history and trends" had the following table:

Sectoral contribution to GDP Growth (in % point)
Sector	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05
Agriculture	0.03	1.01	0.53	1.74
Industry -Manufacturing	0.61 1.71	1.08 1.11	2.74 2.31	2.46 2.19
Service	2.47	2.75	3.16	4.16
Real GDP (fc)	3.1 %	4.8 %	6.4 %	8.4 %
Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005 [2]

I have a good understanding of economics and statistics, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me what this table was saying. I had to go to the source, read it in context, and then figure it out. The table shows that - unlike the usual developing-country growth spurts, which are basically a matter of luck, being driven by bumper crops as a result of good weather - Pakistan's extraordinary 8.4% growth was largely non-agricultural. The source document doesn't say this explicitly - you would have to have some knowledge of developmental economics to get it.

Although it makes a good point, I removed the table because I think the vast majority of readers wouldn't understand it - it's wasted space here. How about using a graphic (pie chart) instead? 68.252.207.111 17:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call. I briefly checked out the link to the table and gotta agree with your assessment. Hopefully it won't get re-added as so often happens even when you make valid deletions here.Tombseye 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Link explosion!!

Now this has become just a directory page of all things vaguely related to Pakistan. With so many external links, taking up almost 20% of the article page, the whole article looks like a list of pages, along with some content at the top. I propose getting rid of all the links, except the Government of Pakistan pages. Thanks. --Ragib 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that there can be a separate page made for extra links. Some of the links like the ones to university websites can be useful. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the university website links, those are appropriate for the article Universities in Pakistan (if that article exists) or Education in Pakistan. The main page should not point to each and every university webpage. Thanks. --Ragib 18:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with moving the links. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree. The sheer number of links makes the article looking like spammer's paradise. Pavel Vozenilek 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the bloated external link section containing links to TV station websites. I have checked other country pages, and none list each and every tv channel existing in that country. Many of these stations/channels have their own pages, and the links are appropriate there, but not here. --Ragib 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Name

I was under the impression that Pakistan translated as "Pure Land" rather than "Land of the Pure" as stated in the article. Am I mistaken, or is the article incorrect? Nik42 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the correct translation of Pakistan is "Land of the Pure". Pak means "Pure". Stan means "Land". If you translate it word for word it comes out to be "Pure Land" . Ali 786 January 2, 2006 16:15

Vandalism

Vandalism by 205.221.1.21, probably an Indian, has been reverted many times. It advisable for him to stop vandalizing Pakistan related pages. -- User:Siddiqui 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way Siddiqui, I'm not Indian. And, I only made changes on one Pakistan-related page, to rid it of POV. Some complaints have also been filed on the "History of Pakistan" page concerning POV, but I've done no work on that one, particularly to avoid accusations like yours. I also do work to rid the India page of its own POV, however without much success, as nationalists keep deleting the Aryan and Achaemenid invasion from the main page's history section. No hard feelings. Template:Unisigned

My comments are directed at 205.221.1.21. If you are the same person then please say so. Your 205.221.1.8 is similar to 205.221.1.21. User:Siddiqui 00:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-I meant "Afghan Historian", which is me, is not Indian. And many people do agree with me that the history section, particularly the Pre-colonial history section is strongly POV. Remember that modern political concepts should not be used to change history. Pakistan may have had some regional distinction from the rest of the subcontinent but so did all other regions as well(ie: South India). And no, I'm not proposing Partition was wrong. Most non-biased South Asia scholars, aside from Oxford, will tell you that the region today known as Pakistan was socially, culturally, racially(to a certain extent), linguistically, and often religiously tied more to South Asia and often Central Asia with some influence from the Middle East, mostly through an Indic prism. Many commentators other than myself, have also made similar arguments on the History of Pakistan, and have complained of vandalism as well as getting blocked. To avoid this, I will no longer make changes on the main Pakistan page and will just discuss on the discussion and let someone else try instead, to avoid getting blocked myself. That's all I'm going to say and your welcome to disagree with me. "Afghan Historian"(I'm just an amateur historian and I have some Pashtun ancestry.)

I do repect your point of view but at the same time would appreciate that we discuss the different point of views rather than first making reverts.

User:Siddiqui 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a historic basis for this?

"The Aryan invaders instituted the Caste system to enslave the native population and the aborigine tribes. This apartheid system prohibited intermarriage and relegated the natives into low caste untouchables while elevating the status of Aryan invaders."

I was wondering if there is any historical proof/evidence for the above. If not, should this not be removed? 82.24.246.148 12:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Raghu

Hello, I just read that myself and there are a lot of problems with these theories. First, the Munda people reference requires a citation as there is not really any evidence that I've heard of that supports their presence. Also, no one knows if the Indus Valley was Dravidian as that's just a theory and usually the correct term is Elamo-Dravidian as a hypothetical group between the Elamites in Iran and the Dravidians in India, but none of this is proven as no one has deciphered the Indus Valley script. Secondly, the caste system probably emerged much later, but not in what is today Pakistan. I read in the Oxford History of India was that it is believed by many academics (including Indian historian Romila Thapar) that Hinduism emerged not along the Indus, but along the Ganges and that later the caste system came about. Also, many now believe that terminology referring to the Dravidians as Dasa is actually incorrect and may in fact be a reference to rival early Indo-Aryan tribes OR even Iranian tribes in Afghanistan before the Indo-Aryans left Afghanistan and they may have referred to the Iranians as such since they had a different religion etc. Regardless, the usage and relation of this ancient history as fact is very questionable and I think it should be reworded back to how I left it not because I'm claiming some inside knowledge, but I believe what I wrote is more verifiable and common information that is more probable, although the exact location of the Vedic civilization is also largely hypothetical and based upon guesswork. Tombseye 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many arguments that the languages belonging to Munda family were also widespread in lands that constitute modern Pakistan. The Dravidian invaded from Iranian plateau and were most probably the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. The Aryan invaders instituted the Caste system to enslave the native population and the aborigine tribes. This apartheid system prohibited intermarriage and relegated the natives into low caste untouchables while elevating the status of Aryan invaders. This is also evident as the scheduled castes and tribes are the untochables or Harijans. The intermarriage between the castes or even subcaste is prohibited. Many Indian related pages state that Aryan "settled" in South Asia while the Muslim "invaded". This issue of who "invaded" and who "settled" must be discussed. In my view, both invaded first and then settled in South Asia. Why this double standard exists in India related pages ? Thanks.

User:Siddiqui 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm creating a double-standard here with regards to India. I'm just saying that the caste system has less relevance, historically, to the Pakistani region. It really did vary and its usage has changed over the centuries. And I agree that the usage of the Aryans as friendly invaders is clearly a POV position that is not tenable as the Muslims can hardly be viewed as something different. In addition, there is an emphasis that Hindus were forced to convert, while the pogroms of the Buddhists after Ashoka's death are largely viewed as something natural. Not sure the Buddhists would think that way though. So I'm not applying a double-standard, I'm just trying to impart that there's a lot of speculation being written as fact and demonizing the Aryans completely isn't the solution either, especially since their ways, as relateable to modern India form along the Ganges and not the Indus which was constantly being invaded and redefined. Tombseye 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sisodia's unprofessional comments

Sisodia reverted my contribution and added this comment:

02:45, 9 January 2006 Sisodia (→Arrival of Islam - Muhammad Bin Kasim's army went to Kashmir? Pakistani Bros this is Wikipedia, not the Quaid-e-Azam Govt Higher Secondary School of Faisalabad.)

I will also reply to him in the same language but first I want to give him an oppurtunity to rethink his statement. User:Siddiqui 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

be cool man, not need to reply him in this manner. sisodia (talk · contribs · block log) had already been once block of this sort of behaviour. dnt get yourself blocked.Wisesabre 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

-I recognize the name Sisodia. I dont know but I think he was one of the blokes on the Aryan Invasion Theory discussion page who was in denial of the whole event. I dont remember though so dont take anything I say here seriously. User: Afghan Historian

Portal Pakistan???

I think it will be good to have a portal for discussions on Pakistan related articles . What do you guys say ? F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

are you talking about this Portal:Pakistan or Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topicsWisesabre 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lots of grammatical and structural errors

There is a tendency in the article to overuse words. As an example, the Political History section sees the word 'constitutionally' used several times within the space of a few sentences. Whatever the reason for this, it doesn't make good reading. The Political History section also does not make much sense. The first paragraph begins with 1958 and rushes through to the present day. The second paragraph then rambles on about the first decade, followed by a third paragraph which comes back to the present. I will move the paragraphs round so they make chronological and literal sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.238.197 (talk • contribs)

Ancient??????????????????

The changes have been made in both pre colonial histories of India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan were formed in 1947. Thats just 50+ and certainly not ancient. India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh are all third world countries, with shared histories and cultures. It's stupid for India and Pakistan to crib about 'My culture' and 'My History'.

Changes are more in Pakistan article, as whoever wrote that article seems too much bent upon proving that Pakistan was never a part of India. India and Pakistan were never together, technicaly they never could have been. Guys GET OVER IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberwizmj (talk • contribs)

Too much to edit.

I suggest that a common ancient histroy page be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberwizmj (talk • contribs)

History section in this page is attempting to create a new history for Pakistan as a separate nation even before it was created in 1947. Srinivasasha 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add frivolous protected tags to the article. Thanks. --Ragib 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Pre-Colonial History' Section

This section does not make any sense. The preceding sections tell of the Ancient History and the Arrival of Islam, but the Pre-Colonial History has some material that would be more appropraite at the start of the Ancient History and some material that would be more appropriate in a personal opinion piece. Gushing about such matters as the separateness of Indus and Gangetic civilisations is a POV. If you are going to write this, then at least write it properly, so it doesn't look like a high school essay. Prove your capability by recognising that English uses definite and indefinite articles and that it has a certain grammar without which sentences sound like gibberish. Prove your literary skills by using references and sourcing from genuine scholarly works and not the Geocities webpage your friend maintains. Most of the first paragraph (if you can call it that) and the second paragraph would be better placed in the Ancient History section. The final sentence of the first paragraph would make more sense in the Arrival of Islam section.

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.

Pakistan, a part of the Indus land, is the child of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile. The Indus has provided unity, fertility, communication, direction and the entire landscape to the country. Its location marks it as a great divide as well as a link between Central Asia and South Asia. But the historical movements of the people from Central Asia and South Asia have given to it a character of its own and have established closer relation between the people of Pakistan and those of Iran, Afghanistan and Turkistan.

If nobody objects, I'll merge the sections. 82.20.13.130 01:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Actually, I wrote much of the History of pakistan article with the original intent not to convey that there is no relationship with India, but to show that Pakistan had its own regional history that often did not involve what is today modern India. Modern nation-states try to relate common histories, but even Pakistan can be broken up into regional histories is my other point. There are numerous cultural interactions and the languages in eastern Pakistan correspond to northwestern India. On the one hand, I've had to defend my points against one extreme, that there is a historical India that subsumes the region, and then there is the other extreme, that Pakistan has a separate existence altogether. It's not even an in-between thing as both positions aren't accurate. Regional histories are just that, but do not exclude other variables. I think this now presents a bit more POV as what defines relations between people? Is it religion, history, language? If these are the factors, than Pakistan is, as I was contendign an overlapping Indo-Iranian region and stating that its ties are more substantive one way or the other is very subjective. Tombseye 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tombseye, User:82.20.13.130 here (unless the IP has changed again). I agree with your point about Pakistan having a regional history. My original point was that one section didn't seem to flow with the rest of the History article. I suggested moving parts of the section to make a more readable article, which is pretty much what Idleguy has done (see below). 82.13.18.206 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Commented out redundant para

I have commented out an entire section or two since the para talks about early indus valley history and not pre colonial history. Given the chronological flow the article has taken after the mughals and nadir shah etc. it goes to british rule. I was expecting anything in between that period. but it throws back needlessly to indus valley again and speaks why pakistan wasn't ruled by India as a self defence statement.

Being repetitive in nature and of a poorer edit quality i have commented out and if there is no objection it can be removed. please go through the history section and you'll understand that the removal is the right choice. Tx Idleguy 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your position. Its needless and is really POV as the point is not to say whether modern nation-states can be related as separate or not so much as simply relaying the major events. Tombseye 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree and I have reinserted the paragraph.

Siddiqui 17:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jinnah's Picture

That picture of Jinnah shows him when he was a young man. Whilst it may be an appropriate picture in the article on the man himself, most people wouldn't recognise it as much as the picture at the top of the article about him. It's a bit like showing a picture of George W. Bush when he was at college rather than a more recent one which would be more relevant. 81.107.198.254 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The map in the Post-Independence section

The map a German one (East Pakistan is labelled as Ost-Pakistan). Whilst it might be easy to work out what the labels refer to, wouldn't it be better to have a map in English from the BBC for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/enwiki/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm

82.13.18.206 02:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That image isn't free so we'll see if we get a free licence one to replace this. Until then, I'm afraid this one might have to do the job. Idleguy 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Pakistan

Currently this section (Subdivisions of Pakistan) is languishing between sections on Ethnic Groups and Society and Culture. It would be better placed somewhere amongst the political sections, perhaps just after the section on Forms of Government. Any opinions? Green Giant 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The changes I made

Ready for this? I moved the Subdivisions section to go into the group of sections on Politics because that is the most logical place for it. In the Post Independence section, I felt that the photo of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and a pre-1971 map were appropriate. The picture of the Quaid-e-Azam Mausoleum is better placed around the Tourism section because it is one of the top tourist destinations in Karachi, although it seems to have ended up next to the Economy section where I think a picture of the State Bank or perhaps the Karachi Stock Exchange might be appropriate. Also in the Tourism section, I reduced the size of the K2 picture (we know it's a big mountain but there is no need for it to dominate the article). I also resized some of the other pictures and moved them around so that areas of text are not herded into awkward looking shapes.

I am still debating (in my tiny mind) whether to move the picture of the Shah Faisal Mosque down to the Religion section in place of the Mosque by Gul. The reason I am in favour of that is there is already a picture of a famous mosque (the Badshahi Mosque) a little above the Shah Faisal at the moment. Personally I feel most people will have heard of the Shah Faisal as opposed to the Mosque by Gul or at least they will recognise one more than the other. The fact that it is the major mosque in the national capital would make it more relevant when talking about the majority religion of Pakistan.

Ok, I'm ready to accept flak from anyone who is bored enough to do so :P Green Giant 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Pakistan were moved into the Geography section. I disagree with this because the subdivisions are political in nature and not defined by geography. I moved the Subdivisions back to the Politics section but this was reverted on the grounds that subdivisions are provinces and hence more appropriate in geography. However, geography is nothing to do with political subdivisions - it is about the physical features of the land, not the manmade ones. Oceans, mountain ranges, rivers, plains, lakes and forests are appropriate geographic subdivisions, so please leave political subdivisions as part of politics adhacent to the Forms of Government. Green Giant 17:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The subdivisions refer to geography and divisions in land like provinces and belongs in geography. The section even starts like this Pakistan has 4 provinces, 2 territories, Any other articles about countries would have this section in geography. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The United States, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Spain, Russia, Switzerland, India, and Australia articles all describe their political subdivisions either in a Politics or Government section or immediately beneath such sections. I agree that some of these are immediately adjacent to the main Geography sections but always with Politics or Government immediately above. Their Geography sections describe physical geography with mention of geography particular to some subdivisions. Only the Germany article describes political subdivisions in Geography. As a compromise, I would suggest making the Subdivisions into a separate main section, immediately between the Politics and Geography.

Templates

Shouldnt the yellow one be merged in the green one. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dog fighting legal?

I know that bear-baiting is illegal in Pakistan, but still occurs. What is the legal status of dog fighting? Certainly dog fighting occurs in Pakistan, but what is it legal or illegal ? I have googled for a citation, but I cannot find a decent one, such as the Pakistani criminal code on-line version. Thank you in advance. WritersCramp 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

'Ost' Pakistan?

Does anyone realise that the Map for East and West Pakistan has East Pakistan labelled as 'Ost' Pakistan? ...I find that just a tad weird since this 'is' the English Language Edition of Wikipedia. Perhaps if someone could get a better Map...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.155.23 (talk • contribs)

See section 29 above ("The map in the Post-Independence section"). --Ragib 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

re: description of Aryan migration

"The Indus Valley Civilisation spanned much of what is today Pakistan, but suddenly went into decline just prior to the invasion of Indo-European Aryans. A branch of these tribes called the Indo-Aryans are believed to have founded the Vedic Civilization that may have existed somewhere between the Sarasvati River and Ganges river in modern India around 1500 BCE."

I've rewritten to read:

"The Indus Valley Civilization spanned much of what is today Pakistan, but suddenly went into decline just prior to the migration of Indo-Aryan tribes from Central Asia. Their introduced culture mingled with that of the natives to produce the Vedic Civilization that existed between the Sarasvati River and Ganges river in what is now modern India around 1500 BCE."

Because: a) Labelling it an "invasion" is innacurate considering modern findings and views b) Indo-Aryan is more accurate and specific than "Indo-European Aryan" c) Evidence for a Dravidian substrate in Sanskrit, as well as genetic studies, show that the population of the North of the Indian subcontinent and it's associated culture is a mixture of native and Indo-Aryan influences. that ok? good. --86.135.217.213 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)