Terrorism/cowardliness in Pak DNA?

[Mariyam]

Does making idiotic threads also run in DNA?

[surajmal]

Good question. I mean cowardliness part. Terrorism is a side effect of their identity crisis. 

One could make an argument that the area (or large parts of it) that currently qualifies as "Pakistan" houses the biggest number of cowards in the subcontinent. Think about all the invasions since antiquity. Until the Sikhs rose up, this area (Punjab, Sindh etc) acted as a turnstile for any invader. It would be foolish to expect the people that live there now to be anything but mental midgets. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, surajmal said:

Good question. I mean cowardliness part. Terrorism is a side effect of their identity crisis. 

One could make an argument that the area (or large parts of it) that currently qualifies as "Pakistan" houses the biggest number of cowards in the subcontinent. Think about all the invasions since antiquity. Until the Sikhs rose up, this area (Punjab, Sindh etc) acted as a turnstile for any invader. It would be foolish to expect the people that live there now to be anything but mental midgets. 

So Jatt Pakistanis are cowardly too, because they worship Allah and not Ram ? 

 

The reason why Punjab never was a power, is mostly due to two main reasons:

a) instability due to numerous tribes pouring through the Khyber through the ages and the original Gandharain civilization (that emerged post IVC) being trade-oriented rather than farming oriented (ie, more interested in setting up trade outposts far and wide than being farmers who farmed the heck out of the land.

 

b) lack of strategic thought amongst Native Indian dynasties. Except for a rare few like the early Mauryas ( Chandragupta-BinduSara-Askhoka) , Shungas and Vikramaditya Gupta, nobody in India had the foresight to secure the Khyber region and thus stabilize Punjab enough for an irrigated economy to emerge. 

Much of Pakistani Punjab receive far less rainfall than the Ganges-Yamuna region  and its 'bread-basket' quality is dependent on irrigation. Which requires stability.

The biggest failings of North Indian dynasties has been looking to conquer the South instead of securing the Khyber. From SamudraGupta to Harsha even Mihir Bhoj- all of them bee-lined it to the Deccan conquest mode (and except for Samudragupta, all of them got dead-locked) the moment they conquered Practically Lahore to Bengal. 

[surajmal]

19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So Jatt Pakistanis are cowardly too, because they worship Allah and not Ram ? 

 

The reason why Punjab never was a power, is mostly due to two main reasons:

a) instability due to numerous tribes pouring through the Khyber through the ages and the original Gandharain civilization (that emerged post IVC) being trade-oriented rather than farming oriented (ie, more interested in setting up trade outposts far and wide than being farmers who farmed the heck out of the land.

 

b) lack of strategic thought amongst Native Indian dynasties. Except for a rare few like the early Mauryas ( Chandragupta-BinduSara-Askhoka) , Shungas and Vikramaditya Gupta, nobody in India had the foresight to secure the Khyber region and thus stabilize Punjab enough for an irrigated economy to emerge. 

Much of Pakistani Punjab receive far less rainfall than the Ganges-Yamuna region  and its 'bread-basket' quality is dependent on irrigation. Which requires stability.

The biggest failings of North Indian dynasties has been looking to conquer the South instead of securing the Khyber. From SamudraGupta to Harsha even Mihir Bhoj- all of them bee-lined it to the Deccan conquest mode (and except for Samudragupta, all of them got dead-locked) the moment they conquered Practically Lahore to Bengal. 

So every northie left the one ingress point unattended? They "conquered practically Lahore to Bengal" but didn't have enough sense to check if they may have visitors (particularly since visitors had been knocking at their doors every few centuries)? 

Edited February 8, 2018 by surajmal

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, surajmal said:

So every northie left the one ingress point unattended? They "conquered practically Lahore to Bengal" but didn't have enough sense to check if they may have visitors (particularly since visitors had been knocking at their doors every few centuries)? 

That's what history shows us. 

Only ones to've shown attention to the Khyber areas directly were : Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusara, Ashoka and Chandragupta Vikramaditya. 

I will include the Shungas as honorary to this list because they atleast displayed intent : their major wars were with the Indo-Greeks and their influence peaked at around Ludhiana, but the borders of Indo-Greek kingdom and Shunga Empire more or less stabilized around Mathura (with Mathura in control of the Indo-Greeks), with the Indo-Greeks stretching in Punjab to Khyber.

 

But look closer to rest and you find ALL of them ignored the whole NW frontier.

Check Harshavardhana: He consolidates his homeland ( Pushyabhuti dynasty, from Haryana-eastern Punjab-western UP region). Peacefully conquers the Maukharis based in UP ( via marriage and a few minor engagements).Then goes up against Shashanka, the first Bengali emperor. He struggles years to conquer Bengal-Magadh region, but finally does it after Shashanka dies, when his weaker son Manava comes to power. 
So at this point, Harsha controls Sutlej to Brahmaputra, Himalayas to Vindhya. Where does he go ? 
Heads straight south and engages in a war with Pulakeshi II of the powerful Chalukya Empire, loses most of his elephants and retreats back home to rule what he has.

 

Next, Mihir Bhoj : same pattern. Gurjar-Pratihara ruler finally vassalizes the Pal empire and remains unchallenged from Indus-Ravi to Bengal. Next move ? Go fight with the Rashtrakutas (again, deccan empire). Deadlock.  

 

And the father of all Indian conquerors (the one who conquered the most # of kingdoms & fought the most number of battles) : Samudragupta.

Conquers all the way to Manipur, Burma and Arunachal Pradesh. Recieves submission (vassal status) from all the rulers between Indus-Chenab, to Burma. Next move ? goes conquers Orrisa and goes whacks the crap out of the Pallavas of Kanchipuram, makes them his vassals.

 

Of the native rulers of India, Chandragupta Vikramaditya stands out as the ONLY ruler of the last 2000 years who's shown interest in conquering the Khyber and the only one since Ashoka who's actualy done it. 

 

That's basic geo-political fail and focus on 'riches instead of security'.

 

In their defence, prior to Babur, a powerful North Indian Empire had fallen only once to invaders from outside India : Gupta's fall under the Hepthalites. So maybe they figured they are 'too big to fail from western attack' if they could dominate northern INdia's fertile regions only.

[surajmal]

@MuloghontoI don't believe this theory. 3 driving lessons as a teenager were enough to drill into me the habit of looking over my shoulder before a lane change or a turn. 

The answer to the open door policy of the punjabis has to be more nuanced. 

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, surajmal said:

@MuloghontoI don't believe this theory. 3 driving lessons as a teenager were enough to drill into me the habit of looking over my shoulder before a lane change or a turn. 

The answer to the open door policy of the punjabis has to be more nuanced. 

you don't believe what theory ? That our rulers ignored the crap out of the NW ?

well, that's what history indicates.

 

I am yet to see an Indian ruler from the north- a major kingdom- making it a priority to conquer Taxila-Purushapura. 

Especially in the post Gupta age, all the major battles we have epigraphical as well as literary evidence of, is Indians fighting Indians in the Cis-indus region, then heading south. So many wars between the Gurjaras and Rashtrakutas. So many wars of Harsha, not a single one directed at Khyber (and he is one of the best chronicled ancient Indian rulers). 

 

Except for Chandragupta Vikramaditya and a highly stylized (and exaggerated account of Devpal, from his great great grandson or something), there is literally only ONE other ruler, who for his own lifetime, briefly, held sway in the Khyber-Punjab region all the way into the Ganges doab: Lalitaditya. 

All the accounts of warfare, seems to be mostly dedicated to the region in between Sindh-Punjab ( cut-off was usually Ravi river and sometimes Satluj) to Bengal region and then headed into the deccan. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Muloghonto

[surajmal]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

you don't believe what theory ? That our rulers ignored the crap out of the NW ?

well, that's what history indicates.

 

Theory that they were either too stupid or simply didn't see the threat from NW. NW was ignored. Question is why was it ignored?

[FischerTal]

inbreeding is in their DNA and thats scientifically proven

Edited February 8, 2018 by FischerTal

[Muloghonto]

The reason why NW was never a priority could be a host of reasons. 

What I find telling, is that a military genius like Samudragupta chose to go conquer all the way into Nagaland area and into Chennai practically, over crossing the Indus. We most definitely have confirmation of the entire period of Peshwawar up to 390AD being under the direct control of the Sassanids. 

 

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, surajmal said:

Theory that they were either too stupid or simply didn't see the threat from NW. NW was ignored. Question is why was it ignored?

That they were too stupid, is a hindsight of history that cannot be ignored. Because its one of the biggest reasons why India is not a major global civilization. 

Ofcourse, the geo-politics and economics, racial ideas, etc. must've been so different as NW was not a priority. Otherwise, if the NW really was a tremendous threat to our security on a conceptual basis, I cannot believe that the most prolific conqueror of Indian history- Samudragupta- chose to ignore it, despite coming within 300 kms of it and instead chose to go and whack the heck out of Chennai.

His conquest of Orissa and Kanchipuram, are generally held to be his last conquests given the wording on his pillar.