gorah_pindu Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 I can understand India's 'infatuation' with Pakistan more than i can the other way round- those lands used to be ours and as far as i am concerned, Afghanistan & Pakistan are integral parts of our culture/history. So yes, i can understand the attachment. Its very tempting to think like that, but you have to realise that things change, or we are no better than China and their ludacris 'greater China' policy. Fact is, there has very rarely been a unified Indian state the size of the current Indian Republic - so be happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 Its very tempting to think like that, but you have to realise that things change, or we are no better than China and their ludacris 'greater China' policy. Fact is, there has very rarely been a unified Indian state the size of the current Indian Republic - so be happy with that. Lol..Gorah..i'd say the difference between my pespective and the the 'China mentality' as you put it, is that while i consider the subcontinent to be a cultural amalgam stretching thousands of years, China looks at political amalgam only. Ie, i dont mind Pakistan/Afghanistan remaining independent, infact, i do not want India to 'expand' into them. Its just a cultural/historical affinity, thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted June 17, 2007 Share Posted June 17, 2007 I can understand India's 'infatuation' with Pakistan more than i can the other way round- those lands used to be ours and as far as i am concerned, Afghanistan & Pakistan are integral parts of our culture/history. So yes, i can understand the attachment. the last thing i want is to integrate baluchistan and waziristan with a "greater, colonial india". those places are utter shyt, inhabited by chauvinist pigs who would rather die than concede to democracy and are still stuck in the 14the century. besides, let pakistan be the buffer between us and the scum of the middle east. get over 1947, if there is any land we must regret losing than its the millions of acres of arable land lost each year to rampant environmental degradation and unchecked deforestation. in summary, frak pakistan, look at your own backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 the last thing i want is to integrate baluchistan and waziristan with a "greater, colonial india" I don't care one bit for the national concept- i am talking cultural spheres here. read my previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 I don't care one bit for the national concept- i am talking cultural spheres here. read my previous post. the last time afghanistan was a member of the indian cultural sphere was in 300-200BC during the Mauryan Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 the last time afghanistan was a member of the indian cultural sphere was in 300-200BC during the Mauryan Empire. Err no. Last time Afghanistan was in Indian cultural sphere was in 900 CE or so- under Dharmapal/Devpal. Afghanistan has been a part of Indian cultural sphere for thousands of years- its been out of our cultural sphere for not very long. Even under the Mughals, we had influence in Afghanistan, right from Babur to Aurangzeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varun Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Yup, places in Afghanistan had heavy cultural influence from India including religion. My mum's dad is a hindu originally from a village close to Kabul. His village was almost exclusively hindu, and there were lots of such villages around Kabul in his time growing up (pre-WWII). Heck Kabul's original name is Kambojpura.. how much more hindu would you get :lightbulb: Going to back to ancient history, Gandhar (Kashmir, Indus basin), and Kamboj (Kabul area) were two of the Mahajanapads and there was a lot of cultural exchange betwen them and the rest of the Mahajanapads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Yup, places in Afghanistan had heavy cultural influence from India including religion. My mum's dad is a hindu originally from a village close to Kabul. His village was almost exclusively hindu, and there were lots of such villages around Kabul in his time growing up (pre-WWII). Heck Kabul's original name is Kambojpura.. how much more hindu would you get :lightbulb: Going to back to ancient history, Gandhar (Kashmir, Indus basin), and Kamboj (Kabul area) were two of the Mahajanapads and there was a lot of cultural exchange betwen them and the rest of the Mahajanapads. this is something i must take an issue with. if hinduism as a religion was prevelant in a particular part of the world, that region is not be default under "indian cultral influence" and certainly not a member of the "indian cultural sphere". indian culture is an amalgamation of several religions and tribal faiths melded with various languages with a common root. and yes, thanks to the fact that ours was one of the first few organized civilizations, fragments of pre vedic and early vedic religions beliefs are abundantly distributed arond the globe, but that does not make them a part of india. under the mughals, to the best of my knowledge, afghanistan was not included in the empire governed from agra etc. moreover, by the same analogy presented in your post and in cc's one might rationalize that nepal is a territory to which india can lay a claim when infact it has almost always been an independent state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 ` this is something i must take an issue with. if hinduism as a religion was prevelant in a particular part of the world, that region is not be default under "indian cultral influence" and certainly not a member of the "indian cultural sphere". indian culture is an amalgamation of several religions and tribal faiths melded with various languages with a common root. and yes, thanks to the fact that ours was one of the first few organized civilizations, fragments of pre vedic and early vedic religions beliefs are abundantly distributed arond the globe, but that does not make them a part of india. under the mughals, to the best of my knowledge, afghanistan was not included in the empire governed from agra etc. moreover, by the same analogy presented in your post and in cc's one might rationalize that nepal is a territory to which india can lay a claim when infact it has almost always been an independent state. I agree that by just being 'hindu', it doesnt become part of India- or else cambodia/bali etc. would be Indian. However, you are quite wrong in the case of Afghanistan. It was continously a part of Indian culture till 900 CE when Ghaznavid empire rose. it slipped into persian sphere of influence/independent nation for the next 500 years till Babur conquered Afghanistan ( babur was from badakhshan, an area of uzbekistan today and traced his descent from Mongols..'mughal' is an indian corruption of the word 'mongol') and it remained part of the mughal empire till Aurangzeb died. And i dunno where hindu comes into play- Afghanistan was a bastion of buddhism from 200 BCE till its fall at the hands of the muslim butchers. The close inter-connectivity of the ancient Afghan people along with close cultural ties are not only evident from our literature but also from literature of other civs who mention Afghanistan to be where India starts. And again, i dont know where you are getting the whole 'conquest' and 'laying claim' to aspect- that is nationalism, i don't care for nationalism. Yes, Nepal is integral part of Indian culture but being part of a culture doesnt give one nation the right to annex another. If Nepal/Bhutan wanted to join India, it'd be fine by me though. The current Afghans ( Pashtuns mostly) are predominantly descendants of Huns..after Huns destroyed the gupta empire, they mostly settled in Kabul valley and Bamiyaan valley. Later, when the Pal empire re-conquered the area, it was already known as 'hunnisthan' in persia and India...from 'hunnisthan', the word 'afghan' comes into being sometime aroun 900 CE. Personally, i am not impressed by Afghans today or their attitude towards Indians...vancouver has a significant afghan community and i've interacted with them in the past because i can speak a few phrases in Dari...they actually view us as 'filthy retarded idol-worshipping hindoos' and often use the word 'dal-khor' in a negetive way to depict Indians...why would i want to 'annex' such a place ?! However, it doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan is historically in our cultural sphere and has thousands of years of history where it is an integral part of India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Even the whole cultural sphere thing implies cultural domination tho - things are usually a little more complex than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Even the whole cultural sphere thing implies cultural domination tho - things are usually a little more complex than that. Cultural continuity is a more appropriate term...Indian culture unlike cultures in near-east or Europe have not had a 'dominate' mentality..but rather, coexistential one. Most of Afghanistan's known history is in the Indian cultural sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 They were also part of the Greek and Persian sphere. Or rather, no culture is purely a product of one influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 They were also part of the Greek and Persian sphere. Or rather, no culture is purely a product of one influence. For a much shorter period of time than Indian cultural sphere. Remember, the greek presence in the subcontinent/afghanistan region was very quickly assimilated into the indian cultural sphere. It has significant persian influence too,especially in recent history but its still much less than the indian influence. Only the north-westernmost part of Afghanistan (centered around Herat) has been in the traditional Persian cultural sphere for most of its history. I dont think i implied that afghanistan is a product of purely one influence..neither is it in indian cultural influence today...it just has historic significance and i dont see any reason in denying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 When scholars debate the significance of 'cultural spheres' they arnt denying influence per se, but rather trying to say 'so what' - or rather, what relevence does ancient Gandhara have to modern Afghanistan? What relevence does ancient history have to a modern state, other than in the manufactured nationalist mythology of such states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 what relevence does ancient Gandhara have to modern Afghanistan? I dont know and i don't care...the question isnt what relevance ancient Gandhara has to modern Afghans..its a question of what relevance ancient Gandhara has to India's culture ? The answer to that is : a lot. What relevence does ancient history have to a modern state, other than in the manufactured nationalist mythology of such states? Ancient history is not political history. There is cultural history which is one of the sections of history least covered in most western history courses at university level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 While the area known as Afghanistan today has been an influence on Indian culture historically, it is also true that there is very little remaining of Indian culture in modern Afghanistan. Can a geographical region from which part of your history originates be considered in cultural proximity to you today even though there is very little left of that history? Not sure, but surely worth a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Can a geographical region from which part of your history originates be considered in cultural proximity to you today even though there is very little left of that history? Yes it can be, since our culture is an aggregate of thousands of years of culture, Afghanistan's excellent past culture (pre-Islamic barbarity) is relevant to ours even today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Britain also influenced India - is Britain then part of the Indian cultural sphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Britain also influenced India - is Britain then part of the Indian cultural sphere? Negligible influence on a cultural level from britain, so no. Its not just a question of who influenced whom...its a question of what is/was our cultural sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Negligable? That dosent sound like the conclusion that would be reached by a non-biased examination of British influence on India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts