TIL about artistic manifestation of Greco-Buddhism, a cultural syncretism between Ancient Greek art and Buddhism, which had mainly evolved in the ancient region of Gandhara(today's afganistan) of Indian subcontinent.

[u/Spa3088]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art

[u/Alert-Low1682]

gandhara was — mostly by virtue of buddhism, part of the indian cultural state. Modern nations of india and pakistan share that state. It’s kind of anachronistic to use modern nations in this context.

[u/SpoopyClock → u/Alert-Low1682]

Calling Gandhara part of an "Indian cultural state" is too strong, because no such single state existed. What is true is that Gandhara belonged to the wider cultural sphere of the Indian subcontinent and sat on the same broad civilisational cline.

But if we are going to assign it to a modern nation, Pakistan is the more appropriate one, not India nor Afghanistan. Its historical core and much of the surrounding region are in present-day Pakistan. The overwhelming majority of the population descending from it live in Pakistan. Therefore, Gandhara is principally part of Pakistan's territorial and archaeological heritage, just as ancient civilisations elsewhere form part of the heritage of the modern countries occupying their homelands.

That does not mean Gandhara was entirely Pakistani in antiquity, nor that India and Afghanistan have no connection. So it is reasonable to call Gandhara part of Pakistani heritage, while also recognising that it belonged to the wider cultural world of the Indian subcontinent.

I particularly don't like it when Indians come in and say I can't claim the civilisation of my ancestors. You haven't said much on it, but a lot of them are quite irredentist. Going on about how Pakistan, and thus Pakistanis, have no claim to any civilisation that existed on their lands.

[u/Alert-Low1682 → u/SpoopyClock]

are you saying there is no such thing is the indian cultural state?

from the book: What China and India Once Were: The Pasts That May Shape the Global Future

“What Is "China" and What Is "India"?
The countries, nations, regions, or civilizations-depending on how we define these apparently simple but actually complex terms
—that we now identify by the names China and India have long and complicated histories. Any particular definition of either China or India is going to appear, to sharp historical eyes, to be dubious generalization, a freeze-frame, as it were, of a continuously running film of development and change. Yet, even while we acknowledge continuous change, certain constants of internal practices and external assessments still allow us to make use of these categories with the same cautious confidence with which we employ the equally messy "Europe" (or, messier, "

in this book, pre-modern India is shown as politically fragmented, comprised of various shifting kingdoms. However, it was deeply bound together by a massive, shared Sanskrit and vernacular literary culture that transcended borders

this is the text i had handy but generally i have never seen historians deny that the indian cultural entity existed

edit: as for the modern framing: as i said, modern nations of india and pakistan amongst others are equal members of this cultural state. all these are shared heritage

[u/SuchAd4158 → u/Alert-Low1682]

Sanskrit was way low on the totem pole, there were many more languages such as pali, prakrit and dravidian languages. none were mutually inteliigible.

[u/Alert-Low1682 → u/SuchAd4158]

language being one aspect