# Children of the Indus



## Bharat Muslim

*Children of the Indus*

In an exclusive interview for The Friday Times, lawyer and veteran political activist Aitzaz Ahsan talks to Ziyad Faisal about the experiences and methods which formed the basis for his well-known theory of the Indus people and Pakistani history.






Arrested, yet again

*How has your theory of the Indus identity been shaped by your personal experiences?*

I think it was substantially shaped by my personal experiences: in the sense that what impressed me most since my childhood – and later agitated me most when I found that we were depriving ourselves of it – was the plurality of this society. The social fabric of Pakistan, despite Partition, was so magnificently plural. We had with us Hindu students and Christian students. There were, alas, no Sikh classmates but there were elders who remembered the Sikhs quite fondly. There were relatives among the Sikhs on the other side of the border. And the plurality gradually began to dwindle, culminating in Zia-ul-Haq’s policies. We had very large and very vibrant Christian and Parsi communities in Lahore, but they were leaving the country by the 1980s.

An interesting incident which hit me was a conversation with the mother of an English friend, during my first year at Cambridge. I had gone to stay with them for a long weekend, and the first time I met her, over dinner, Auntie Beatrice asked me where I was from. I told her I was from Pakistan. She asked where Pakistan is located: you must remember that this was 1965, and not as many people abroad knew about Pakistan as they do today. I told her Pakistan was north-west of India. She remarked “Oh, you are the ones who broke away from India!” and I confirmed it. She asked why we felt the need to break away. I told her it was because we were not Indians. So she asked “Very well, you aren’t Indians. So then, what are you?” to which I replied that we are Muslims. She then asked if there were no Muslims in India, and I told here that there were indeed many Muslims there. She asked “Are they Pakistani?” to which I replied in the negative. She asked if the Arabs are Muslims, to which I replied “Yes”. The friendly, cajoling cross-examination went on, and she asked if the Arabs are Pakistanis. I clarified that Arabs and Pakistanis are not the same people.

At this point she asked me a question which continued to haunt me ever since: “We have established that you are Muslims, but neither Indian nor Arab. So what are you?”

Later in Zia’s time, when the minorities of Pakistan came under greater threat and doctrines of exclusivity were legislated, I found myself serving long tenures in jail as a political prisoner. It was there that I had the luxury of time and reflection. I began to reflect on who I was, and what my identity was. If we were Indian, why had we parted ways with India? If I was not Indian, then what was I? I came to a conclusion which was substantiated by my readings: the bibliography of The Indus Saga will testify to the research I carried out. I came to the conclusion that rivers, throughout time, have sired and sustained civilisations. So if the Indus goes on a path different from the Ganges and its tributaries, then the Indus and the Ganges valleys will sire and sustain different civilizations. Peninsular India will be distinct due to its own rivers too. That is where it clicked: I felt a sense of self-confidence. I knew that I was thinking in the right direction, and I just had to discover and unravel the truth and evidence for it. The more I reflected on it, and the more I read, the more evidence I got, so as to be able to write The Indus Saga.

It is therefore a quest to discover the identity of the Indus person – and mine own.





Aitzaz Ahsan with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1976

*What sort of conditions were you held in during imprisonment? Were these conditions conducive to reflection and study?*

In prison I was sometimes in solitary confinement, which was bad. Sometimes I had very good company: very elegant and generous political prisoners. We are speaking of the elite among political prisoners, such as the late Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi, the late Abdullah Malik, Mian Mahmood Ali Kasuri, Dr Mubashar Hassan and IA Rehman.

I always had access to books. Interestingly, every prisoner was allowed two books a fortnight. I used to distribute cartons of K2 cigarettes in exchange for fellow prisoners’ signatures: requesting books which I needed. We were allowed any volume, as long as it did not refer to the contemporary political situation in a militarised Pakistan. So they were very generous in allowing us access to books from the pre-1947 era. I still have with me many books that I carried with me through jail. I had bookshelves in my cell. So I was able to do a lot of reading and research during my time in jail.

*So perhaps you can relate to Nehru’s experience in jail? He too found himself and his people while he was in a colonial jail.*

Well, rather ambitiously (and perhaps not without a certain degree of vanity), I choose in the very preface of my book to enter into a contest with Jawaharlal Nehru. He believed in the oneness of India – the Akhund Bharat. For him, Bharat was one from Kabul to Cape Comorin and from Assam to Balochistan. Defined by the mountains and the ocean, this subcontinent was one unit to Nehru, as it was to Vivekananda and even to others, going back to ancient times. Even the epic Mahabharata talks of India as one from Kashgar to Ceylon.

*So you could not find yourself in this grand vision of history, which sees India as a very broad region incorporating within itself so many ethnicities and religious groups?*

No, I have a more territorial concept of such matters, which I consider a more realistic vision of history. But what I was contesting was also a certain dogmatic foundation of history, one which saw Pakistan being created the day the first Indian became a Muslim. I found a more solid basis for Pakistan as having originated in ancient history, rather than the time of Muhammad bin Qasim. I felt it was essential to give a certain degree of confidence to my generation and coming ones: that Pakistan was a stable entity whose roots pre-date religious conversions. Its rivers had nurtured a pluralistic polity since time immemorial, and this was distinct from the Indian polity.





Aitzaz Ahsan in the Senate, 1998

*Are there any particular historians and schools of historiography that most influenced your own view of history?*

Marx as a historiographer was very important to me, apart from being a social scientist or a so-called prophet of future economic developments. His dialectical conception of history, derived from Hegel, became a tool for me to discern our own history. To that extent, the Marxist method, but not the argument, is the one that I employ.

But there was a diverse array of historians and political analysts that helped me come to my conclusions. There was Sibt e Hassan, in “Maazi ke Mazaar” and “Moosa se Marx tak”. Romila Thapar is a very objective historian. There is DD Kosambi, who was basically a mathematician, but gave very perceptive analyses of ancient history based on the Marxist method. From Professors Ahmed Hassan Dani, Mubarik Ali and K.K.Aziz I obtained clarity of thought.





Graduation at Cambridge in 1967

The dialectical method has been a heavy influence for me. But while using this method, I read a lot. And most of what I read was not by Marxist historians. Perhaps 90 percent of what I read was not by Marxist historians. So I used a tool of analysis, but the facts I collected and the realities I wrote about were substantiated not necessarily by Marxist historians.

*Is The Indus Saga more of a response to our own flawed historiography or to mainstream Indian historiography?*

Initially it was more a response to fundamentalist visions of history within Pakistan. But I had to confront, obviously, the other perspective too. I saw the concept of a Maha Bharat as being false too. When The Indus Saga came out in 1996, it also entered the Indian market, but was exported there from here in Pakistan. It became controversial there, as Indian scholars began to write against it, except Khushwant Singh and Subhas Chakraborty. Many wrote against me, flogging me for the sacrilege of providing a basis for the division of “Mother India”. They asked things such as “If Pakistan’s creation was justified, then why did Bengal break away?” but for me it merely substantiated my territorial theory. For me, it is territories which make states and polities, not dogmas. Bengal had a different history, a different territory and consequently a different civilisation, no less distinct from us than Turks or Indonesians. Happily we are all Muslims, but culturally and civilisationally different.





Bushra Aitzaz during the struggle against the Zia dictatorship

*Could this have been an oversight also on the part of the founders of Pakistan, perhaps?*

In the enthusiasm of the Pakistan movement, during that short span of history, religion was the foremost impetus and emotion for very many people. But in the long span from prehistory to post-modernity, when you look at history as an extended continuum, then you find that territoriality and rivers define civilisations.

When I speak of the Indus civilisation, I do not refer merely to Mohenjodaro and Harrappa – that is a dated conception. For me, the Indus civilisation has been a polity distinct from India in a continuum from the earliest times until today.





With Benazir Bhutto in 1990

*How do you view contestations of Pakistani identity from within Pakistan? How do you reconcile Pashtun, Sindhi, Baloch and other competing nationalisms with your conception of Pakistani identity?*

These are all, for me, sub-nationalities within the Indus people. They are distinct and this is important, but they create a weave of plurality and diversity. A nationality does not necessarily have to be based on absolute uniformity. These different shades weave into each other gradually: Sindhi to Seraiki to Punjabi to Potwari to Pashto, or Sindhi to Balochi and Brahwi – these are all layers of the Indus people.

Going back to ancient history, you see that the Vedas were written in the Indus region. If you take, for instance, the Rig-Veda and compare it to the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, and you will see some crucial differences. The gods are different, the men are different, the culture is different and the attitudes are different.

The Indus attitude is one of brash impetuosity: coming to conclusions before having properly reasoned them out. This is a national characteristic which continues in us to this day.

The man of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana is reflective. The very discourse in the Gita is a discussion between a god and a warrior on why a war must be fought, what a just war is. The man has to be convinced with logic and reason to go into that war.

The Vedic man is boisterous and consumerist. The Gangetic man is frugal. You can see the distinction between the Indus person and the Indian person stretching far back into history, reflected in the epic myths themselves.

*If the Indus people can be so clearly defined based on geography, as you have attempted to, then why is it that a rejection of Indian-ness is still so integral to Pakistani nationalism and identity?*

The point at which this rejection of the Indian identity should have been most extreme in us was the decade immediately after Partition, a process marked by rioting, killing and mayhem. And yet, this was the decade-and-a-half which was a time of the most comfortable relations between India and Pakistan. That is the time when Indian movies used to play easily in Pakistan. Pakistani pehelwans and cricketers competed in India. We signed the Indus Water Treaty. The “un-Indian-ness” was not so necessary, and there was a great degree of comfort between the two countries.

The circumstances which changed all this came with the military take-over in 1958. Armies, particularly since the emergence of democratic systems, have had no political, moral or constitutional right to take over. They have to create or craft their legitimacy once in power. The only thing they can do is to base the tenuous legitimacy of their rule on perceived threats to national security. Now this implies two things.





With Benazir Bhutto in court, 1997

First, you have to convert the state (from whatever it is) into a national-security state, to justify military rule. In Pakistan, we had the conceptual basis for a social welfare state until the military take-over of 1958. After that, we began to move towards a national-security paradigm.

Second, when you start justifying yourself on a need for national security, then you have to also find an enemy.

*So you feel that this threat has been more manufactured than existential?*

Now it is established that we went to war in 1965. That was the impulsion of the national security establishment. Drumbeats of war began, with “Crush India” stickers on cars, patriotic songs like “Ay puttar hattaan tey naen vikde” enchanted and enthused us with great nationalistic fervour.

Whatever we won or lost in that war, one thing is clear: we did not gain the objective for which Ayub Khan had gone into war, i.e. to liberate Indian Occupied Kashmir. We simply stood where we stood. We managed to save Lahore. Without a doubt, the soldiers fought bravely, for instance Major Aziz Bhatti, an icon in military history. But our higher military command, including Field Marshal Ayub Khan, had started the war to achieve a certain objective. Did we fulfil it? The answer is “No”.

*Do you feel it is tragic that when one questions the mainstream narrative of Pakistani history, one’s loyalty to Pakistan is called into question, especially these days?*

Yes, it is tragic. The official narrative is narrow and exclusive. The hardcore, official narrative cannot be sold to a member of a minority religious group of Pakistanis. You start by saying that the state is governed by (or partial towards) a particular religion. The moment you start with that, you negate completely what Barrister Jinnah, the Quaid e Azam, had said in his address to the Constituent Assembly on the 11th of August, 1947. He had said that your religion has nothing to do with the business of the state.

And now, based on the constitution, your President has to be Muslim. The 18th amendment to the Constitution, for all its positive aspects in terms of devolution of power and provincial autonomy, has also added the stipulation that the Prime Minister must be Muslim. With this, you are excluding the children of lesser gods from aspiring to the highest offices.

In this sense our official narrative is narrow and exclusivist. You begin to view society not as a diverse, interwoven fabric, but as a single weave. Tensions within one weave are inevitable.

So you have a doctrine or narrative that Islam and Muslims will have a preferred status, contrary to the Quaid’s exhortations. People like to bring up various things he said, but his most important speech was that of the 11th of August, 1947. This was where he laid out the Grundnorm for Pakistan. Had the Quaid lived, and had he had the opportunity to pilot a constitution through the Constituent Assembly, his co-pilot and author would have been a Hindu – Jogendra Nath Mandal, the law minister. The Quaid’s foreign minister belonged to a community which we have declared non-Muslims since, the Ahmadis.

The Quaid had the concept of a pluralistic Pakistan: a state which will not go into the question of the religion of individuals. By adopting discriminatory laws and practices we have negated the idea that every citizen is a son or daughter of this state. If there was ever an “ideology of Pakistan”, it was laid out in the Quaid’s speech to the Constituent Assembly.

In 1971, the concocted “ideology of Pakistan” properly emerged as the mullahs (as represented by elements such as the Badr and Shams brigades) and the military came onto the same page. As a consequence of the 1971 war, we lost East Pakistan.

In the Zia-ul-Haq era, we became an essential piece of a jigsaw puzzle of global conflict. We became the piece of the puzzle where the Soviet Union met with a resistance which, while fierce and passionate, was well-oiled with Saudi and American assistance. It was here that the initial betrothal between mullahs and military became a proper union. The jihadis became an arm of the Western world and then of the Pakistani state.

*As a stalwart of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), how do you view the party’s historical role? How far did Bhutto’s discourse appeal to you?*

Bhutto took nationalism to a great height. He became the acclaimed hero emerging from the period after the 1965 war. He inspired the youth with his speeches, and I was among those influenced by him. There were multiple dimensions to his charisma. One of these was, of course, anti-Indian sentiment. Another was his anti-imperialism. And then there was, of course, his socialism.

We found this heady discourse very inspiring. We saw ourselves as leftists.

Even in my letter to Yahya Khan, refusing to join the civil service after having qualified for it, I wrote that I was not prepared to serve a military government. I wrote that I would not jeopardise my talent and integrity by serving such a regime.

Had Bhutto been a Jamaat-e-Islami nationalist, he would not have attracted me. But Bhutto was a combination of many things. His vision was of a more open society, where the disadvantaged, such as minorities and women, would see a change in their status. This is what we aspired to.

*Were you able to reconcile the anti-Indian sentiment with your pluralistic vision of history and the Indus identity?*

I was young at that time. I was nineteen years old during the 1965 war, so I was certainly gripped by the nationalistic fervour prevalent at that time. We went to forward defense positions as young people. We dug trenches and hailed the soldiers. It was a time which did enrich me in a way. As Wordsworth says,

“Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!”

We saw ourselves as defending our territory and heritage. Bhutto emerged as a man who was not prepared to buckle even at Tashkent.

*Did you ever feel the need to re-assess your youthful view of Bhutto and what he represented, perhaps in light of your later understanding of a more pluralistic heritage?*

Yes, but Bhutto was succeeded by another very charismatic person: his daughter. She truly embraced plurality and diversity. She was a much softer incarnation of Bhutto’s thought, more in tune with my own inclinations. My own PPP was formed more in opposition to the military-fundamentalist regime of Zia-ul-Haq.

Ziyad Faisal is based in Lahore. He may be reached at ziyadfaisal@gmail.com

- See more at: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/children-of-the-indus/#sthash.Y6QT4nwO.dpuf

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Tergon18

Yup, Pakistanis are fundamentally different than Indians being ethnically, linguistically, culturally and historically different. Long live the Indus Pakistan, home to one of the oldest civilizations and greatest cultures!

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Joe Shearer

Very briefly, Indian civilisation might be said, in one sense, to have been built around river systems. Starting from the centre, these would be:
a-

The Ganga-Yamuna rivers;
The Brahmaputra River;
The Mahanadi River;
The Godavari River; 
The Krishna River;
The Kaveri River;
The Tungabhadra River;
The Narmada River;
The Indus River.
A commonly recurring characteristic of these systems and the culture that grew around them is the gradual change and transformation that takes place between these, for instance, from the Ganga-Yamuna rivers to the Brahmaputra and its confluence with the Ganga-Yamuna. Taking any two proximate rivers will yield the same picture, of gradual shading off from the full-blown cultural manifestation at one point of the river to the equally full-blown culture at another point of a neighbouring river-centred cultural centre. The same thing happens between different points of the same river, too.

However, along with this differentiated and subtly shaded cultural diffusion, there is the common cultural binding that existed through the bulk of the three and a half thousand years of Indian history; the common themes of literature, poetry, philosophy, architecture, metaphysics and proto-scientific investigation. These cannot be wished away; they can be assigned, in the case of dance alone, to unique river systems; The Bharata Natyam is centred around the Kaveri; Kuchipudi around the Krishna and Godavari, and in their estuaries. Odissi is to be found on the Mahanadi, Manipuri in the hinterland of the Brahmaputra and Kathak on the Ganga-Yamuna. Three of the systems are not represented by dance, but they more than make up through their musical, culinary and architectural contributions; the rich and varied coast of Kerala is also linked to the Kaveri system through very many links and since the language itself split from Tamizh only three centuries ago, it is convenient to view that rich heritage as a cognate of the Kaveri culture.

Viewed in this light, the argument of Aitzaz Ahsan sahib can be seen in its proper perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Tergon18

This version of 'common' culture is just hogwash. By the same logic, all these so called Indian themes are actually universal. The Indus has been unique that before the arrival of Islam, the only time it was united with the Ganges Region and Dravidia was for 80 years under Buddhist Ashoka. Apart from that it has been totally seperated being inhabited/ruled by the Harappans, Rig Vedics, Achaemenids, Indo-Greeks, Gandharans, Indo-Scythians, White Huns, Kushan Empire, Hindu Shahis etc. And if we are going to be talking about it linguistically then Indo-Aryan languages arent spoken in South India, a bit after the Vindhyas Mountain Range.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tergon18 said:


> This version of 'common' culture is just hogwash. By the same logic, all these so called Indian themes are actually universal. The Indus has been unique that before the arrival of Islam, the only time it was united with the Ganges Region and Dravidia was for 80 years under Buddhist Ashoka. Apart from that it has been totally seperated being inhabited/ruled by the Harappans, Rig Vedics, Achaemenids, Indo-Greeks, Gandharans, Indo-Scythians, White Huns, Kushan Empire, Hindu Shahis etc. And if we are going to be talking about it linguistically then Indo-Aryan languages arent spoken in South India, a bit after the Vindhyas Mountain Range.



First, the so-called Indian themes - I took dance forms as an example - are hardly universal; no others resemble these. Other forms yield to the same logic; if we take Indian music, there is greater similarity between different regional variations of Indian music, than between them and other musical types. There are exceptions here; the dances and the music of the Tibeto-Burmese do not resemble any others in the sub-continent.

Second, the apparent segregation of the Indus from all the others is rubbish. The Harappans did not spread their culture within the Indus River system alone, they went outside, all the way to the upper reaches of the Ganga-Yamuna system and the lower reaches of the Narmada River system. So, too, the Rig Vedics; their original extent was smaller than the Indus River itself, and it is more and more clear that the OOI theory is not well founded, so the incursion of the language speakers from elsewhere is a given. And their expansion thereafter, or rather, the expansion of the language, shows clearly that their presence in the Indus River system was an episode.

The Achaemenids are an exception again, as they had the Indus more or less as a boundary. Others mentioned by both of us are not exceptions.

The Indo-Greeks ruled originally from Balkh, which by no stretch of the imagination is based on the Indus River; at best, it can be said that part of the Indus River basin was under these kingdoms, as were parts of eastern Punjab, the Gangetic Doab and Rajasthan and Gujarat. You might care to remember that the divided small portion of the original kingdom, the part that was Indo-Greek or Graeco-Indian, ruled from the upper reaches of the hill country that debouched from the Hindu Kush, and went on to Mathura. Trying to deny the eastern bits and putting away any reference other than to the present-day territories of Pakistan only forces us to contemplate Aitzaz Ahsun's original reason for creating the Indus Man - his otherwise inability to explain the need for Pakistan to the British lady who stripped away his pretensions.

I can go on for quite some time.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Piper

Interesting article if flawed. Nation states are formed due to variety of reasons and geographical uniformity though one of them is not the only one. I can give numerous examples from every corner of the globe evidencing that the geographical positioning such as river basins, mountain ranges etc are often moot but the well read people already know that.

Other important flaw in the article that Pakistan was made by it's proponents on the basis of an explicit principle so the article is merely an attempt to put a more palatable spin of geographical uniformity on what is fundamentally a closed society. How does it matter that the Indus and Gangatic civilizations are different when the reasons for the division was religion and not geography? Had that been the case then there was no need for one of the biggest cross migrations in human histories. I think OP acknowledges this and Kudos to him but retrospective revisionism is a detested scholarly act.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

Piper said:


> Interesting article if flawed. Nation states are formed due to variety of reasons and geographical uniformity though one of them is not the only one. I can give numerous examples from every corner of the globe evidencing that the geographical positioning such as river basins, mountain ranges etc are often moot but the well read people already know that.
> 
> Other important flaw in the article that Pakistan was made by it's proponents on the basis of an explicit principle so the article is merely an attempt to put a more palatable spin of geographical uniformity on what is fundamentally a closed society. How does it matter that the Indus and Gangatic civilizations are different when the reasons for the division was religion and not geography? Had that been the case then there was no need for one of the biggest cross migrations in human histories. I think OP recognized acknowledges this and Kudos to him but retrospective revisionism is a detested scholarly act.



Blunt but true. This is a post-1971 re-working of their raison d'etre. The sad part is that whatever the original reasons for getting together, today they are a working nation because they chose to stick together and be a working nation. When Pakistan began, they got the frontier province only by a percentage or so more than the rejection alternative (I think the plebiscite went 51 to 49 for Pakistan, but with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Redshirts abstaining). Today, the Pashtun component is arguably one of their most loyal components, and punches way above its weight in public affairs.

Retrospective revisionism is such a pain in the arse. I used to get gloomy satisfaction from thinking that we were not in that unhappy crowd, till it dawned on me that we were getting five years of the damn' thing ourselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Piper

Joe Shearer said:


> Blunt but true. This is a post-1971 re-working of their raison d'etre. The sad part is that whatever the original reasons for getting together, today they are a working nation because they chose to stick together and be a working nation. When Pakistan began, they got the frontier province only by a percentage or so more than the rejection alternative (I think the plebiscite went 51 to 49 for Pakistan, but with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Redshirts abstaining). Today, the Pashtun component is arguably one of their most loyal components, and punches way above its weight in public affairs.
> 
> Retrospective revisionism is such a pain in the arse. I used to get gloomy satisfaction from thinking that we were not in that unhappy crowd, till it dawned on me that we were getting five years of the damn' thing ourselves.



Both India and Pakistan are ancient societies and inheritors of proud traditions and culture with warts and all. It is important to preserve this heritage instead of morphing and revising records to suit the current political dispositions. If it were me, I wouldn't marvel at "more of me" in past. I would rather gaze back on strange and wondrous people who walked the land before us and learn from their mistakes and accomplishments. 

But then we Humans are a vain species so much so that we even created God in our image! so it is not altogether surprising that we want to paint the past in the hues of the present. This desperate need for self validation reeks of lack of self esteem.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tergon18

Joe Shearer said:


> First, the so-called Indian themes - I took dance forms as an example - are hardly universal; no others resemble these. Other forms yield to the same logic; if we take Indian music, there is greater similarity between different regional variations of Indian music, than between them and other musical types. There are exceptions here; the dances and the music of the Tibeto-Burmese do not resemble any others in the sub-continent.
> 
> Second, the apparent segregation of the Indus from all the others is rubbish. The Harappans did not spread their culture within the Indus River system alone, they went outside, all the way to the upper reaches of the Ganga-Yamuna system and the lower reaches of the Narmada River system. So, too, the Rig Vedics; their original extent was smaller than the Indus River itself, and it is more and more clear that the OOI theory is not well founded, so the incursion of the language speakers from elsewhere is a given. And their expansion thereafter, or rather, the expansion of the language, shows clearly that their presence in the Indus River system was an episode.
> 
> The Achaemenids are an exception again, as they had the Indus more or less as a boundary. Others mentioned by both of us are not exceptions.
> 
> The Indo-Greeks ruled originally from Balkh, which by no stretch of the imagination is based on the Indus River; at best, it can be said that part of the Indus River basin was under these kingdoms, as were parts of eastern Punjab, the Gangetic Doab and Rajasthan and Gujarat. You might care to remember that the divided small portion of the original kingdom, the part that was Indo-Greek or Graeco-Indian, ruled from the upper reaches of the hill country that debouched from the Hindu Kush, and went on to Mathura. Trying to deny the eastern bits and putting away any reference other than to the present-day territories of Pakistan only forces us to contemplate Aitzaz Ahsun's original reason for creating the Indus Man - his otherwise inability to explain the need for Pakistan to the British lady who stripped away his pretensions.
> 
> I can go on for quite some time.



First of all the Kathak dance system isnt performed in Punjab and hasnt been part of the Indus culture. It mostly received patronage from the Mughals and was based in Uttar Pradesh or Rajasthan. Why dont you enlighten us as to what the 'Indus' dance form is and exactly how it is related to those of the Ganges and Dravidia (South of the Vindhyas) regions?

The main sites of the Indus Valley Civilization, including Mehrgarh (Balochistan) are located in the Indus Valley (hence its name) at Mohenjodaro, Sindh and Harappa, Punjab. Having the North-Westernmost parts of India in it doesnt really change anything. More than 80% of it was based in the Indus Region (Pakistan). Anyway that also excludes the entirety of North, Central, South and North-Eastern India.
The Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans are indeed theorised to have come from Bactria however in the time when the actual Rig Veda was formed (around 1500 BC) it was entirely formed in the Indus (Punjab). Also, it is devoid of much caste references and takes a monotheistic side. Later the center of Hinduism shifts to the Ganges Region, as the Indo-Aryans migrate there, with Mahabharata and Ramayana being formed there.

The Indo-Greek's capital under Menander was Sakala (Sialkot) and regional capitals such as Taxila and Charsadda existed. Alexander's campaign in 'India' took place entirely in the Indus from his Pyrrhic victory at the Hydaspes (Jhelum) against Raja Pauros too getting almost mortally wounded at the Battle of Multan. Again, having the very North-Westernmost parts of modern day India does not change anything. Look at the map:





Almost the entirety of modern-day Punjab, beyond the Indus, was under the Achaemenid so while it indeed could be called a frontier region, it was by no means a boundary.






Not to mention the Parthians (Pahlavas) too ruled the entirety of the Indus Region, almost mimicking the boundaries of modern day Pakistan, with almost no modern day Indian territory in it.






Even Adi Shankara, an 8th century Hindu saint, marked the four points (mathas) of India he added Dwarka, Gujarat as the westernmost point, Uttarakhand as the northernmost, somewhere in Bengal as the easternmost and a city in Tamil Nadu as the southernmost. Again, none of these territories are in present day Pakistan


Coming to linguistics, only 3-4% of Indians 
speak North-Western Indo-Aryan languages (Sindhi, Punjabi and Dogri) while they are spoken by a majority of Pakistanis. Dardic languages arent spoken in India and neither are Iranian (Pashto and Balochi) languages spoken. Urdu is a mix between Central Indo-Aryan and Iranian and anyway its the native tongue of only 6% of Pakistanis. A minority of Indians speak Hindi (which all linguists classify as being seperate to Urdu) as a first language. Infact, in South India many dont even understand it, let alone speak it.

Please go Google the Harappa DNA Project spreadsheet, a genealogical study by an independent American genetic institute. I can't post the link since it's not allowed (dont know why). It shows the different genetics of Pakistanis and Indians. Pakistanis (Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs) have much lower South Indian component and a majority Baloch (which means Gedrosian Iranic, nothing to do with actual Baloch ancestry) component, while Indians (UPites, Bengalis, Biharis, Gujratis, Rajasthanis, Tamil, Malayalis etc.) have higher South Indian component and lower Baloch/Gedrosian Iranic component.

All this goes on to show that we are ethnically, linguistically, historically and culturally two different people.

Reactions: Like Like:
16


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Piper said:


> How does it matter that the Indus and Gangatic civilizations are different when the* reasons* for the* division *was religion and not geography?


And what was the *reasons* for the *unity* in the first place? It was not geography. Here is clue *below*.






@Tergon18 Here is the link > http://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/harappaworld-admixture/

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Tergon18

Kaptaan said:


> And what was the *reasons* for the *unity* in the first place? It was not geography. Here is clue *below*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Tergon18



Not to mention the fact that most of India has been under British rule for either 200 years or 150 years but Pakistan has only been under the British for 100 years (98 to be exact), when the British conquered the Indus territories at the end of the 1840s (which were again seperate from modern day India). The Talpurs of Sindh, Sukerchakia Jatts of Punjab, Abbasis of Bahawalpur, Khans of Kalat etc. were all seperate from the Indian territories. Not to mention that half of these territories were actually independent princely states. 

Oh, and I also found a map of the time around when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded the Indus. Guess what? The Indus territories: independent again.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## khanz

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The article is more conjecture and obscure ramblings that have been posted before on PDF that fails to address/answer the ground realities. Such as why Pakistanis do not physically resemble indians and in fact resemble Iranians and Southern Turks more and to a lesser extent Arabs aswell? Why we think differently and why our way of life is completely different to that of indian people?
> 
> It seems the author is another ignorant Pakistani liberal who is trying to find a non-existent link between Pakistan and india. By the same token one could write an article claiming that Pakistan has a link to Puerto Rico. Both Pakistanis and Puerto Ricans are a beautiful race of people with feirce masculine domineering Alpha males. Therefore Puerto Ricans and Pakistanis must be related.
> 
> Both links are ridiculous and retarded. But can be justified in a morbid way. Another Pakistan liberal EPIC FAIL.



ok i'm not siding with the indians or saying everything you said was wrong but seriously how can you believe there is non-existent link when it' probably the no 1 country have common ties with what about mohajirs ? what about the shared geographical link,language ,history,foods and culture and common ethnic groups on both sides of the border(punjabis,sindhis,kashmiris,gujaratis etc) - many pakistanis I know still has some relatives in india and vice versa with indian muslims hell musharraf was born in india and manmohan singh was born in pakistan.
I know there is animosity between us and i'm not saying we need to unite or anything but claiming pakistan and india have no link or have never had one is just plain denial.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tergon18

khanz said:


> ok i'm not siding with the indians or saying everything you said was wrong but seriously how can you believe there is non-existent link when it' probably the no 1 country have common ties with what about mohajirs ? what about the shared geographical link,language ,history,foods and culture and common ethnic groups on both sides of the border(punjabis,sindhis,kashmiris,gujaratis etc) - many pakistanis I know still has some relatives in india and vice versa with indian muslims hell musharraf was born in india and manmohan singh was born in pakistan.
> I know there is animosity between us and i'm not saying we need to unite or anything but claiming pakistan and india have no link or have never had one is just plain denial.



No one is saying that we have zero links to them. Of course we have links to them and share* some* similarities. However, overall the fact that we are *ethnically, linguistically, culturally and historically* different holds true. About linguistics, in excruciating detail, I have already replied above. This is supported by linguistics, genealogical tests and basic history. Mohajirs (from Uttar Pradesh/Deccan etc.) form only 6% of Pakistanis and Punjabis form only 2% of Indians. Sindhi refugees dont even form 0.5% of Indians. Gujaratis Mohajirs might end up forming 0.1% of Pakistanis, realistically. Overall the fact stands true that we are different.



PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The article is more conjecture and obscure ramblings that have been posted before on PDF that fails to address/answer the ground realities. Such as why Pakistanis do not physically resemble indians and in fact resemble Iranians and Southern Turks more and to a lesser extent Arabs aswell? Why we think differently and why our way of life is completely different to that of indian people?
> 
> It seems the author is another ignorant Pakistani liberal who is trying to find a non-existent link between Pakistan and india. By the same token one could write an article claiming that Pakistan has a link to Puerto Rico. Both Pakistanis and Puerto Ricans are a beautiful race of people with feirce masculine domineering Alpha males. Therefore Puerto Ricans and Pakistanis must be related.
> 
> Both links are ridiculous and retarded. But can be justified in a morbid way. Another Pakistan liberal EPIC FAIL.



Who are you referring to? Aitzaz Ahsan? He actually has stated that the Indus Region (Pakistan) has historically had its own culture, languages, civilizations etc. independent of the Ganges Region and Dravidia (India). He isnt trying to 'link' Pakistan with India, as you say. What did you expect him to do? Post genealogical studies? He was writing from a purely historical perspective.

Anyway about the genealogical part, Kaptaan has already posted the link to the Harappa DNA Project, where Pakistanis (Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs) have been shown to have majority Gedrosian Iranic (marked by Baloch component) blood and a minority South Indian component while Indians (Biharis, Bengalees, Marathis, Gujaratis and Tamils) have been shown to have majority South Indian blood (marked by ASI component) and a minority Gedrosian Iranic one. This should explain the physical differences and any resemblance to Iranians or Southern Turks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

Bharat Muslim said:


> @Kaptaan @Tergon18
> 
> What surprises me is that this article has not been posted on PDF before. At least I didn't find it. That's why I have decided to tag people in this thread.
> 
> @Max
> 
> @Maira La @CHARGER
> 
> @PaklovesTurkiye
> 
> @A-Team
> 
> @Azad-Kashmiri @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Pakistani Exile @PAKISTANFOREVER
> 
> @salarsikander @Donatello @Horus @somebozo
> 
> 
> @WebMaster
> 
> @AgNoStiC MuSliM
> 
> @ghazi52
> 
> @Zibago @Kashmiri Pandit
> 
> @graphican @Devil Soul @Oscar @Windjammer @MM_Haider
> 
> @Rashid Mahmood
> 
> @barbarosa @Barbaros68 @Barbaros @AZADPAKISTAN2009



I m descendant of Mohajir, speaking from Karachi. (My grandfather was born in Agra, India. He migrated to Pakistan from India)


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Ok. Was Aitzaz Ahsan first person to suggest that Indus river defines Pakistani nation? Did anybody else (Pakistani or foreigner) do that before? If yes, tell more about him/her and post links.

@Kaptaan @WAJsal @Maira La @CHARGER @Tergon18 @Max @PaklovesTurkiye @A-Team @Azad-Kashmiri @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Pakistani Exile @PAKISTANFOREVER @salarsikander @Donatello @Horus @somebozo @WebMaster @AgNoStiC MuSliM @ghazi52 @Zibago @Kashmiri Pandit @graphican @Devil Soul @Oscar @Slav Defence @Windjammer @MM_Haider @Rashid Mahmood @barbarosa @Barbaros68 @Barbaros @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Max @Tripoli

@Rana of Heryana @Sinnerman108 @DESERT FIGHTER @Sulman Badshah @Icarus @All-Green @Tipu7 @Fawad Masīd @HRK

@A1Kaid @Armstrong @Arsalan

@Hasnat Sheikh


----------



## salarsikander

Bharat Muslim said:


> Ok. Was Aitzaz Ahsan first person to suggest that Indus river defines Pakistani nation? Did anybody else (Pakistani or foreigner) do that before? If yes, tell more about him/her and post links.
> 
> @Kaptaan @WAJsal @Maira La @CHARGER @Tergon18 @Max @PaklovesTurkiye @A-Team @Azad-Kashmiri @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Pakistani Exile @PAKISTANFOREVER @salarsikander @Donatello @Horus @somebozo @WebMaster @AgNoStiC MuSliM @ghazi52 @Zibago @Kashmiri Pandit @graphican @Devil Soul @Oscar @Slav Defence @Windjammer @MM_Haider @Rashid Mahmood @barbarosa @Barbaros68 @Barbaros @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Max @Tripoli
> 
> @Rana of Heryana @Sinnerman108 @DESERT FIGHTER @Sulman Badshah @Icarus @All-Green @Tipu7 @Fawad Masīd @HRK
> 
> @A1Kaid @Armstrong @Arsalan
> 
> @Hasnat Sheikh


Stop tagging me in useless posts, what difference does it make?


----------



## Max

Bharat Muslim said:


> Ok. Was Aitzaz Ahsan first person to suggest that Indus river defines Pakistani nation? Did anybody else (Pakistani or foreigner) do that before? If yes, tell more about him/her and post links.
> 
> @Kaptaan @WAJsal @Maira La @CHARGER @Tergon18 @Max @PaklovesTurkiye @A-Team @Azad-Kashmiri @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Pakistani Exile @PAKISTANFOREVER @salarsikander @Donatello @Horus @somebozo @WebMaster @AgNoStiC MuSliM @ghazi52 @Zibago @Kashmiri Pandit @graphican @Devil Soul @Oscar @Slav Defence @Windjammer @MM_Haider @Rashid Mahmood @barbarosa @Barbaros68 @Barbaros @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Max @Tripoli
> 
> @Rana of Heryana @Sinnerman108 @DESERT FIGHTER @Sulman Badshah @Icarus @All-Green @Tipu7 @Fawad Masīd @HRK
> 
> @A1Kaid @Armstrong @Arsalan
> 
> @Hasnat Sheikh



what i as Pakistani believe is that indus is our heritage and history, not ideology which define Pakistan, Islam, islamic social walfare state is our ideology but if someone does not believe in this then he is free to think like Aitzaz, Aitzaz answered and raped those bhangis who question our existence without 2 nation theory, and say we are part of their existence, without them we are nothing, we are same as telgue, marathi bengali, asamese, biharis etc who say Indus belong to ganga.. so you should look this in context the article was wrote, he answered all these lies.. Indus region and its achievements in history, culture belong to its people not to some gangalanders.. Indus does not need ganga for existence as Indus region existed alone in almost all of its history.. Gangalanders although need Indus to claim our civilization as theirs bcoz they dont have their own, ganga walas were follower of my ancestors and will always remain follower.. Just look at how gangalander are embracing islam sufism after people of indus embrace it, which is growing fastest in india.. Its perfect example of paidaishi followers..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

khanz said:


> ok i'm not siding with the indians or saying everything you said was wrong but seriously how can you believe there is non-existent link when it' probably the no 1 country have common ties with what about mohajirs ? what about the shared geographical link,language ,history,foods and culture and common ethnic groups on both sides of the border(punjabis,sindhis,kashmiris,gujaratis etc) - many pakistanis I know still has some relatives in india and vice versa with indian muslims hell musharraf was born in india and manmohan singh was born in pakistan.
> I know there is animosity between us and i'm not saying we need to unite or anything but claiming pakistan and india have no link or have never had one is just plain denial.




Complete false logic which can be quite dangerous. I live in London, the most cosmopolitan and multiracial city in the world and I know with 100% certainty that what you say is completely wrong. I have seen 1000s of Pakistanis and Indians in my life to know how really different we are. If we were not then Pakistan would never have been formed. Indian men, women and children look completely different to Pakistani men, women and children. I have interacted with many Indians all my life and not on one occasion did I see or feel that we had anything in common with them. They seemed as alien to Pakistani people as sub-Saharan Africans are. The only Indians that remotely resemble Pakistanis are Indian Punjabis but they make no more than 4% of Indians so 96% of Indians have nothing in common with 100% of Pakistanis. 

The only people I ever felt warmth to and that had any sort of commonality with Pakistanis are practicing Middle Eastern Muslims. Pakistan culture is a derivative of Islamic culture and ethos whereas Indian culture is derived from hinduism. 

As Kaaptan and others on pdf have explained the genetic differences between the Pakistanis and the Indian race which explains the obvious physical differences between the 2 aswell, I will not repeat it here again.

Your notion that we are the same as Indians is very dangerous. It's the same propaganda which made I'll informed Pakistanis believe that the bengalis were the same as us. And we all know how that ended up.



Bharat Muslim said:


> Ok. Was Aitzaz Ahsan first person to suggest that Indus river defines Pakistani nation? Did anybody else (Pakistani or foreigner) do that before? If yes, tell more about him/her and post links.
> 
> @Kaptaan @WAJsal @Maira La @CHARGER @Tergon18 @Max @PaklovesTurkiye @A-Team @Azad-Kashmiri @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Pakistani Exile @PAKISTANFOREVER @salarsikander @Donatello @Horus @somebozo @WebMaster @AgNoStiC MuSliM @ghazi52 @Zibago @Kashmiri Pandit @graphican @Devil Soul @Oscar @Slav Defence @Windjammer @MM_Haider @Rashid Mahmood @barbarosa @Barbaros68 @Barbaros @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Max @Tripoli
> 
> @Rana of Heryana @Sinnerman108 @DESERT FIGHTER @Sulman Badshah @Icarus @All-Green @Tipu7 @Fawad Masīd @HRK
> 
> @A1Kaid @Armstrong @Arsalan
> 
> @Hasnat Sheikh




Can you stop tagging me to your meaningless indian mumbo jumbo propaganda bs. Don't really want to know you or your bs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Complete false logic which can be quite dangerous. I live in London, the most cosmopolitan and multiracial city in the world and I know with 100% certainty that what you say is completely wrong. I have seen 1000s of Pakistanis and Indians in my life to know how really different we are. If we were not then Pakistan would never have been formed. Indian men, women and children look completely different to Pakistani men, women and children. I have interacted with many Indians all my life and not on one occasion did I see or feel that we had anything in common with them. They seemed as alien to Pakistani people as sub-Saharan Africans are. The only Indians that remotely resemble Pakistanis are Indian Punjabis but they make no more than 4% of Indians so 96% of Indians have nothing in common with 100% of Pakistanis.
> 
> The only people I ever felt warmth to and that had any sort of commonality with Pakistanis are practicing Middle Eastern Muslims. Pakistan culture is a derivative of Islamic culture and ethos whereas Indian culture is derived from hinduism.
> 
> As Kaaptan and others on pdf have explained the genetic differences between the Pakistanis and the Indian race which explains the obvious physical differences between the 2 aswell, I will not repeat it here again.
> 
> Your notion that we are the same as Indians is very dangerous. It's the same propaganda which made I'll informed Pakistanis believe that the bengalis were the same as us. And we all know how that ended up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you stop tagging me to your meaningless indian mumbo jumbo propaganda bs. Don't really want to know you or your bs.



Man, have you even read the article? What Aitzaz Ahsan and OP are saying is that the Indus Region (Pakistan) has historically been seperate and distinct from India (the Ganges and Dravidia), with its own culture, languages and ethnicities. They are actually agreeing with you. Dont know why you are so uptight about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Max said:


> what i as Pakistani believe is that indus is our heritage and history, not ideology which define Pakistan, Islam, islamic social walfare state is our ideology but if someone does not believe in this then he is free to think like Aitzaz, Aitzaz answered and raped those bhangis who question our existence without 2 nation theory, and say we are part of their existence, without them we are nothing, we are same as telgue, marathi bengali, asamese, biharis etc who say Indus belong to ganga.. so you should look this in context the article was wrote, he answered all these lies.. Indus region and its achievements in history, culture belong to its people not to some gangalanders.. Indus does not need ganga for existence as Indus region existed alone in almost all of its history.. Gangalanders although need Indus to claim our civilization as theirs bcoz they dont have their own, ganga walas were follower of my ancestors and will always remain follower.. Just look at how gangalander are embracing islam sufism after people of indus embrace it, which is growing fastest in india.. Its perfect example of paidaishi followers..




Bro, the author of the OP is a supporter of PPP and the Bhuttos/zardaris. That tells you all you need to know about the his low value, low honest and integrity.



Tergon18 said:


> Man, have you even read the article? What Aitzaz Ahsan and OP are saying is that the Indus Region (Pakistan) has historically been seperate and distinct from India (the Ganges and Dravidia), with its own culture, languages and ethnicities. They are actually agreeing with you. Dont know why you are so uptight about it.




LOL........sorry I am getting carried away with emotion.....thanks for correcting me. Respect to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> Man, have you even read the article? What Aitzaz Ahsan and OP are saying is that the Indus Region (Pakistan) has historically been seperate and distinct from India (the Ganges and Dravidia), with its own culture, languages and ethnicities. They are actually agreeing with you. Dont know why you are so uptight about it.


I am not saying anything regarding this. I have merely copy-pasted the article.

Since Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were parts of Punjab, were they also children of Indus?


----------



## Winchester

Can anyone here post a link to Aitizaz Ahsan's book

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Bharat Muslim said:


> I am not saying anything regarding this. I have merely copy-pasted the article.
> 
> Since Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were parts of Punjab, were they also children of Indus?



Part of *British Punjab, *you mean. They shouldnt have been amalgamated with Punjab in the first place since they speak totally different languages and have a different culture. Haryana? Not modern day Haryana since they speak a Central Indo-Aryan language and none of the five rivers of Punjab pass through it. However they were the border of the Indus Valley Civilization, so in a roundabout way they could be. About Himachal, its unlikely that it was part of the Indus Valley Civilization or the Rig Vedic Indo-Aryan period due to the geography and lack of sites there. Also Himachalis form only 0.5% of India's population so it should'nt matter anyway.



Max said:


> what i as Pakistani believe is that indus is our heritage and history, not ideology which define Pakistan, Islam, islamic social walfare state is our ideology but if someone does not believe in this then he is free to think like Aitzaz, Aitzaz answered and raped those bhangis who question our existence without 2 nation theory, and say we are part of their existence, without them we are nothing, we are same as telgue, marathi bengali, asamese, biharis etc who say Indus belong to ganga.. so you should look this in context the article was wrote, he answered all these lies.. Indus region and its achievements in history, culture belong to its people not to some gangalanders.. Indus does not need ganga for existence as Indus region existed alone in almost all of its history.. Gangalanders although need Indus to claim our civilization as theirs bcoz they dont have their own, ganga walas were follower of my ancestors and will always remain follower.. Just look at how gangalander are embracing islam sufism after people of indus embrace it, which is growing fastest in india.. Its perfect example of paidaishi followers..



Exactly. And not to mention the fact that one of the oldest and greatest civilizations of antiquity, the Indus Valley Civilization, was all in our homeland, Pakistan. We are the rightful successors to this great civilization.
Hinduism, too is evolved from the original Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans who formed the Rig Veda (1500 BC) entirely in modern day Pakistan at the Indus. It had heavy similarities to the parallel Avestan of Iran, another great Indo-Iranian text. This was still at a time when the Ganga-walas and Dravida-walas were still uncivillized and had no culture. It was very much monotheistic as proven by this Rig Vedic verse:

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.To what is One, sages give many a title — they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."

Later, Hinduism moved on to the Ganges Region and Dravidia and became heavily influenced by Dravidian customs, adding many gods and losing its originality with texts such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana being formed there.

Many Indians like to claim that they 'defeated' Alexander and take a lot of, albeit misguided, pride in it. They all become totally flabbergasted when told that Alexander never actually stepped foot in India. It was only the spirit of the great heroes of the Indus such as Raja Porus that forced the Macedonian who had brought Greece, Babylonia, Egypt and Persia to their knees, to finally be stopped and turned away. It was our ancestors who fought off Alexander and almost mortally wounded him at the Battle of Multan.

This is our legacy. The legacy of our homeland that the Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans called Aryavarta, the Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The article is more conjecture and obscure ramblings that have been posted before on PDF that fails to address/answer the ground realities. Such as why Pakistanis do not physically resemble indians and in fact resemble Iranians and Southern Turks more and to a lesser extent Arabs aswell? Why we think differently and why our way of life is completely different to that of indian people?
> 
> It seems the author is another ignorant Pakistani liberal who is trying to find a non-existent link between Pakistan and india. By the same token one could write an article claiming that Pakistan has a link to Puerto Rico. Both Pakistanis and Puerto Ricans are a beautiful race of people with feirce masculine domineering Alpha males. Therefore Puerto Ricans and Pakistanis must be related.
> 
> Both links are ridiculous and retarded. But can be justified in a morbid way. Another Pakistan liberal EPIC FAIL.


What is your ethnicity ? India and Pakistan is home of people belong to different ethnicities, culture and languages so it will be naive to say that all Indians belong to one ethnic group and all Pakistani are same. Different castes and ethnicities of Pakistan has relevance to India where they have people belong to same ethnic/caste and there is difference of religion which mold culture to some extent . Similarly certain ethnic groups(pashtun, baloch etc) in Pakistan might have relevance with Iran and Afghanistan where same ethnic group exit so please broad your mind

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> What is your ethnicity ? India and Pakistan is home of people belong to different ethnicities, culture and languages so it will be naive to say that all Indians belong to one ethnic group and all Pakistani are same. Different castes and ethnicities of Pakistan has relevance to India where they have people belong to same ethnic/caste and there is difference of religion which mold culture to some extent . Similarly certain ethnic groups(pashtun, baloch etc) in Pakistan might have relevance with Iran and Afghanistan where same ethnic group exit so please broad your mind



The vast majority of the different ethnic and racial groups that make up the Indian nation are different to those that make up the Pakistani nation. We are different to them and always will be. If we weren't then Pakistan would not exist. This is the reality that many have great difficulty in accepting. I don't however.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The vast majority of the different ethnic and racial groups that make up the Indian nation are different to those that make up the Pakistani nation. We are different to them and always will be. If we weren't then Pakistan would not exist. This is the reality that many have great difficulty in accepting. I don't however.


Different in what sense? You dont eat roti, daal subzi? Pakistani punjabi or Sindhi dont understand the language of Indian Punjabi and sindhi? How is Pakistani rajput, gujjar, jats is different than Indian jats or rajput beside difference in religion?You have 5 Pakistani rajputs who won nishan haider fighting for Pakistan. My point was that its stupid to say that all Pakistani belong to one group and all Indian are same and they dont differ to each others. Differences exist within one country. Pakistani people might be same as far as religion is concern but are different when it come to ethnic, culture, food habit, language etc so again you have not told me about your ethnicity ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Different in what sense? You dont eat roti, daal subzi? Pakistani punjabi or Sindhi dont understand the language of Indian Punjabi and sindhi? How is Pakistani rajput, gujjar, jats is different than Indian jats or rajput beside difference in religion?You have 5 Pakistani rajputs who won nishan haider fighting for Pakistan. My point was that its stupid to say that all Pakistani belong to one group and all Indian are same and they dont differ to each others. Differences exist within one country. Pakistani people might be same as far as religion is concern but are different when it come to ethnic, culture, food habit, language etc so again you have not told me about your ethnicity ?




The Indian Punjabis you mentioned above only represent less than 4% of India. And they have limited similarities to Pakistanis. So by that definition, at least 96% of Indians have nothing in common whatsoever with 100% of Pakistanis. The Punjabi connection is very misleading. Again by that definition Pakistanis are Iranians because we share the province of Balochistan together. Think we'll agree to disagree.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Different in what sense? You dont eat roti, daal subzi? Pakistani punjabi or Sindhi dont understand the language of Indian Punjabi and sindhi? How is Pakistani rajput, gujjar, jats is different than Indian jats or rajput beside difference in religion?You have 5 Pakistani rajputs who won nishan haider fighting for Pakistan. My point was that its stupid to say that all Pakistani belong to one group and all Indian are same and they dont differ to each others. Differences exist within one country. Pakistani people might be same as far as religion is concern but are different when it come to ethnic, culture, food habit, language etc so again you have not told me about your ethnicity ?



Again, as I have previously said no one is denying links to India or saying that we are totally, completely, absolutely different (as in Chinese and European form of different). If you are going to talk about similarities then the French and the Italians are similar as well as are the English and the Germans. However the fact remains that we are* ethnically, linguistically, culturally and historically* different. 

Daal, roti, sabzi etc. and their variations are eaten in Iran all across the Middle East upto Turkey and even the Balkans. Punjabis form only *2%* of Indians while Sindhis refugees from Pakistan might end up realistically forming *0.3%* of Indians. Pakistan Rajputs, Gujjars and Jatts etc. are genealogically different to their Indian counterparts. Please refer to the link of the Harappa DNA Project above which Kaptaan has posted. This should lay to rest all of your queries.



PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The Indian Punjabis you mentioned above only represent less than 4% of India. And they have limited similarities to Pakistanis. So by that definition, at least 96% of Indians have nothing in common whatsoever with 100% of Pakistanis. The Punjabi connection is very misleading. Again by that definition Pakistanis are Iranians because we share the province of Balochistan together. Think we'll agree to disagree.



Your comment above was really misleading, and I think you misread the article as 'Children of India' rather than the 'Indus'. Yaar, this is leading people to miss the whole point of the article.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The Indian Punjabis you mentioned above only represent less than 4% of India. And they have limited similarities to Pakistanis. So by that definition, at least 96% of Indians have nothing in common whatsoever with 100% of Pakistanis. The Punjabi connection is very misleading. Again by that definition Pakistanis are Iranians because we share the province of Balochistan together. Think we'll agree to disagree.


Indian Punjabi Population : 44,000,000
Pakistani Punjabi population: 93,500,000

Pakistani Sindhi Population : 35,700,000
Indian Sindhi population: 3,810,000

Indian kashmiri population: 12,541,302
Pakistani kashmiri population: 2,580,000 and Gilgit-Baltistan is 870,347

I am not even counting those Urdu speaking muhajirs who migrated from india and still has some relatives in there.

Are Pakistani pashtun any different to afghan pashtuns when have same tribes exist in boht countries Pakistan and Afghanistan? You are confusing nationality with ethnic groups which are two different identity. I am saying that Pakistan and India both host different ethnic groups so differences vary from one ethnic group to others rather than one country to others. Different ethnicities of Pakistan got united under the banner of Islam to create this country we call Pakistan..



Tergon18 said:


> Pakistan Rajputs, Gujjars and Jatts etc. are genealogically different to their Indian counterparts.


What are differences beside religion?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Indian Punjabi Population : 44,000,000
> Pakistani Punjabi population: 93,500,000
> 
> Pakistani Sindhi Population : 35,700,000
> Indian Sindhi population: 3,810,000
> 
> Indian kashmiri population: 12,541,302
> Pakistani kashmiri population: 2,580,000 and Gilgit-Baltistan is 870,347
> 
> I am not even counting those Urdu speaking muhajirs who migrated from india and still has some relatives in there.
> 
> Are Pakistani pashtun any different to afghan pashtuns when have same tribes exist in boht countries Pakistan and Afghanistan? You are confusing nationality with ethnic groups which are two different identity. I am saying that Pakistan and India both host different ethnic groups so differences vary from one ethnic group to others rather than one country to others. Different ethnicities of Pakistan got united under the banner of Islam to create this country we call Pakistan..
> 
> 
> What are differences beside religion?



That still doesnt change the fact that Punjabis form only *2%* of Indians and Sindhis form only *0.3%* (realistic estimate) of Indians. Please do count Mohajirs as well since they form only 6% of Pakistanis. It doesnt change anything. About Pashtuns, there are more Pashtuns in Pakistan than almost the entire population of Afghanistan (which includes not only Pashtuns but Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks etc.). Afghan Pashtuns are known to speak Dari as well and have many Afghan specific tribes such as Karzai, Ghilzai and Barakzai etc.

I am not denying that we totally seperate. You havent read my comment above, I guess. I agree that we have different ethnicities all settled on the Indus, part of its history and culture and therefore are one nation. There are way more Punjabis in Pakistan than India and way more Pashtuns in Pakistan than Afghanistan, so that shouldnt matter at all. Such similarities are only natural to be found in neighbouring countries. Infact, it would be weird if we didnt have any similarities at all, since that is not how the world works. They are found between the French and Italian, Germans and English, Chinese and Japanese as well.

As for the differences, I stated that they are *genealogically* different, but you missed that again. The fact that we are *ethnically* (proved by the Harappa DNA Project, link given above by Kaptaan), *linguistically *(explained in detail by me in an earlier comment, refer to it), *culturally *(Punjabi/Pashtun/Sindhi/Baloch culture vs Bihari/Bengalee/Tamil/Marathi culture) and, which was the entire point of the article, *historically* (united for only 80 years under Buddhist Ashoka and later 500 or so under foreign Mughal/Turkic rule and 98 under British - different civilizations and kingdoms, already explained in excruciating detail in earlier, comments please read them) different than Indians still holds.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Tergon18 said:


> That still doesnt change the fact that Punjabis form only *2%* of Indians and Sindhis form only *0.3%* (realistic estimate) of Indians. Please do count Mohajirs as well since they form only 6% of Pakistanis. It doesnt change anything. About Pashtuns, there are more Pashtuns in Pakistan than almost the entire population of Afghanistan (which includes not only Pashtuns but Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks etc.). Afghan Pashtuns are known to speak Dari as well and have many Afghan specific tribes such as Karzai, Ghilzai and Barakzai etc.
> 
> I am not denying that we totally seperate. You havent read my comment above, I guess. I agree that we have different ethnicities all settled on the Indus, part of its history and culture and therefore are one nation. There are way more Punjabis in Pakistan than India and way more Pashtuns in Pakistan than Afghanistan, so that shouldnt matter at all. Such similarities are only natural to be found in neighbouring countries. Infact, would be weird if we didnt have any similarities at all, since that is not how the world works. They are found between the French and Italian, Germans and English, Chinese and Japanese as well.
> 
> As for the differences, I stated that they are *genealogically* different, but you missed that again. The fact that we are *ethnically* (proved by the Harappa DNA Project, link given above by Kaptaan), *linguistically *(explained in detail by me in an earlier comment, refer to it), *culturally *(Punjabi/Pashtun/Sindhi/Baloch culture vs Bihari/Bengalee/Tamil/Marathi culture) and, which was the entire point of the article, *historically* (united for only 80 years under Buddhist Ashoka and later 500 or so under foreign Mughal/Turkic rule and 98 under British - different civilizations and kingdoms, already explained in excruciating detail in earlier, comments please read them) different than Indians still holds.


You see i dont know much about these genetics testing. I was simply using my common sense. How they are genealogically different when Rajputs/jats/gujjar and all these Punjabi/Sindhi/Muhair castes are same caste which exist in India as well and they openly claim their Hindu ancestry/forefathers who were converted into islam later on so you will never hear it from any janjua,bajwa, bhatti, gujjar, memon etc that they have any arab, Iranian, Turkish ancestry the way Pakistaniforever was portraying in here. Its quiet funny that Arabs and Persian laugh over such claim and similarities with them so we are just making fun of ourselves when we associate ourselves with them


----------



## Winchester

@PAKISTANFOREVER it would be better if you delete your first post which you made after misunderstanding the contents in the OP.....this is a very important thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> You see i dont know much about these genetics testing. I was simply using my common sense. How they are genealogically different when Rajputs/jats/gujjar and all these Punjabi/Sindhi/Muhair castes are same caste which exist in India as well and they openly claim their Hindu ancestry/forefathers who were converted into islam later on so you will never hear it from any janjua,bajwa, bhatti, gujjar, memon etc that they have any arab, Iranian, Turkish ancestry the way Pakistaniforever was portraying in here. Its quiet funny that Arabs and Persian laugh over such claim and similarities with them so we are just making fun of ourselves when we associate ourselves with them



No offense, but you seriously are starting to sound very idiotic right now. Half of those tribes you have mentioned are of Rajput origin half are Jatts. Jatts and Rajputs are different. Do you even know how Rajputs were actually formed? They were formed around the 1st century AD or so, when the Brahmins could basically elevate anyone to Rajput status and give them the label of Suryavanshi (Descendants of the Suns) or Agnikula (The Fire Born). A Brahmin could pick a man from Tamil Nadu and elevate him to Rajput status as well. Anyway, Janjuas are a Rajput clan that are native to Pakistan being found mostly in the Potohar Hills. The Jatts of Punjab are different than the Jaats of Haryana and Rajasthan. They have different 'gots' (subclans). Bajwas are a Jatt clan found mostly in the Sialkot region. The Jatts of Indian Punjab would form only 0.5% of Indians (since overall Punjabis form only 2% of Indians). Sindhi Hindu baradaries (clans) are different than Sindhi Muslim clans (Bhutto, Junejo, Abro etc.) and Sindhi Hindus were mostly urban traders while the Muslims were rural agricultralists/landowners and they hardly intermixed. Muhajirs do not have clans and most claim Syed ancestry (though likely only 5% of them are actually Iranic/Turkic). Indians Gurjars (Rajasthani or Haryanvi mostly) and Punjabi Gujjars are different. Theres also a nomadic shepherd group known as the Gujjars in Afghanistan and Central Asia. They too are different.

You seem to be having trouble with reading statistics despite the fact that I had made them bold however let me repeat them. Take a moment to try to process them through your head: 
Punjabis form only *2%* of Indians 
Sindhis form hardly *0.3% *of Indians 
Muhajirs form only* 6% *of Pakistanis. 
Hardly 8% of us are similar. 

As for Hindu ancestry (which doesnt make sense either since Hindu isnt an ethnicity) the type of Hinduism (which really shouldnt be the word used since Hinduism was a 19th century word that the British invented referring to the different gods/practices of the Gangesians and Dravidians) that was practiced in the Indus Region was different to that of the Gangawalas and Dravidawalas (Indians). Ours was more monotheistic, and more influenced by monotheistic Buddhism due to the Gandhara Kingdom of the Indus, since the Rig Veda (which was formed entirely in the Indus at Punjab circa 1500 BC) was monotheistic and therefore most of us converted to Islam around the 12th-14th Century due to the various Sufi saints settled in these lands. We were already quite monotheistic and our 'faith' was different than present day Hinduism of the Gangalanders and Dravidalanders. 

No one here is claiming Turkic/Iranian/Arab ancestry, are you honestly trolling right now? If you dont the history of the Indus (Pakistan) of how the Indo-Aryans settled here, the Indus Valley Civilization, the Rig Vedic Civilization, the Harappans, Kushans, Scythians, Achaemenids, Parthians, Indo-Greeks, Gandharans, Indus Shahis etc. then you should really educate yourself about history and about genealogy as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Tergon18 said:


> No offense, but you seriously are starting to sound very idiotic right now


No offence, but I have same opinion about you. Insulting others will not prove you right . I know bajwa are jats and janjua, bhatti, minhas are rajput . When i said jats and rajputs are same? I just mention some of these castes in Punjab/Sindh which exist in boht india and Pakistan and share common ancestry .

The Janjua Rajputs claim to be the descendants of Maharaja Janamejaya, the king of Hastinapur in the Mahabharata in the Hindu mythology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_12th-century_conversion_of_Hindu_clans_to_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_Muslim

*We se here how diverse is Pakistan

List Of Castes In Pakistan
Castes Name Of Baloch
1* Ahmedani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*2* Zardari Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*3* Wadeyla Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*4* Umrani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*5* Toubzud Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*6* Tauqi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*7* Talpur Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*8* Soomrani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*9* Siddiqui Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*10* Sial Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*11* Shirani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*12* Sherzai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*13* Shambhani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*14* Sethwi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*15* Sanjrani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*16* Sanjarzai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*17* Sadozai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*18* Rind Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*19* Rahmanzai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*20* Rahija Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*21* Qalat Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*22* Qaisrani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*23* Pitafi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*24* Nutkani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*25* Nothazai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*26* Nizamani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*27* Nausherwani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*28* Mazari Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*29* Mastoi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*30* Marri Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*31* Magsi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*32* Lund Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*33* Loharani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*34* Leghari Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*35* Lashari Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*36* Lari Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*37* Lanjwani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*38* Langhani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*39* Korai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*40* Khushk Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*41* Khosa Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*42* Khetran Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*43* Kheazai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*44* Khara Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*45* Khalol Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*46* Kenagzai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*47* Kambarzahi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*48* Kalpar Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*49* Kalmati Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*50* Jiskani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*51* Jatoi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*52* Jat Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*53* Jarwar Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*54* Janwari Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*55* Jamali Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*56* Jalbani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*57* Jagirani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*58* Hooth Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*59* Hesbani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*60* Gurmani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*61* Gujjar Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*62* Gorshani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*63* Gorgage Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*64* Gopang Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*65* Gola Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*66* Gichki Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*67* Ghazini Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*68* Gashkori Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*69* Gajani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*70* Gadhi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*71* Gadai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*72* Gabol Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*73* Domki Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*74* Dasti Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*75* Darzada Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*76* Dareshak Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*77* Dannarzai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*78* Damanis Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*79* Chutani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*80* Changwani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*81* Chandio Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*82* Chachar Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*83* Buzdar Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*84* Bulfati Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*85* Buledi Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*86* Bugti Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*87* Brahmani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*88* Bijarani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*89* Barr Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*90* Barija Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*91* Barazani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*92* Baloch Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*93* Bahawalanzai Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*94* Badini Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*95* Ashkani Balochi, Balochistan, Pakistan
*Castes Name Of Brahui
1* Bangulzai Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*2* Zehri Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*3* Shahwani Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*4* Sasooli Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*5* Sarpara Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*6* Rodini Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*7* Raisani Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*8* Qambrani Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*9* Hasni Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*10* Shahi Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*11* Mirwani Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*12* Mengal Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*13* Lehri Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*14* Lango Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*15* Kurd Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*16* Jhalawan Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*17* Jattak Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*18* Hasni Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*19* Bizenjo Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*20* Minhas Mengal Brahui Caste, Pakistan
*Castes Name Of Kashmiri
1* Wains Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*2* Sheikh Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*3* Raja Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*4* Qureshi Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*5* Mir Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*6* Mian Rajput Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*7* Mian Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*8* Malik Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*9* Lone Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*10* Khawaja Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*11* Janjua – Rajput Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*12* Gjar Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*13* Dar Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*14* Butt Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*15* Baig Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*16* Minhas Kashmiri, Kashmir, Pakistan
*Castes Name Of Pashtun
1* Afridi Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*2* Yusaf Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*3* Yousafzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*4* Wur Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*5* Uthman Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*6* Umarzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*7* Umar Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*8* Turkhel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*9* Tokhi Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*10* Tarkani Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*11* Tareen Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*12* Tahirkheli Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*13* Swati Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*14* Suri Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*15* Sulemani Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*16* Shirani Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*17* Shilmani Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*18* Sarbans Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*19* Salarzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*20* Sadozai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*21* Qazi Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*22* Popalzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*23* Orakzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*24* Noorzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*25* Niazi Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*26* Mullagori – Mulla Ghori Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*27* Mohmand Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*28* Mohamedzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*29* Mian Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*30* Mashwanis Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*31* Marwat Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*32* Manduri Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*33* Mamund Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*34* Malik Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*35* Mahsud Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*36* Mahmud Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*37* Maghdud Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*38* Lodhi Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*39* Kundi Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*40* Kuchis Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*41* Kuchelai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*42* Khulozai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*43* Khudiadadzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*44* Khattak Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*45* Kharoti Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*46* Khan Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*47* Khalil Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*48* Khakwani Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*49* Kakazai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*50* Kakar Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*51* Kakakhel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*52* Jahangiri Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*53* Jadoon – Gadoon Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*54* Isa Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*55* Hafiz Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*56* Gujjar Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*57* Ghilzai Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*58* Gandapur Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*59* Edo-Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*60* Durrani Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*61* Davi Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*62* Daulat Khel Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*63* Chamkanni Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*64* Burki Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*65* Bangash Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*66* Babar Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*67* Atcha Pashtun, KPK, Pakistan
*Castes Name Of Punjabi
1* Arain Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*2* Sheikh Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*3* Shanzay Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*4* Satti Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*5* Sahni Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*6* Sahi Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*7* Rathore Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*8* Ranjha Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*9* Rana Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*10* Ramay Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*11* Rajput Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*12* Qaimkhani Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*13* Passi Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*14* Paracha Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*15* Nanda Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*16* Naeem Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*17* Muslim Khatris Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*18* Mir Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*19* Minhas Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*20* Mian Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*21* Meo Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*22* Meghwar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*23* Maneka Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*24* Malik Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*25* Malanhaans Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*26* Makhdoom Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*27* Mahtam Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*28* Mahar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*29* Leel Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*30* Langah Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*31* Khokhar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*32* Khara Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*33* Kayani Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*34* Kassar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*35* Kasana Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*36* Kalyal Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*37* Kallu Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*38* Kahloon Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*39* Johiya Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*40* Jawanda Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*41* Jat Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*42* Jappa Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*43* Janjuarajput Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*44* Jandran Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*45* Jadun Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*46* Ibrahim Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*47* Gurmani Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*48* Gujjar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*49* Goraya Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*50* Gondal Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*51* Gill Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*52* Ghuman Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*53* Gakhar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*54* Dogar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*55* Dhillon Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*56* Dhariwal Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*57* Derawal Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*58* Chughtai Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*59* Cheema Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*60* Chechi Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*61* Chauhan Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*62* Chaudhry Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*63* Chatha Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*64* Chahal Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*65* Bhullar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*66* Bhinder – Jutt Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*67* Bhatti Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*68* Bhango Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*69* Bhamba Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*70* Bhalli Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*71* Bhabra Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*72* Basra Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*73* Bangial – Rajput Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*74* Bajwa Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*75* Bajar Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*76* Bahmani Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*77* Aujlajutt Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*78* Aujla- Jutt Punjabi, Punjab, Pakistan
*Castes Name Of Sindhi
1* Galani Sindhi, Sindh, Pakistan
*2* Lakhani Sindhi, Sindh, Pakistan
*Castes Name Of Arab Ancestral
1* Abbasi Saudi Arabia
*2* Zubairi Saudi Arabia
*3* Wasti Saudi Arabia
*4* Tirmizi Saudi Arabia
*5* Syed Saudi Arabia
*6* Siddiqui Saudi Arabia
*7* Shaikh Saudi Arabia
*8* Salehi Saudi Arabia
*9* Sajjadi Saudi Arabia
*10* Sadat Saudi Arabia
*11* Sabzvari Saudi Arabia
*12* Rizvi Saudi Arabia
*13* Qureshi Saudi Arabia
*14* Osmani Saudi Arabia
*15* Naqvi Saudi Arabia
*16* Mian Saudi Arabia
*17* Masood Saudi Arabia
*18* Makhdoom Saudi Arabia
*19* Luna Saudi Arabia
*20* Leel Saudi Arabia
*21* Kirmani Saudi Arabia
*22* Khawaja Saudi Arabia
*23* Jafari Saudi Arabia
*24* Idrisi Saudi Arabia
*25* Hyderi Saudi Arabia
*26* Hussaini Saudi Arabia
*27* Hussain Saudi Arabia
*28* Hassani Saudi Arabia
*29* Hashmi Saudi Arabia
*30* Farooqi Saudi Arabia
*31* Awan Saudi Arabia
*32* Arain Saudi Arabia
*33* Ansari Saudi Arabia
*34* Alvi Saudi Arabia
*35* Akhoond Saudi Arabia
*36* Abidi Saudi Arabia
*Castes Name Of Iranian Ancestral
1* Ansari Iran
*2* Zand Iran
*3* Zain Iran
*4* Yazdani Iran
*5* Sistani Iran
*6* Siddiqui Iran
*7* Sabzvari Iran
*8* Rizvi Iran
*9* Reza Iran
*10* Razavi Iran
*11* Qizilbash Iran
*12* Noorani Iran
*13* Nishapuri Iran
*14* Muker Iran
*15* Montazeri Iran
*16* Mirza Iran
*17* Mir Iran
*18* Kiani Iran
*19* Khorasani Iran
*20* Khawaja Iran
*21* Khanum Iran
*22* Kermani Iran
*23* Kazemi Iran
*24* Kashani Iran
*25* Jamshidi Iran
*26* Jalali Iran
*27* Jafari Iran
*28* Jadgal Iran
*29* Isfahani Iran
*30* Hamadani Iran
*31* Ghazali Iran
*32* Gardezi Iran
*33* Gakhar Iran
*34* Firdausi Iran
*35* Fareedi Iran
*36* Chishti Iran
*Castes Name Of Turkic Ancestral
1* Agha Turkey
*2* Pasha Turkey
*3* Chagatai (Chughtai, Tatars,Tartars) Turkey
*4* Barlas Turkey


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> No offence, but I have same opinion about you. Insulting others will not prove you right . I know bajwa are jats and janjua, bhatti, minhas are rajput . When i said jats and rajputs are same? I just mention some of these castes in Punjab/Sindh which exist in boht india and Pakistan and share common ancestry .
> 
> The Janjua Rajputs claim to be the descendants of Maharaja Janamejaya, the king of Hastinapur in the Mahabharata in the Hindu mythology.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_12th-century_conversion_of_Hindu_clans_to_Islam
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_Muslim



Janjua Rajputs may claim that, however they arent found in India and are found exclusively in the Potohar Hills, Pakistan. And all Rajputs also claim descent either from the sun (Suryavanshi), moon (Chandravanshi) or fire ( Agnikula) however we all know that it isnt physically possible. As for the descent from the Maharaja of Hasitnapur, we have absolutely no historical evidence for that. Anyway, the Punjabis of Pakistan are genetically different to the Uttar Pradeshis (refer to the Harappa DNA Project). Funnily enough, you laugh at claims of Arab/Turkic/Iranian ancestry for Pakistanis but are willing to believe a claim of Uttar Pradeshi/Ganges ancestry without any proof of it. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Secondly, what exactly was the point of sending me those last two Wikipedia articles? Very few of our baradaries are similar but even then hardly *8%* of us actually are! Why can you not understand this simple fact or percentages in general? What is wrong with you? Please read my above comment again and try to process it through your head. 

Also no one is claiming Arabic, Turkic or Iranian ancestry. So there is no point in posting Pakistani, Arabic, Iranian and Turkic clans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Tergon18 said:


> Janjua Rajputs may claim that, however they arent found in India and are found exclusively in the Potohar Hills, Pakistan. And all Rajputs also claim descent either from the sun (Suryavanshi), moon (Chandravanshi) or fire ( Agnikula) however we all know that it isnt physically possible. As for the descent from the Maharaja of Hasitnapur, we have absolutely no historical evidence for that. Anyway, the Punjabis of Pakistan are genetically different to the Uttar Pradeshis (refer to the Harappa DNA Project). Funnily enough, you laugh at claims of Arab/Turkic/Iranian ancestry for Pakistanis but are willing to believe a claim of Uttar Pradeshi/Ganges ancestry without any proof of it. Hypocrisy at its finest.
> 
> Secondly, what exactly was the point of sending me those last two Wikipedia articles? Very few of our baradaries are similar but even then hardly *8%* of us actually are! Why can you not understand this simple fact or percentages in general? What is wrong with you? Please read my above comment again and try to process it through your head.


my arab Pakistani mate let agree to disagree. I have no stamina to repeat same thing againa nd again.. read my previous point where i said its not right to paint all ethnic groups of Pakistan with one brush as different groups claim different origin and ancestry


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> my arab Pakistani mate let agree to disagree. I have no stamina to repeat same thing againa nd again.



Are you honestly trolling? Do I need to capitalize this now? *NO ONE IS CLAIMING ARAB/TURKIC/IRANIAN OR ANY OTHER ANCESTRY.* Have you gotten that through your head or do I need to repeat it like 20 times over (I already have said it about 3 times). 
And no one is claiming that the different ethnicities of Pakistan are all the same. You seem to lack basic comprehension skills as well. Please read my earlier comments over again, in the hope that you might just understand them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Tergon18 said:


> Are you honestly trolling? Do I need to capitalize this now? *NO ONE IS CLAIMING ARAB/TURKIC/IRANIAN OR ANY OTHER ANCESTRY.* Have you gotten that through your head or do I need to repeat it like 20 times over (I already have said it about 3 times).
> And no one is claiming that the different ethnicities of Pakistan are all the same. You seem to lack basic comprehension skills as well. Please read my earlier comments over again, in the hope that you might just understand them.


Ok Mr expert. I have shared my opinion. You are free to disagree but i am still stick to what i shared


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Ok Mr expert. I have shared my opinion. You are free to disagree but i am still stick to what i shared



What 'opinion' have you shared exactly? Other then falsely accusing me of saying that I am claiming that Pakistanis are the descendants of Arabs/Turks/Iranians, which I clearly have not. Other then that I have told you about the different ethnicities and linguistics of Pakistanis as compared to Indians. Official statistics, genealogical studies, and historical knowledge (all easily verifiable if you want, they are only a Google search away) cannot be debated on.


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Indian Punjabi Population : 44,000,000
> Pakistani Punjabi population: 93,500,000
> 
> Pakistani Sindhi Population : 35,700,000
> Indian Sindhi population: 3,810,000
> 
> Indian kashmiri population: 12,541,302
> Pakistani kashmiri population: 2,580,000 and Gilgit-Baltistan is 870,347
> 
> I am not even counting those Urdu speaking muhajirs who migrated from india and still has some relatives in there.
> 
> Are Pakistani pashtun any different to afghan pashtuns when have same tribes exist in boht countries Pakistan and Afghanistan? You are confusing nationality with ethnic groups which are two different identity. I am saying that Pakistan and India both host different ethnic groups so differences vary from one ethnic group to others rather than one country to others. Different ethnicities of Pakistan got united under the banner of Islam to create this country we call Pakistan..
> 
> 
> What are differences beside religion?





Winchester said:


> @PAKISTANFOREVER it would be better if you delete your first post which you made after misunderstanding the contents in the OP.....this is a very important thread



I tried. Option is gone.


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

If My memory serves me right , Indus originates from *Sindhu . Sindhu *originates from Vedas


----------



## Tergon18

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> If My memory serves me right , Indus originates from *Sindhu . Sindhu *originates from Vedas



Don't know why you are getting excited here. It's from the Rig Veda of the Indo-Aryans which was formed exclusively in modern day Pakistan at the Indus in Punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

Tergon18 said:


> Don't know why you are getting excited here. It's from the Rig Veda of the Indo-Aryans which was formed exclusively in modern day Pakistan at the Indus in Punjab.



Ya ! I Know that . And the same text talks about other rivers but no one believes in them


----------



## Tergon18

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> Ya ! I Know that . And the same text talks about other rivers but no one believes in them



What are you trying to say? We know that the Indus exists because we can see it. Saraswati etc. is myth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Tergon18 said:


> because we can *see* it.


Indus runs through every region in Pakistan. Indus binds the north, centre and south pakistan. Indus waters almost half of Pakistan. Indus is there on every major west-east road. Yeh we can see it for sure. 








Bridge over Indus, near Attock.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> If My memory serves me right , Indus originates from *Sindhu . Sindhu *originates from Vedas


You here? Your exams over or what? Where do you study? J&K or outside that state?



Kaptaan said:


> Indus runs through every region in Pakistan.


Show us the river map. I think only a small part of Baluchistan has the river Indus. That means practically Indus doesn't flow through that province.



Winchester said:


> @PAKISTANFOREVER it would be better if you delete your first post which you made after misunderstanding the contents in the OP.....this is a very important thread


Anyone else other than Aitzaz Ahsan who suggested the idea of Indus defining the Pakistani nation? Pakistani or non-Pakistani person....?


----------



## Tergon18

Bharat Muslim said:


> Show us the river map. I think only a small part of Baluchistan has the river Indus. That means practically Indus doesn't flow through that province.



The Zhob and Kundar Rivers, both tributaries of the Indus (just like Jhelum, Chenab etc.) pass through Balochistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Winchester

Bharat Muslim said:


> You here? Your exams over or what? Where do you study? J&K or outside that state?
> 
> 
> Show us the river map. I think only a small part of Baluchistan has the river Indus. That means practically Indus doesn't flow through that province.
> 
> 
> Anyone else other than Aitzaz Ahsan who suggested the idea of Indus defining the Pakistani nation? Pakistani or non-Pakistani person....?


 
I have heard about R.E.M. Wheeler's Five Thousand Years of Pakistan released way back in 1950 presenting the same idea.


----------



## Zibago

@Tergon18


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Winchester said:


> R.E.M. Wheeler's Five Thousand Years of Pakistan










* Five Thousand Years of Pakistan: an Archaeological Outline Hardcover – 1950 *
by R.E.M. Wheeler (Author)

Link > https://www.amazon.com/Five-Thousan...dp/B000GR8E1E?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0








And Sir Mortimer Wheeler was not just a nobody. He was the archaeologist who first excavated the ruins of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro.

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Wheeler

@PAKISTANFOREVER

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Kaptaan said:


> * Five Thousand Years of Pakistan: an Archaeological Outline Hardcover – 1950 *
> by R.E.M. Wheeler (Author)
> 
> Link > https://www.amazon.com/Five-Thousan...dp/B000GR8E1E?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Sir Mortimer Wheeler was not just a nobody. He was the archaeologist who first excavated the ruins of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro.
> 
> Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Wheeler
> 
> @PAKISTANFOREVER




That is definitely essential reading for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Butchcassidy

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> You see i dont know much about these genetics testing. I was simply using my common sense. How they are genealogically different when Rajputs/jats/gujjar and all these Punjabi/Sindhi/Muhair castes are same caste which exist in India as well and they openly claim their Hindu ancestry/forefathers who were converted into islam later on so you will never hear it from any janjua,bajwa, bhatti, gujjar, memon etc that they have any arab, Iranian, Turkish ancestry the way Pakistaniforever was portraying in here. Its quiet funny that Arabs and Persian laugh over such claim and similarities with them so we are just making fun of ourselves when we associate ourselves with them


Those genetic tests dont mean much. They have a very small sample size. Essentially no statistical difference between these biraderis on either side of the border. I dont know how people can think that theses biraderis on the Pakistan side were anything different. Having the same last name means that there were conversions to different religions within the same caste. People are delusional


----------



## Tergon18

Butchcassidy said:


> Those genetic tests dont mean much. They have a very small sample size. Essentially no statistical difference between these biraderis on either side of the border. I dont know how people can think that theses biraderis on the Pakistan side were anything different. Having the same last name means that there were conversions to different religions within the same caste. People are delusional



The Harappa DNA Project has taken the largest samples from not only South Asia but across the Middle East, Central Asia as well. It is also the most cited or referenced to study by all genealogists when studying South Asia. Have you actually even seen it? Do you think genetic studies are a sham? The sample sizes are given as well. It is obvious that people in the North-West would have different genetics than say people of the North, Centre, South or East of a country especially when this region was the corridor through which all invasions took place and has remained historically seperate from the Gangetic and Dravidic regions (other than 80 years under Ashoka, 400 or so under Mughal/Turkic, 98 under British) I have already explain in excruciating detail in a previous comment about exactly how the baradaries are 'similar', please refer to that. Anyway as I have stated before I'll say this again: Punjabis form only 2% of India, Sindhi form only 0.3% of India (realistically) and Mahajirs form only 6% of Pakistanis. Those are the only similarities between us and they form only 8% of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Butchcassidy

Tergon18 said:


> The Harappa DNA Project has taken the largest samples from not only South Asia but across the Middle East, Central Asia as well. It is also the most cited or referenced to study by all genealogists when studying South Asia. Have you actually even seen it? Do you think genetic studies are a sham? The sample sizes are given as well. It is obvious that people in the North-West would have different genetics than say people of the North, Centre, South or East of a country especially when this region was the corridor through which all invasions took place and has remained historically seperate from the Gangetic and Dravidic regions (other than 80 years under Ashoka, 400 or so under Mughal/Turkic, 98 under British) I have already explain in excruciating detail in a previous comment about exactly how the baradaries are 'similar', please refer to that. Anyway as I have stated before I'll say this again: Punjabis form only 2% of India, Sindhi form only 0.3% of India (realistically) and Mahajirs form only 6% of Pakistanis. Those are the only similarities between us and they form only 8% of us.



They have my sample, zac is a friend of mine and i have a phd in molecular biology.
Sooooo yes i know what i am talking about puttar ji
And zak is not a geneticist, he is a phd in stats


----------



## Tergon18

Butchcassidy said:


> They have my sample, zac is a friend of mine and i have a phd in molecular biology.
> Sooooo yes i know what i am talking about puttar ji



Then why are you so uptight about it puttar ji. The samples are listed right next to the sample names on the spreadsheet and they dont look inadequate to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Butchcassidy

Tergon18 said:


> Then why are you so uptight about it puttar ji. The samples are listed right next to the sample names on the spreadsheet and they dont look inadequate to me.


Nobody is doubting the samples, they have very very few sample and the results cannot be extrapolated to the general population. Zak had specifically mentioned that do not use this data for any kind of ancestory subgrouping. Another reason he had to close the message board because ppl were arguing about stupid stuff ehich had no scientific validity. To draw any conclusions the sample size for each caste/ethnicity should be in several hundreds considering the large population base.


----------



## Tergon18

Butchcassidy said:


> Nobody is doubting the samples, they have very very few sample and the results cannot be extrapolated to the general population. Zak had specifically mentioned that do not use this data for any kind of ancestory subgrouping. Another reason he had to close the message board because ppl were arguing about stupid stuff ehich had no scientific validity. To draw any conclusions the sample size for each caste/ethnicity should be in several hundreds considering the large population base.



Well we can conclude that the ANI:ASI ratios, overall taking populations of both India and Pakistan, are going to be different.

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...ggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNGPiRJ_aH8cftNQ2n2gUvh12ev9Xg

This is the Harvard Genealogical Study of India, which basically is to show the presence of ANI and ASI, the two 'Pathan' and 'Sindhi' samples are showing different ANI:ASI ratios as compared to the other populations of India. In general would you not agree that Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs show different ANI (including Gedrosian Baloch, Caucasian, NorthEastern European) and ASI ratios as compared to UPites, Bengalis, Tamils, Marathis etc. 

About the baradaries being similar, I have already explained that in an above comment to another person so you should refer to that.

Also, the sample size for the South Asian populations atleast for most baradaries/clans average around 15-25 for individual samples. I'd say that is good enough. We cant say that they would be 100% same for the rest of the clans/baradries but we can conclude that the overall Pakistani population samples would have different percentages, as they do to the overall Indian populations even if the sample size is doubled or tripled. The message board was closed because people were trolling, spamming and posting all sorts of dumb comments in there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TMA

khanz said:


> ok i'm not siding with the indians or saying everything you said was wrong but seriously how can you believe there is non-existent link when it' probably the no 1 country have common ties with what about mohajirs ? what about the shared geographical link,language ,history,foods and culture and common ethnic groups on both sides of the border(punjabis,sindhis,kashmiris,gujaratis etc) - many pakistanis I know still has some relatives in india and vice versa with indian muslims hell musharraf was born in india and manmohan singh was born in pakistan.
> I know there is animosity between us and i'm not saying we need to unite or anything but claiming pakistan and india have no link or have never had one is just plain denial.


All humans share links. E.g. Some Americans have British ancestry.

The way I see it is that the Indian Subcontinent is a bit like the continent of Europe; just a bit denser.

Europeans have some sort of collective identity even before this mess called the E.U and have great similarities however no-one would suggest that a Frenchmen is the same as a Russian or that a Swede is the same as a Greek. 

In fact I would dare to say that there is greater genetic, linguistic & cultural diversity in the Subcontinent than in Europe (excluding the relatively recent arrivals of non-Europeans)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Butchcassidy said:


> Those genetic tests dont mean much. They have a very small sample size. Essentially no statistical difference between these biraderis on either side of the border. I dont know how people can think that theses biraderis on the Pakistan side were anything different. Having the same last name means that there were conversions to different religions within the same caste. People are delusional


Boht Indians and Pakistani should realize that India and Pakistan represent different diverse ethnic groups so its not possible to make sweeping generalization about entire country as origin of all ethnic groups within country might not be the same. Indians cannot say that all ethnic groups in paksitan were converted from Hindus because Pakistan has more ethnic groups beside some Punjabi and Sindhi who claim Hindu ancestry and still use those surname. Pakistani cannot say that all ethnic groups in Pakistan has nothing to do with Hindus because of their personal hatred for Hindus. Its simple to make up your mind and then go for finding evidence to support your claim and btw those people who belong to these Punjabi and Sindhi castes/tribes/subtribes know where they exactly came from and they dont deny their origin. No rajput will deny that his ancestors were Hindus who were converted into Islam at some point in past and some conversion were as recent as in 12th century. Pakistan and India may be two enemy state now so we had witnessed muslism Rajputs and jats went againt Indian rajputs and jats in wars as they boht were loyal to their own countries but fact remain that they belong to same ethnic group but different religion and country

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Boht Indians and Pakistani should realize that India and Pakistan represent different diverse ethnic groups so its not possible to make sweeping generalization about entire country as origin of all ethnic groups within country might not be the same. Indians cannot say that all ethnic groups in paksitan were converted from Hindus because Pakistan has more ethnic groups beside some Punjabi and Sindhi who claim Hindu ancestry and still use those surname. Pakistani cannot say that all ethnic groups in Pakistan has nothing to do with Hindus because of their personal hatred for Hindus. Its simple to make up your mind and then go for finding evidence to support your claim and btw those people who belong to these Punjabi and Sindhi castes/tribes/subtribes know where they exactly came from and they dont deny their origin. No rajput will deny that his ancestors were Hindus who were converted into Islam at some point in past and some conversion were as recent as in 12th century. Pakistan and India may be two enemy state now so we had witnessed muslism Rajputs and jats went againt Indian rajputs and jats in wars as they boht were loyal to their own countries but fact remain that they belong to same ethnic group but different religion and country



My friend I believe we got off on the wrong foot. What you are saying is essentially correct that the people of Pakistan (Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs) are not one homogeneous group of people but different ethicities. India has a lot more ethnicities then that and they are not homogenous either. It think that you have misunderstood the article and the discussion that is taking place here. No one is denying conversion to Islam in and around the 12th to 14th centuries. What I had simply stated was that 'Hinduism' isnt a uniform religion of sorts like Abrahamic religions and it varies heavily from region to region. Not to mention the fact that the name Hinduism was first used by the British in the 19th century to refer to the different pracrices and gods of the people of the Ganges and Dravidia regions. The people of the Indus prior to conversion to Islam did not practice the exact same creed/religion that was given the name of Hinduism and the one that is practiced today. It was an earlier, Vedic form of Hinduism. Sindhi Muslim tribes were historically seperate than Sindhi Hindu tribes being more rural/agricultural based while Sindhi Hindus were urban traders. The clans (Bhutto, Abro, Junejo etc.) arent found in Sindhi Hindus. Jatts of Punjab form only *1%* of India (since Punjabis form only 2% of India) so why should it even matter in the first place. Rajput isnt an ethnicity since anyone couldve been made a Rajput by the Brahmanical order around the 1st century AD. Most Rajput subclans (gots) of Pakistan like Khokhar, Kharral, Sial, Wattoo, Gheba etc. arent found in India and are completely native to Pakistan (the Indus Region). And no one is claiming Arab/Turkic/Iranian ancestry either as you said earlier.

I am again (its for the 4th time now I think) going to present to you with some statistics which should lay to rest all the issues you may have with the article or this discussion

Punjabis form only *2%* of Indians
Sindhi refugees form *0.3%* of Indians (realistic estimate)
Mohajirs, from UP/Bihar/Delhi/Deccan, form only *6%* of Pakistanis.

Please try to understand these simple facts. Otherwise I will just have to keep repeating these percentages until you finally realise why your argument doesnt have much substance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Tergon18 said:


> My friend I believe we got off on the wrong foot. What you are saying is essentially correct that the people of Pakistan (Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs) are not one homogeneous group of people but different ethicities. India has a lot more ethnicities then that and they are not homogenous either. It think that you have misunderstood the article and the discussion that is taking place here.



To be honest i did not even read the article in op. I was reading the comments and just responded to post of Pakistanforever where he said Pakistani are totally different and then you started quoted my posts so may be we are addressing two different things. I dont diagree with your ethnic percentage in India evnethough india is hugely populated and even these percentage make a lot of people


----------



## Tergon18

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> To be honest i did not even read the article in op. I was reading the comments and just responded to post of Pakistanforever where he said Pakistani are totally different and then you started quoted my posts so may be we are addressing two different things. I dont diagree with your percentage evnethough india is hugely populated and even these percentage make a lot of people



Still these percentages form very little as compared to the Pakistani Punjabis and Sindhis therefore, overall shouldnt even matter. Pakistanforever hadn't originally read the article either and he misunderstood the entire thread and his original post has been deleted I guess. That is what led to some people misunderstanding the entire point of this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Tergon18 said:


> Still these percentages form very little as compared to the Pakistani Punjabis and Sindhis therefore, overall shouldnt even matter. Pakistanforever hadn't originally read the article either and he misunderstood the entire thread and his original post has been deleted I guess. That is what led to some people misunderstanding the entire point of this thread.


yes true and my comment had relevance to his post and not the actual topic and otherscomments


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Tergon18 said:


> Still these percentages


10% of USA is African American. That does not make USA a* African* country. The Indian Punjabi are less than* 2.7%* of India. The Sindhi migrants in India are like 0.01% of India. So the common link is restricted to tiny percentage.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tergon18

Also, I disagree with the term 'Children' of the Indus. This is just Gandhian talk that was started by the non-violence Swadeshi movement leaders, being 'children' of some great mother. Such talk perhaps befits the Gangetic or the Dravidic man but not the Indus man. I am yet to see Europeans or Middle-Easterners call themselves some sort of simple-minded, helpless, innocent children being controlled by a foreign power which really was the origin of this phrase when first coined by Gandhi or the Swadeshis. As Aitzaz Ahsan himself has eloquently put:

'The Vedic man is boisterous and consumerist. The Gangetic man is frugal. You can see the distinction between the Indus person and the Indian person stretching far back into history, reflected in the epic myths themselves'

A proper term would be, Sons of the Soil or of the Motherland/Fatherland. Falling into weak Gandhian talk would not suit us and it would be better if we rather upheld the traditions of our ancestors.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tergon18

Zibago said:


> @Tergon18



Yaar, I'm not able to comment on the other Harappa/IVC thread that you have tagged me in due to not having enough 'privelege points'. Do you know how I can get them or comment there since I have a reply to Joe Shearer on that thread.


----------



## Zibago

Tergon18 said:


> Yaar, I'm not able to comment on the other Harappa/IVC thread that you have tagged me in due to not having enough 'privelege points'. Do you know how I can get them or comment there since I have a reply to Joe Shearer on that thread.


Keep posting and in two months and after 2000 losts you will be senior i just became and elite member from simply goofing around


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> Part of *British Punjab, *you mean. They shouldnt have been amalgamated with Punjab in the first place since they speak totally different languages and have a different culture. Haryana? Not modern day Haryana since they speak a Central Indo-Aryan language and none of the five rivers of Punjab pass through it. However they were the border of the Indus Valley Civilization, so in a roundabout way they could be. About Himachal, its unlikely that it was part of the Indus Valley Civilization or the Rig Vedic Indo-Aryan period due to the geography and lack of sites there. Also Himachalis form only 0.5% of India's population so it should'nt matter anyway.


Preity Zinta is a Himachali.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tergon18 said:


> Yaar, I'm not able to comment on the other Harappa/IVC thread that you have tagged me in due to not having enough 'privelege points'. Do you know how I can get them or comment there since I have a reply to Joe Shearer on that thread.



I am not very sure what you want to say, but do feel free to go ahead and say it. To be honest, I lost interest in this thread when I saw the drift of your arguments. I disagree with them - cordially - and have absolutely no use for the false statistical inferences that you have drawn, as has also @Zibago . There are other reasons, however, for my absence.

For the past few days, I have been engaged in tiresome and really worthless discussions, first, on the mysterious absence of the PAF during the Kargil crisis, which is not mysterious at all, and has been very reasonably explained by an eminent Pakistani figure and pillar of the air force establishment in his time; only the fanboys are unhappy and have been going on and bloody on trying to show that in some mysterious alchemic way, it was actually a huge plus for the air force to have stayed out. On disengaging, with difficulty, from this mire, I found myself facing a tribal champion who insists that his tiny little district was the pivot around which south Asia rotates, if we are to believe him, at an increasingly more rapid rate.

You will understand, therefore, if I look at this present discussion with a somewhat jaded vision. 

But do go ahead and say what you will, and if you are inclined to be gracious about it, allow me to decide if I should engage in a third Sisyphean struggle.

Ramzan Kareem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Winchester

Tergon18 said:


> Yaar, I'm not able to comment on the other Harappa/IVC thread that you have tagged me in due to not having enough 'privelege points'. Do you know how I can get them or comment there since I have a reply to Joe Shearer on that thread.


 
A mod can get you into that thread 

@waz @Horus Can you guys let Tergon18 access this thread https://defence.pk/threads/dholavira-the-zenith-of-harappan-town-planning.372591/page-5#post-8367016 in the senior's cafe. 

His input is very much needed there considering some of the Bharati claims being made there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

*The Indus man*

The Indus Saga: From Pataliputra to Partition, which was received with an uproar in Pakistan in 1996, is now published in India.

Charmy Harikrishnan
September 26, 2005 | UPDATED 14:44 IST

Circa 1980. General Zia-ul Haq's iron rule. In one of Pakistan's jails, Aitzaz Ahsan, lawyer and member of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was poring over The Discovery of India, another political prisoner's tryst with history some 40 years earlier.

Triggered by Jawaharlal Nehru's book but not quite agreeing to his "romantic vision of the oneness of India", Ahsan went on a journey to reclaim the story of his homeland.

The 59-year-old's argument is compelling but controversial: Pakistan is not an aberration brought about by Partition. The distinction between the Indus region and the Gangetic region, as Ahsan refers to Pakistan and India, are primordial and natural.

"The Pakistani is always taught that he is unIndian," says Ahsan. "But somebody had to tell him who he was."

So Ahsan tells him that he is the Indus Man, liberal, tolerant, heir to a civilisation and a heritage that includes the Vedas. The Indus Saga: From Pataliputra to Partition (Roli), which was received with an uproar in Pakistan in 1996, is now published in India.

"Partition was really the recreation of the Indus region," says Ahsan, who was Pakistan's leader of the Opposition from 1996 to 1999. Unfortunately, it did not mean that all of Ahsan's Indus men stayed back at home and celebrated while Nehru and Jinnah unfurled two different flags. It was a bloody crossing from the banks of the Ganga to that of the Indus and vice-versa. When Ahsan travels back to the Bronze Age, he treads on the slippery ground of the riverbank and history gives way to hypothesis.

The Indus Civilisation was not just a cluster of settlements in Pakistan, as he assumes, but extended all the way to Dholavira and Lothal in Gujarat. He even says fundamentalist priests ruled the Indus cities when that is still in the sphere of surmise. Perhaps the book's relevance is best summed up in Ahsan's parting shot: "It may inspire others to study the region in detail."

For all his journeys across centuries, Ahsan's concerns remain contemporary. "My party PPP is at the butt end of military tactics," he says. "Democracy is the only solution." That is for his next book, Divided by Democracy, co-written with Lord Meghnad Desai. There Ahsan returns to his Indus man-the modern one who missed his tryst with democracy.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...a-from-pataliputra-to-partition/1/192904.html


----------



## Tergon18

baba1998 said:


> View media item 16922
> First of all there is nothing like Indus based civilization that exist in pakistan settlements are found mostly on border of India and major discoveries are happening in India only, modern day pakistani panjabis dont have any claim on this. I am from *Rakhigarhi, *haryana and its in heart of modern India closer to Delhi.
> Also most of the findings point that sanatan dharma was followed worship of shiva linga, if you look the picture closely you will see the tributaries of indus river that is currently in India only were the major population of so called indus civilization. Its indian civilization not some alien civilization if you want to claim it you should also
> accept the fact that 99% modern pakistanis are converted by force, raped by barbarians.



The Indus Valley Civilization is not found on the border of India, the two major sites are in Central Pakistan (Harappa, Punjab and Mohenjodaro, Sindh). Also Delhi is by no measure the 'heart of India', that would be Madhya Pradesh, goegraphically speaking. The Indus Valley Civilization predates Hinduism and no proof of any of the modern gods/practices of Hinduism being followed by the IVC people has been found. 90% or so of the Indus Valley Civilization was in modern day Pakistan and the main sites are in Pakistan as well. So yes Pakistanis are indeed the inheritors of this civilization. Having the very North-Western most parts of India in it doesnt change anything. The people of Ganga and Dravida were still uncivilized and had no culture while the Indus Valley flourished so your claim of Indians being the inheritors of it is laughable. And no the ancestors of Pakistanis werent converted by force, it was tradition that if a tribal chief converted to Islam, the rest of the tribe would follow too but mostly they converted by the efforts of numerous Sufi saints in the 12th-14th centuries, mainly. Almost every village of Pakistan has a grave/shrine of a Sufi saint in it. If forcible conversion had taken place, all of India wouldve been Muslim by now, but thats not the case is it? Even still, the heartland of Muslim Empires and Islam in 'India' was Delhi and Uttar Pradesh yet both of these regions had a heavy Hindu majority. That should should really show you why your 'forcible conversion theory' is BS. 'Raped by barbarians?' Such stupid claims and language isnt acceptable on a civilized forum. Stop trolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tergon18

Joe Shearer said:


> I am not very sure what you want to say, but do feel free to go ahead and say it. To be honest, I lost interest in this thread when I saw the drift of your arguments. I disagree with them - cordially - and have absolutely no use for the false statistical inferences that you have drawn, as has also @Zibago . There are other reasons, however, for my absence.
> 
> For the past few days, I have been engaged in tiresome and really worthless discussions, first, on the mysterious absence of the PAF during the Kargil crisis, which is not mysterious at all, and has been very reasonably explained by an eminent Pakistani figure and pillar of the air force establishment in his time; only the fanboys are unhappy and have been going on and bloody on trying to show that in some mysterious alchemic way, it was actually a huge plus for the air force to have stayed out. On disengaging, with difficulty, from this mire, I found myself facing a tribal champion who insists that his tiny little district was the pivot around which south Asia rotates, if we are to believe him, at an increasingly more rapid rate.
> 
> You will understand, therefore, if I look at this present discussion with a somewhat jaded vision.
> 
> But do go ahead and say what you will, and if you are inclined to be gracious about it, allow me to decide if I should engage in a third Sisyphean struggle.
> 
> Ramzan Kareem.



I am not sure what you are implying here, whether my statistics about the populations are false or the inferences that I have drawn from them are false. Your original comment about the various 'dances' of the sub-continent uniting them came off as highly idealistic, romantic and downright hilarious. The icing on the cake was that you didn't even bother to leave an 'Indus' dance form and detail us exactly how it was related to those of the Ganges and Dravidia regions. Do their hands move in a particular direction? Or their hips sway in an identical fashion? We may never know.

Secondly, about the other thread in which I can't comment on. The Indo-Greek Kingdom proper, didn't go as eastward as to Mathura. Offshoots of it, however carried raids as far upto Mathura. It's main/original territories and the various raids carried out by it's offshoots were seperate. The capital of the Indo-Greeks under Menander the First was Sakala (Sialkot) in modern-day Punjab and regional capitals such as Taxila and Charsadda existed.













You do note in your comment the historical seperation of the Indus territories from those of the Ganges and Dravidia (South of the Vindhyas) regions by acknowledging the seperation of the Gandharans, Indo-Parthians and the Shahis from the Guptas and the other Ganges-Dravidia kingdoms however then go onto claim that implying any sort of dualism between them is absurd, without even bothering to explain why. That, according to me, is truly absurd.

Furthermore, your claim of the Harappans being of the same ethnic stock as modern-day Indians and Pakistanis apart from Pashtuns is dubious and has no base in genealogy or anthropology. About 85% or so of the Indus Valley Civilization was based in modern day Pakistan and at the time when it flourished, the Ganges and Dravida regions were still uncivilized with no culture. We do know that the Ganges and Dravida regions only got civilized in the Middle Iron Age stages (800-500 BC), when proper axes were invented to clear the forest regions and before that it was just a forested region inhabited by uncivilized tribes.

Your statement saying that no new genetic stock has entered the sub-continent from out of it (in the last 10,000 years) is where we have to draw the line, really. At this point you are just going on without providing any sources or citations for your claims, indulging in pseudo-scientific statements.

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...tNQ2n2gUvh12ev9Xg&sig2=GU68-hqZ2X3Dc_eaarKJOQ

This is the Harvard Genealogical Study of India which has taken samples from vast communities across the sub-continent and it has found two major components, the ANI (which is related to Europeans, Central Asians and Iranians) and the ASI (unique to India). The ANI component peaks in the Pakistani samples while mostly being found in North-Western Indians and the ASI peaks in South Indians while mostly being found in Central and Northern Indians. Furthermore, the admixture between these two distinctive groups is dated to 3000-500 BC, so your claim goes down the drain.


----------



## Soulspeek

You are confusing Sikhs for Punjabis in India. Punjabi is a broad term and include both hindu and muslim punjabis. The 2% population you are quoting is only of Sikhs in India. Punjabis are spread all over India and there is no count of them as we do not do ethenic census in India. 

As per 2009 census of Pakistan, there were 9.35 Crore Punjabis in Pakistan where there were 4.40 crore Sikhs in Punjab. If you add the number of ethenic punjabis spread all over India, we would have appx same number of Punjabis in India. 

Moreover, India is a subcontinent sized country. So naturally Punjabis would be small in number in comparison to 1.25 billion population of India. Still it would be quite a sizeable population vis a vis Pakistani Punjabis. 



Tergon18 said:


> The Harappa DNA Project has taken the largest samples from not only South Asia but across the Middle East, Central Asia as well. It is also the most cited or referenced to study by all genealogists when studying South Asia. Have you actually even seen it? Do you think genetic studies are a sham? The sample sizes are given as well. It is obvious that people in the North-West would have different genetics than say people of the North, Centre, South or East of a country especially when this region was the corridor through which all invasions took place and has remained historically seperate from the Gangetic and Dravidic regions (other than 80 years under Ashoka, 400 or so under Mughal/Turkic, 98 under British) I have already explain in excruciating detail in a previous comment about exactly how the baradaries are 'similar', please refer to that. Anyway as I have stated before I'll say this again: Punjabis form only 2% of India, Sindhi form only 0.3% of India (realistically) and Mahajirs form only 6% of Pakistanis. Those are the only similarities between us and they form only 8% of us.



This theory that ancient people of present Pakistan practiced different kind of monotheist Hinduism or were Buddhists is actually crap. It is a way removing the guilt that your ancestors were polytheist. It goes against the tenents of Islam. So to absolve your ancestors of shirk, your historians came up with this wonderful but false theory that they were monotheists. 



Tergon18 said:


> My friend I believe we got off on the wrong foot. What you are saying is essentially correct that the people of Pakistan (Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs) are not one homogeneous group of people but different ethicities. India has a lot more ethnicities then that and they are not homogenous either. It think that you have misunderstood the article and the discussion that is taking place here. No one is denying conversion to Islam in and around the 12th to 14th centuries. What I had simply stated was that 'Hinduism' isnt a uniform religion of sorts like Abrahamic religions and it varies heavily from region to region. Not to mention the fact that the name Hinduism was first used by the British in the 19th century to refer to the different pracrices and gods of the people of the Ganges and Dravidia regions. The people of the Indus prior to conversion to Islam did not practice the exact same creed/religion that was given the name of Hinduism and the one that is practiced today. It was an earlier, Vedic form of Hinduism. Sindhi Muslim tribes were historically seperate than Sindhi Hindu tribes being more rural/agricultural based while Sindhi Hindus were urban traders. The clans (Bhutto, Abro, Junejo etc.) arent found in Sindhi Hindus. Jatts of Punjab form only *1%* of India (since Punjabis form only 2% of India) so why should it even matter in the first place. Rajput isnt an ethnicity since anyone couldve been made a Rajput by the Brahmanical order around the 1st century AD. Most Rajput subclans (gots) of Pakistan like Khokhar, Kharral, Sial, Wattoo, Gheba etc. arent found in India and are completely native to Pakistan (the Indus Region). And no one is claiming Arab/Turkic/Iranian ancestry either as you said earlier.
> 
> I am again (its for the 4th time now I think) going to present to you with some statistics which should lay to rest all the issues you may have with the article or this discussion
> 
> Punjabis form only *2%* of Indians
> Sindhi refugees form *0.3%* of Indians (realistic estimate)
> Mohajirs, from UP/Bihar/Delhi/Deccan, form only *6%* of Pakistanis.
> 
> Please try to understand these simple facts. Otherwise I will just have to keep repeating these percentages until you finally realise why your argument doesnt have much substance.


----------



## Tergon18

Soulspeek said:


> You are confusing Sikhs for Punjabis in India. Punjabi is a broad term and include both hindu and muslim punjabis. The 2% population you are quoting is only of Sikhs in India. Punjabis are spread all over India and there is no count of them as we do not do ethenic census in India.
> 
> As per 2009 census of Pakistan, there were 9.35 Crore Punjabis in Pakistan where there were 4.40 crore Sikhs in Punjab. If you add the number of ethenic punjabis spread all over India, we would have appx same number of Punjabis in India.
> 
> Moreover, India is a subcontinent sized country. So naturally Punjabis would be small in number in comparison to 1.25 billion population of India. Still it would be quite a sizeable population vis a vis Pakistani Punjabis.
> 
> 
> 
> This theory that ancient people of present Pakistan practiced different kind of monotheist Hinduism or were Buddhists is actually crap. It is a way removing the guilt that your ancestors were polytheist. It goes against the tenents of Islam. So to absolve your ancestors of shirk, your historians came up with this wonderful but false theory that they were monotheists.



First of all, I didnt take only Sikh Punjabis (even though they form the majority of Punjabis in India). However even if we add up the Hindu Punjabis and the diaspora, we can come up with a very liberal statistic of 2.5-3.5% The population of Pakistani Punjabis would still be rather more than Indian Punjabis. The Indian Punjabi population number that you have used is from a 2011 census, while the Pakistani one is from a 2009 census. However you seem to be missing the entire point of this discussion. We are not comparing the number of Indian Punjabis to the number of Pakistani Punjabis. We are comparing the number of Indian Punjabis to the rest of Indians and the number comes off as very small and therefore very few of us are similar. 

Secondly you have just pointlessly created a strawman and accused me of 'wanting to absolve myself of any guilt (lol)' without taking into consideration history or anything. The Rig Veda, which as I have stated in a previous comment with example, takes a monotheistic tone and it was formed entirely at the Indus in modern-day Pakistan while India (the Ganges and Dravidia regions) were still uncivilized, forested regions. The Ramayana and Mahabharata were formed later at the Ganges Region and they have different themes than the Rig Veda. I never stated that they were fully monotheistic but rather, they had monotheistic influences. Had I needed to absolve myself of all sort of shirk, I wouldve stated that they already followed Abrahamic religions or that they were Arabs or something which is just absurd. As for Buddhism, the Gandharans and the Indo-Greeks who ruled over the Indus Region were both Buddhists and infact Buddhism was the dominant religion in the Ganges region as well until the 1st-4th centuries when Hinduism was promoted and reinforced by the Brahmins. Even the word 'Hindoo-ism' shouldnt be used since it was only invented by the British in around the 19th century to refer to the various and diverse gods/practices of the people ranging from the Ganges to Dravidia regions. It isn't some sort of uniform religion like the Abrahamic religions.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tergon18 said:


> I am not sure what you are implying here, whether my statistics about the populations are false or the inferences that I have drawn from them are false. Your original comment about the various 'dances' of the sub-continent uniting them came off as highly idealistic, romantic and downright hilarious. The icing on the cake was that you didn't even bother to leave an 'Indus' dance form and detail us exactly how it was related to those of the Ganges and Dravidia regions. Do their hands move in a particular direction? Or their hips sway in an identical fashion? We may never know.
> 
> Secondly, about the other thread in which I can't comment on. The Indo-Greek Kingdom proper, didn't go as eastward as to Mathura. Offshoots of it, however carried raids as far upto Mathura. It's main/original territories and the various raids carried out by it's offshoots were seperate. The capital of the Indo-Greeks under Menander the First was Sakala (Sialkot) in modern-day Punjab and regional capitals such as Taxila and Charsadda existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do note in your comment the historical seperation of the Indus territories from those of the Ganges and Dravidia (South of the Vindhyas) regions by acknowledging the seperation of the Gandharans, Indo-Parthians and the Shahis from the Guptas and the other Ganges-Dravidia kingdoms however then go onto claim that implying any sort of dualism between them is absurd, without even bothering to explain why. That, according to me, is truly absurd.
> 
> Furthermore, your claim of the Harappans being of the same ethnic stock as modern-day Indians and Pakistanis apart from Pashtuns is dubious and has no base in genealogy or anthropology. About 85% or so of the Indus Valley Civilization was based in modern day Pakistan and at the time when it flourished, the Ganges and Dravida regions were still uncivilized with no culture. We do know that the Ganges and Dravida regions only got civilized in the Middle Iron Age stages (800-500 BC), when proper axes were invented to clear the forest regions and before that it was just a forested region inhabited by uncivilized tribes.
> 
> Your statement saying that no new genetic stock has entered the sub-continent from out of it (in the last 10,000 years) is where we have to draw the line, really. At this point you are just going on without providing any sources or citations for your claims, indulging in pseudo-scientific statements.
> 
> https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...tNQ2n2gUvh12ev9Xg&sig2=GU68-hqZ2X3Dc_eaarKJOQ
> 
> This is the Harvard Genealogical Study of India which has taken samples from vast communities across the sub-continent and it has found two major components, the ANI (which is related to Europeans, Central Asians and Iranians) and the ASI (unique to India). The ANI component peaks in the Pakistani samples while mostly being found in North-Western Indians and the ASI peaks in South Indians while mostly being found in Central and Northern Indians. Furthermore, the admixture between these two distinctive groups is dated to 3000-500 BC, so your claim goes down the drain.



Your pretentious little answer above precisely explains why I dread going back into these systematically recurring controversies. 

I joined the forum in 2009. Since then, this precise controversy has come up, as far as memory recalls, at least half-a-dozen times, perhaps more; I haven't been keeping count. The same dull and witless points occur again and again, each time put forward by someone with the air of having discovered a bright new nugget of information all by himself. Any similarity between these initiatives is not accidental; just as there are dogged doctrinaires on the Indian side, who will not listen to any argument put forward by a Pakistani, there are those same doctrinaires on the Pakistani side, etc., etc., and we have to deal with their rag tag and bobtail, which comes onto this forum to show off their bright new pieces of knowledge. 

I am 66. I have earned my position through a combination of practical work and theoretical grounding. I really don't have to take this crap any longer. At least in my real-world job, I get paid (very poorly) for it. 

Please go ahead and flounce around; all the points that you refer to, starting from no introduction of new genetic stock from 10,000 BC, through the ASI and ANI genealogical sub-types, through the probable ultimate place of rest of those who were residents of the IVC, the percolation of the remnants of their culture into the other systems around which a composite Indian culture was built and their own re-creation in harshly simplified form in the Indus Valley, all are available. But very frankly, I don't care whether you find out or suffer from your existing delusions. Even this explanation is not justified by the results likely to be achieved.

Ramzan Kareem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

baba1998 said:


> clearly you dont have any idea, thr is nothing like any indus civilization that is different from ancient Indian civilization, the so called harapan like cities are found in many parts of India including in Taminnadu also
> 
> cant post the link but just google this :
> *Harappa-like structure, 3,000 ancient artefacts found in Tamil Nadu*
> 
> same architecture, its coz of nascent archaeological skills in earlier decade which gave this falls notion of indus civilization, India as a whole is cradle of civilization and all over India cities are found with much more technical city building structures. Most of the research work on this so called indus civilization is happening in India coz almost every month we see new so called harappan structures in north or south India specially near rivers in north unlike in modern day pakistan where structures are found closer to Indian border,
> 
> and during Mahabharat period lots of reference are found of sindh province from which this term Indus, India is derived from by barbarians from east either desert dwellers of arbia/persia or europeans.
> sindh was relatively one of the most weaker state in ancient India most of the big empires used to get tributaries from the king of sindh who by the way were hindus always.
> 
> Sindh province was so weak that once during hunting expedition, a few loads of soldiers from indarprasth modern day delhi defeated whole of sindh army and shaved the sindh kings head , so its self explanatory why small herds of arab barbarians and euro turk barbarians were able to plunder defeat loot rape convert modern paksitani people who by the way was weakest of hindu kingdoms of old. Only if India was under single emperor like Ashok if arabs/persian or euros attacked that time Ashok would have annihilated arabs/turks in their own land, he was so blood thirsty
> 
> I dont think I can paste video right now but there was a video of Imran Khan I think he is a politician now, where he says there was not a single invading army that was stopped in modern day pakistan, all invaders used to plunder modern day pakistani ppl and only were stopped near delhi. Its too hard for swallow but modern day pakistanis were weakest hindus, I feel sad also coz we modern day Indian hindus due to our own petty conflicts couldnt save you from barbarians. If United you my friend would be living in a powerful country like India.



First of all, no such civilizations such as the Indus Valley Civilization have been found throughout India. The only place where that Tamil Nadu 'structure' has been reported is in Hindu or Indian website. No major archaelogist ot historian has said anything about it and it hasnt even been widely/properly reported and it's name doesnt appear in any historical discussion. Make of that what you will. 
The IVC sites, Mohenjodaro and Harappa arent on the border with India, look at a map, they are pretty much in Central Pakistan. 

Here we are, having a discussion about historical facts, studies and statistics and you come up with your average Hindootva rant. Are you taking the Mahabharata as an actual historic document? 'Raped by barbarians?' Also, its not as if the Mughals/Turkic were stopped at Delhi either, they ruled you guys for almost a 1000 years. And then going on to tell some old wives' tale or some other nonsense about Sindh. 
All your claims are stupid and trollworthy and most definitely do not belong in this thread.

@Bharat Muslim @Kaptaan @Zibago @Winchester @PAKISTANFOREVER
This thread is seriously getting flooded by Hindootva trolls

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tergon18

baba1998 said:


> lol when ever you say 1000 years its the modern day pakistani people, modern India as a whole was never under this much muslim rule, Maratha empire almost ruled India full before British came, Sikh got even afganistan so stop fooling yourself with this 1000 years theory, if ever sm1 was enslaved, raped, coverted it was modern day pakistanis.
> View media item 16925
> remember this 1000 years pakistani were raped, converted not modern day Indians, check the maratha empire map, before british Hindus took back atleast modern day India.
> And regarding so called Indus civilization, check where are most archaeological finds are taking place not in pakistan, wat the hell is central pakistan, pakistan is what 300/400 kms in width in middle lol, central pakistan.



First of all, the Marathas didn't actually 'rule' over Punjab, they had been invited by the governor of Punjab, Adina Beg Khan, to help him defeat the invading Durranis of Afghanistan which they did. After that, Punjab was left to him however he had to pay a monthly indemnity to the Marathas and they withdrew. You can easily verify this from any historical book etc. Even that only lasted for hardly 10 or 20 years before they got defeated in the Third Battle of Panipat by the Durranis. When the British came to India, the Marathas didn't even rule over present day Pakistan territories and overall their own empire was very shortlived.






Secondly, the Sikhs didn't rule over modern-day Afghanistan, but over Peshawar, Charsadda etc. areas. Ranjit Singh was a Punjabi Jatt from Gujranwala and more of his type of people (the Punjabis) are found in Pakistan rather than India. Punjabis form only 2% of Indians. And many Punjabi Muslim zamindars were allied with him as well. His chief minister was a Punjabi Muslim, Fakir Azizuddin.

And modern day India has been ruled by the Muslims for almost a 1000 years, and even the southernmost parts were ruled by Sultan Fateh Ali Tipu (Tipu Sultan) thereby making all of India under Muslim rule.

The main sites of the Indus Valley Civilization are in Pakistan and therefore the name the *Indus* Valley Civilization.

The second part of your comment is where you really just go bonkers. I don't know what is up with your rape fantasies and weird imageries of such orgies, but please take that somewhere else. This isn't the YouTube comments box where you troll like a deluded Hindootva, we were having an actual discussion with historical facts, statistics and studies. Look at the title of the thread. You are basically derailing it here and all your comments are irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tergon18

baba1998 said:


> Like I told you in earlier posts, Indus vally civilization is nothing but an extension of Indian civilization, modern day pakistanis has no claim on this, Like Aryan theory, Indus civilization is a dud, which britishers started when they realized
> to rule India they have to divide it ideologially.
> 
> So they started with this indus/harappan civilization which were invaded by so called aryans and dravids were pushed back.
> Indian archaeological studies are finding faults in all these claims either aryan invasion theory of this indus vally invasion theory.
> These so called cities that we are finding in rajyastahan haryana of so called indus valley are left or abandoned by ancient Indians after Sarswati river dried up, no connection with Indus river actually.
> Thats why same city architecture is found even in southern India.



Hahaha ok, nice.

@Kaptaan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

Bharat Muslim said:


> You here? Your exams over or what? Where do you study? J&K or outside that state?



2nd paper Done 

Distance Education . J & K


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> First of all, no such civilizations such as the Indus Valley Civilization have been found throughout India. The only place where that Tamil Nadu 'structure' has been reported is in Hindu or Indian website. No major archaelogist ot historian has said anything about it and it hasnt even been widely/properly reported and it's name doesnt appear in any historical discussion. Make of that what you will.
> The IVC sites, Mohenjodaro and Harappa arent on the border with India, look at a map, they are pretty much in Central Pakistan.
> 
> Here we are, having a discussion about historical facts, studies and statistics and you come up with your average Hindootva rant. Are you taking the Mahabharata as an actual historic document? 'Raped by barbarians?' Also, its not as if the Mughals/Turkic were stopped at Delhi either, they ruled you guys for almost a 1000 years. And then going on to tell some old wives' tale or some other nonsense about Sindh.
> All your claims are stupid and trollworthy and most definitely do not belong in this thread.
> 
> @Bharat Muslim @Kaptaan @Zibago @Winchester @PAKISTANFOREVER
> This thread is seriously getting flooded by Hindootva trolls


----------



## Bharat Muslim




----------



## Bharat Muslim

Okay.

When are they going to release the vernacular translation of the two books?

@Kaptaan @WAJsal @Maira La @CHARGER @Tergon18 @Max @PaklovesTurkiye @A-Team @Azad-Kashmiri @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Pakistani Exile @Donatello @Horus @somebozo @WebMaster @AgNoStiC MuSliM @ghazi52 @Zibago @Kashmiri Pandit @graphican @Devil Soul @Oscar @Slav Defence @Windjammer @MM_Haider @Rashid Mahmood @barbarosa @Barbaros68 @Barbaros @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Max @Tripoli

@Rana of Heryana @Sinnerman108 @DESERT FIGHTER @Sulman Badshah @Icarus @All-Green @Tipu7 @Fawad Masīd @HRK

@A1Kaid @Armstrong @Arsalan

@Hasnat Sheikh


----------



## Bharat Muslim

This thread is dead.


----------



## Tergon18

About 99% of languages spoken in Pakistan are Indo-Iranian (sub-branches: 75% Indo-Aryan and 24% Iranian), a branch of Indo-European family of languages. All languages of Pakistan are written in the Perso-Arabic script, with significant vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian. Punjabi, Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi, Kashmiri, etc. are the languages spoken in Pakistan.

About 69% of languages spoken in India are Indo-Iranian (sub-branch: Indo-Aryan), 26% are Dravidian, and 5% are Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, all unrelated/distinct family of languages. Most languages in India are written in Brahmi- derived scripts such as Devangari, Gurmukhi, Tamil, etc. Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Assamese, Punjabi, Naga, and many others are the mother-tongue languages spoken in each of India's states.

As you can see both countries have distinct linguistic identities. Even in the case of Punjabi, while it is the mother-tongue of a majority in Pakistan, it represents the mother-tongue of only 2% Indians. Besides, Pakistani Punjabi (Western Punjabi) is distinct in its vocabulary/dialect and writing script when compared to Indian Punjabi (Eastern Punjabi). Another thing to keep in mind is that Indian Punjabi is mostly spoken by Sikhs who consider themselves distinct from the rest of Indians and had been fighting for independence. In the case of Urdu/Hindi, while Hindi is the mother- tongue of a majority in India, Urdu is the mother-tongue of only 8% Pakistanis. Besides, they both are distinct languages, Urdu has a writing script and strong vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian, whereas Hindi has strong vocabulary derived from Sanskrit and is written in Devangari script. Most Pakistanis can understand English and watch American/Brit movies but that does not make them British/American, same is the case with Hindi.

Race/genetics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=0

This is the Harappa DNA Project, a genealogical study, using samples from all over South Asia and the Middle East which has shown the different genetics of Pakistanis and Indians. Pakistanis (Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Balochs) cosistently show a majority Gedrosian Baloch (which doesnt mean modern Baloch ancestry, its an Iranic clade) component and lesser South Indian while Indians (Biharis, Bengalis, Rajasthanis,Malyalis, Gujratis, Tamils etc.) show a higher South Indian (ASI) component and lower Gedrosian Baloch component.

https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2013_AJHG_Priya_India_Date.pdf

This is the Harvard Genealogical Study of India which shows two distinct components in populations of South Asia, ANI (related to Europeans, Central Asians and Iranians) and ASI (only found in India) and the ANI peaks in Pakistani samples and is mainly found in North-Western Indians while ASI peaks in South India and is mainly found in Central and North Indians.
Culture/Traditions:

Pakistanis have a distinct culture, traditions and customs. Shalwar kamiz is the dress commonly worn, both by men and women in Pakistan. Pakistani food is rich in meat (including beef), whereas wheat is the main staple. Pashto, Punjabi, Balochi, Sindhi, etc. music and dances are distinctly unique with their own melodies, instruments, patterns and styles. Pakistani arts in metal work, tiles, furniture, rugs, designs/paintings, literature, calligraphy, etc. are distinct and diverse. Pakistani architecture is unique with its Islamic styles. .

India's commonly worn dress is dhoti for men and sari for women. Indian food is mostly vegetarian, with wheat as the main staple in the north and west, and rice is the main staple in south and east. Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Bengali, etc.music and dances are distinctly unique.

Pakistanis and Indians definitely have distinct cultures of their own. Some Indian women wear shalwar kamiz, but that was introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis. Many Pakistani food dishes are absent in Indian cuisine and vice versa, and if some dishes are shared, they were also introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis (like naan, tikka, kabob, biryani/pulao, etc.). There is barely any Hindu architectural influence in Pakistan (Gandhara is Graeco- Buddhist and Harappan is distinct),.

Pakistan and India have a distinct history and background having been united only for 400 or so years under foreign Mughals/Turkics , and 100 years each under the Mauryans and the British.

Pakistan is geographically unique, with Indus river and its tributaries as its main water supply. It is bordered by the Hindu Kush and Sulaiman Mountain ranges in the west, Karakoram mountain range in the north, Sutlej river and Thar desert in east, and Arabian Sea in the south. The country in its present form was created by the Pakistanis themselves out of the British Raj, the Indus people themselves who are now mostly Muslims.

India is geographically unique, with Ganges river and its tributaries as its water supply in the north, and other river systems in the rest of the country. Himalayas as its northern boundary, Sutlej river and Thar desert as its western border, the jungles of northeast as its eastern border, and Indian Ocean in the south. The mountains in the central-south India are the great divide between Dravidians of the south and Indo-Aryans of the north. The country itself was created by the British, a direct descendent of the remnants of British Raj.

It is evident that India and Pakistan have their own unique geographical environments. Pakistan is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. On the other hand, India is located at the core of South Asia.

What you guys have on your side are vague reminiscence of some sort of 'unity' of the subcontinent (which is a geographical term, referring to a moving land mass just like Asia or North America), using almost romantic and nostalgic rants to justify your position. We, on the other hand, have actual maps, studies, statistics and historical evidence for our position so all your points dont even matter anyway. Using examples of Hinduism or Sanskrit names doesnt hold. It was our ancestors of the Indus who wrote the original Rig Veda here, which was heavily related to the Avestan of Iran and was the actual text on which later Ganga and Dravida Hinduism was based upon. The people of Ganga and Dravida land were nothing more than uncivilized forest tribes when the Indus Valley Civilization (85% or so in modern day Pakistan) and Rig Vedic Indo-Aryan civilization flourished in the Pakistan Region. These areas only got civilized around 800 BC when the proper axes and tools for cutting down the forests of Ganga and Dravida were invented. *This is historical fact and is therefore undeniable*. Religion, for most us anyway, isnt something intrinsically cultural its an actual belief in God and a way of life. It doesnt matter whether a Muslim is a European, a Chinese or an African. Culture is something that is fluid and is easily developed and molded. European civilization is based on Christian (which is foreign to Europe) architercture and influences and most of it taken from the Romans who had conquered all of Europe and spread their culture there. As for the food, most of these foods and their variations are eaten in the Middle East, Iran and upto Turkey as well. Actual facts, stats and studies always trump nostalgic, romantic Hindootva rants.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tergon18

ziva said:


> Ok where is the origins of Paksitani people. There may be many mix due to forcible marriages, woman abduction, rapes by the Mughals due to which many may have some traits of the invaders. But still you will have many who are converted to Islam only due to fear of atrocity.
> 
> Rajputs historically are supposed to be very brave & fearless Hindu warriors, they will never bow down in a fight. But the only weaknesses of Rajputs & many other communities in that region was safety of woman & torture of the natives with tax & always the terror of sword by the Muslim rulers. This is one of the main reasons why 90% of Rajputs converted to Islam. Another reason is Rajputs & Jats gave a very tough time to most Islamic invaders. I can give a big history of events for this. So every muslim ruler tried to exploit the only weakness to break their courage & confidence that's woman. Nothing else deterred them. They were Indians & who have even married or laid by the Invaders will still have Indian DNA in partial.
> 
> I have explained everything above & still you bring the comparison of whole of India & show your stupid percentage post. I mentioned Punjab is the Indus point of entry to rest of India. So the first influence is to that region.
> 
> Kindly tell me where is your origin & what's your bloodline. Where are Pakistanis from & I will give you ample proof of your forefathers to satisfy you.



Again, that typical Hindootva 'OMG u guyz wer liek raped by Mughalzz lol' rant . Most of the people of the Pakistani region were not converted forcibly or out of fear for their lives, but rather by the effort of the hundreds of various Sufi saints that settled in these lands. Almost every single village here has a shrine of some Sufi. Had forcible conversion taken place then all of India would have been Muslim, but that is not the case is it? Infact, the heartland of Islam and Muslim Empires in India was Delhi and the Uttar Pradesh region which maintained a heavy Hindu majority, so that should really debunk your statement.

As for the baradaries, I have already explained in great detail in a previous comment about them, go refer to it, or I would just have to copy paste that again and slap you around with some statistics. 
As for 'bloodlines' and origins, I have posted two genealogical studies above which should address your question, go see them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tergon18

ziva said:


> So right you are accepting you are converted by these Sufi Saints. So what were you before conversion.
> 
> And don't laugh at my mention of rape or forcible conversion. It has been the truth of Islamic people through out history & even today. It prevails in most Muslim countries & even in Pakistan. Do I need to mention ISIS.
> 
> Muslims are violent people, first they kill non-Muslims then Muslims will fight each other for supremacy who has to sit on the throne & start killing each other. Bangladesh is one similar example. Son killing father, Brother killing sibling or a relative is common for power. There is never peace where Muslims are there. This is the reason every religion has problem with Islam. And People like you are again the reasons of Hindus also hating Muslims. Sorry this may sound offending, but it's a bitter truth. If I am wrong kindly correct me.
> 
> Unless you accept Hindus as your ancestors & extend your hand of friendship & love, you will never find peace & Pakistan will only sink further. You can keep arguing by posting your adamant beliefs just to convince yourself. But you won't be able to convince the world with your story.
> 
> It's like only you are telling the truth & the rest of the world is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is foreign source & names not an Indian story. So please go through it properly before you give your blind rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understand Pakistan from this educated rational man. Kindly look at the map of India in the video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing is believing. The above are some rational people who have removed the obsession of Islamic teachings & tell truth based on facts. Kindly note these are not Indians or Hindus in the videos. Hope one day you people wake up.
> 
> This thread title says Children of Indus. So I repeat again if you say Children of Indus it means you are children of (H)indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> Now don't get worked up to ask moderators to delete this post. This is another thing the invaders have done destroy all proof of truth.



Why are you bringing ISIS and present day political conflicts into this? Please stop *derailing* this thread. We were having a proper discussion based upon historical facts, statistics and studies before idiots like you swarmed this thread and started going on these weird rants. You seem to be lost, as I had said to a troll earlier, this isn't the YouTube comments box please take this somewhere else. I dont think that your rant even warrants a reply since it is hilarious as it is, but I think I'll do it anyway.

'Accept your Hindu ancestors' First of all, you do realize that Hinduism isnt an ethnicity, right? What does an Ethiopian Christian have in common with a German Christian, apart from his faith? You seem to have completely ignored my previous posts and are assuming things here.

Secondly, in the video of the nice gentleman known as Tarek Fatah that you have posted, he says that he is from the land of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, and the land of the Rig Vedics. I would like to ask you that where were the ancestors of Indians (the Gangalanders and Dravidalanders) when the Indus Valley Civilization (about 85% in modern day Pakistan), flourished and when the Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans had their civilization and culture here at the Indus where the formed the basis from which your Ganga and Dravida Hinduism would be derived. I will tell you: *They were nothing more than uncivilized forest people with no culture until the Middle Iron Age (around 800 BC) when axes were invented to cut the forests of India and civilize you people*. The Rig Veda, which had significant monotheistc influences, had different gods than Hinduism of Ganga and Dravida (marked by the Ramayana and Mahabharata of the Ganges) which isnt a uniform religion anyway and varies heavily, the word itself invented by the British to specifically refer to mainly the particular type of deities/practices of the Gangalanders and Dravidalanders. *We introduced it to you and we civilized you people, that is historically based fact. *

Going on about the linguistic origins of the Indus and it's connotations is irrelevant here as well and doesnt prove anything. Again, we were having a proper discussion based on historic facts, studies and statistics, therefore your Hindootva rant is *irrelevant* and totallly off the topic here anyway.
Apart from that, I have addressed all your previous point made in prior comments.

@Bharat Muslim @Kaptaan @Zibago @Winchester @PAKISTANFOREVER @Max
Even though these trolls are more annoying than amusing now, still, witness the wrath of the Hindootvas, part the second 

Part 3 comming soon

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

ziva said:


> So right you are accepting you are converted by these Sufi Saints. So what were you before conversion.
> 
> And don't laugh at my mention of rape or forcible conversion. It has been the truth of Islamic people through out history & even today. It prevails in most Muslim countries & even in Pakistan. Do I need to mention ISIS.
> 
> Muslims are violent people, first they kill non-Muslims then Muslims will fight each other for supremacy who has to sit on the throne & start killing each other. Bangladesh is one similar example. Son killing father, Brother killing sibling or a relative is common for power. There is never peace where Muslims are there. This is the reason every religion has problem with Islam. And People like you are again the reasons of Hindus also hating Muslims. Sorry this may sound offending, but it's a bitter truth. If I am wrong kindly correct me.
> 
> Unless you accept Hindus as your ancestors & extend your hand of friendship & love, you will never find peace & Pakistan will only sink further. You can keep arguing by posting your adamant beliefs just to convince yourself. But you won't be able to convince the world with your story.
> 
> It's like only you are telling the truth & the rest of the world is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is foreign source & names not an Indian story. So please go through it properly before you give your blind rant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understand Pakistan from this educated rational man. Kindly look at the map of India in the video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing is believing. The above are some rational people who have removed the obsession of Islamic teachings & tell truth based on facts. Kindly note these are not Indians or Hindus in the videos. Hope one day you people wake up.
> 
> This thread title says Children of Indus. So I repeat again if you say Children of Indus it means you are children of (H)indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> Now don't get worked up to ask moderators to delete this post. This is another thing the invaders have done destroy all proof of truth.



If Pakistanis are descended from modern day indian Hindus then why do Pakistanis look so vastly different to modern day indians? That is something no indian can satisfactorily explain. At the end of the day it boils down to race and physical appearance.


----------



## Tergon18

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> If Pakistanis are descended from modern day indian Hindus then why do Pakistanis look so vastly different to modern day indians? That is something no indian can satisfactorily explain. At the end of the day it boils down to race and physical appearance.



For that, I have posted several genealogical studies but I am not basing my arguments solely on them. They are but a part of the bigger picture. We have way more evidence then simply anthropology for our argument and stance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Tergon18 said:


> For that, I have posted several genealogical studies but I am not basing my arguments solely on them. They are but a part of the bigger picture. We have way more evidence then simply anthropology for our argument and stance.



One thing I never understood is that for a people that indians hate the most, indians are always trying to convince and falsely prove that Pakistanis are the same race as them and that we look like them. When the reality is completely different. Never ever understood this bizarre behaviour.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maira La

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> One thing I never understood is that for a people that indians hate the most, indians are always trying to convince and falsely prove that Pakistanis are the same race as them and that we look like them. When the reality is completely different. Never ever understood this bizarre behaviour.



On the other hand, Indians are extremely racist towards us - even though we look like them!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

There is too much of mixing of culture , tradition and language , in this part of the world . Best off luck getting to a real concrete conclusion instead of some half baked facts


----------



## Tergon18

ziva said:


> You are finding it so hard to accept that you were Hindus. Instead you keep beating around the bush with all your data. You are asking did I read your older post. I answered to the post. Before you post first read my older posts with patience. And tell me where I am wrong. Anyway there wont be any use. You people mind will work only the Islamic way.
> 
> Ok let me try breaking it down for you. Want to see how you will answer
> 
> 1) What was the religion prior to Islam in your region *or* what was the religion of the region prior to the arrival of Sufi Saints
> 2) What was region of Pakistan called 500 years ago
> 3) Do you have a Hindu DNA (Answer with Yes/NO)
> 4) Was Paksitan part of Indian Sub continent (Answer with Yes/NO)
> 
> Let me see the answers. Dont beat around with your unwanted explanation. Give answers in one line.
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need to give statistics. If you think Indians are racist, why do you people cross over to our country illegally. There are Lakhs of Bangladeshis who are working in India illegally & every day hundreds cross over from your border. Many even give Hindu names when introducing.
> 
> There are many businesses especially restaurants across the world run by Bangladeshis, you put board as Indian restaurant. Why take our name if we are racist. You use our name to get mileage, needed us for freeing you from the racist Pakistanis. If we were so racist, it was easy to wipe your population & occupy your territory. Did we do it. Your economy is bigger than Paksitan economy being a smaller country. You have GDP growth rate at par with India above 7%. If we were racist we would not allowed you to grow.
> 
> Ahsaan Faramosh. Typical Islamic mindset. You will save your skin from Indian & then kill the same person who saved you in the name of Quran.
> 
> Have you had a look into your internal matters before pointing at other country. Do you know what happens to Hindus in your country, how they are treated.


Part 3 is here as promised 

You obviously haven't even bothered to read my previous comments and have gone on an another mindless Hindootva rant. Stop posting videos of Arabs and bashing Islam. That is all *irrelevant* here and is basically considered *trolling*. No one is claiming Arab ancestry, you idiot. Read my comments from the first page to here, I have replied to all similar arguments like yours in great detail, what is the point of repeating them over and over again?

1) The religion in the 12th-14th centuries at the Pakistan Region (Indus area) was a form of Vedic cult, you could say, an earlier Rig Vedic form of Hinduism. This is because the Rig Veda was formed entirely at the Indus at around 1500 BC while the Ganges and Dravida regions (India) was a forested uncivilized region which only got civilized much later. Fact. The Rig Veda had different themes (and a monotheistic touch) than the Ramayana and Mahabharat which were formed later in the Ganges. Hindoo-ism was a blanket term given by the British to vastly differing cults that were practiced throughout the region, only in the 19th century, its not a uniform religion.

2) The region of Pakistan, 500 years ago, was called Punjab, Kashmir, Sindh, Afghania/Khyber, Makran, Balochistan, Potohar. Hindustan usually (usually not always) referred to the Uttar Pradesh region, thats why the language there is called Hindustani, the people from there are known as Hindustani, the British called the UP soldiers as Hindustani soldiers, not to the Punjabi, Pashtun etc. soldiers.

3) No, since (as far as my knowledge is concerned) there has been no genetic marker or component discovered that has the name, 'Hindu'.

4) If you are talking about the geographical land floating mass/plate known as the Indian subcontinent, then roughly 45%-50% of Pakistan would be in that region. If you are talking about the term that the British used for their conquered territories, then yes, the Pakistan region was under British rule for 98 years.

Apart from that, there is no need to bring in modern day political conflicts into this and mindlessly posting YouTube videos which have absolutely* no relevance* to what was being discussed here. You are only embarassing yourself by doing so, creating a strawman and going on such nonsensical rants.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Maira La

ziva said:


> Ahsaan Faramosh. Typical Islamic mindset. You will save your skin from Indian & then kill the same person who saved you in the name of Quran.
> 
> Have you had a look into your internal matters before pointing at other country. Do you know what happens to Hindus in your country, how they are treated.



Protesting against racism is Islamic mindset? I overestimated Hindu IQ.

So I believe the Hindus getting thrashed by Australians have Islamic mindset - they don't like racists, oh what a terrible Islamic mindset!







Here, see what your fellow Indian PDFers think of Bangladeshis:


FULL_METAL said:


> Listen fugladeshi why getting angry over the truth?, and please show this anger to ur government for letting ur people rotting in boats. How are we nabangalies? and about rubel I have no doubt about his bowling prowess it is just that *he looks like a baboon.* and WB bowlers look like this
> View attachment 253931




I don't know how Arabs got into this discussion, but they are far better as human beings than Hindus. Your 1% (higher castes) have treated your ancestors far worse (institutionalised as subumans) than these Arabs treat migrant troublemakers!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tergon18

Maira La said:


> Protesting against racism is Islamic mindset? I overestimated Hindu IQ.
> 
> So I believe the Hindus getting thrashed by Australians have Islamic mindset - they don't like racists, oh what a terrible Islamic mindset!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, see what your fellow Indian PDFers think of Bangladeshis:
> 
> Listen fugladeshi why getting angry over the truth?, and please show this anger to ur government for letting ur people rotting in boats. How are we nabangalies? and about rubel I have no doubt about his bowling prowess it is just that *he looks like a baboon.* and WB bowlers look like this
> View attachment 253931
> 
> There are almost a 100 million Bengalis in India, that just counts as self hatred





Maira La said:


> Here, see what your fellow Indian PDFers think of Bangladeshis:
> 
> Listen fugladeshi why getting angry over the truth?, and please show this anger to ur government for letting ur people rotting in boats. How are we nabangalies? and about rubel I have no doubt about his bowling prowess it is just that *he looks like a baboon.* and WB bowlers look like this



There are almost a 100 million Bengalis in India. That just counts as self hatred

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## takeiteasy

ziva said:


> Unless you accept Hindus as your ancestors & extend your hand of friendship & love, you will never find peace & Pakistan will only sink further.


This is amusing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Well, if anyone's interested, here is the online version of the Indus Saga.

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=DSauCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> Well, if anyone's interested, here is the online version of the Indus Saga.
> 
> https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=DSauCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false


Thanks.

But when are they going to release the vernacular translation of the two books?

And what would be the common public's reaction to it?


----------



## Tergon18

Bharat Muslim said:


> Thanks.
> 
> But when are they going to release the vernacular translation of the two books?
> 
> And what would be the common public's reaction to it?



As for the vernacular versions, I don't know if they are going to be released at all. The thing is that the average Pakistani doesnt know about his history/identity and what really makes him. I'd say that the history of Pakistan should be taught from the Soanian Culture,(about 500,00 years ago, one of the oldest archaelogical remains of mankind) all the way to the present, with a focus on the Indus Region (Pakistan). The lack of this brings about the two factually wrong and deluded theories of Arab/Turkic descent ('Bin Qasim was the first Pakistani') and the sameness with Ganga and Dravida-land ('We are all one from Kanyakumari to California or whatever'). Aitzaz has done a great service to his country and has presented the true theory of the 'Indus identity'. Pakistanis have a right to know about their history and their identity and the Indus Saga should indeed be translated and the Indus theory should be part of the history curriculum. A nation should know about it's origins and only then can it take pride in it's culture and history and progress.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> As for the vernacular versions, I don't know if they are going to be released at all. The thing is that the average Pakistani doesnt know about his history/identity and what really makes him. I'd say that the history of Pakistan should be taught from the Soanian Culture,(about 500,00 years ago, one of the oldest archaelogical remains of mankind) all the way to the present, with a focus on the Indus Region (Pakistan). The lack of this brings about the two factually wrong and deluded theories of Arab/Turkic descent ('Bin Qasim was the first Pakistani') and the sameness with Ganga and Dravida-land ('We are all one from Kanyakumari to California or whatever'). Aitzaz has done a great service to his country and has presented the true theory of the 'Indus identity'. Pakistanis have a right to know about their history and their identity and the Indus Saga should indeed be translated and the Indus theory should be part of the history curriculum. A nation should know about it's origins and only then can it take pride in it's culture and history and progress.


Have you noticed one thing? The author guy is not insular. I have read only select part of online truncated version of the book. He dwells so much on Bharat. He probably gives equal attention to Pakistan and Bharat.



Bharat Muslim said:


>


V sign: V for Victory


----------



## Max

Tergon18 said:


> 2) The region of Pakistan, 500 years ago, was called Punjab, Kashmir, Sindh, Afghania/Khyber, Makran, Balochistan, Potohar. Hindustan usually (usually not always) referred to the Uttar Pradesh region, thats why the language there is called Hindustani, the people from there are known as Hindustani, the British called the UP soldiers as Hindustani soldiers, not to the Punjabi, Pashtun etc. soldiers.



Hind, Hindu Hindustan are all derived from Sindh, Sindhu, Hindush (name of eastern province of Persian Achaemenid empire ....Present day Sindh and Punjab..) 

Indic, India, Indian (ocean, continent) are all derived from Indus..

Even name of Indonesia is derived from Indus.. which tell who are/ were the real deal in south east Asia..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiger7

Max said:


> Hind, Hindu Hindustan are all derived from Sindh, Sindhu, Hindush (name of eastern province of Persian Achaemenid empire ....Present day Sindh and Punjab..)
> 
> Indic, India, Indian (ocean, continent) are all derived from Indus..
> 
> Even name of Indonesia is derived from Indus.. which tell who are/ were the real deal in south east Asia..


Nope you are wrong.
Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia were only influenced by Indian Dynasties as the medieval writing systems, architecture and administration of Southeast were influenced by the Indian Gupta Dynasty, Chola Dynasty and Pallava Dynasty. The region of Pakistan never had any influence on Southeast Asia


----------



## Indos

Tiger7 said:


> Nope you are wrong.
> Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia were only influenced by Indian Dynasties as the medieval writing systems, architecture and administration of Southeast were influenced by the Indian Gupta Dynasty, Chola Dynasty and Pallava Dynasty. The region of Pakistan never had any influence on Southeast Asia



Actually since the emergence of Islam, the Influence get eroded and replaced. The writing system then use Arabic before using latin since 1945. You can search "jawi" on Google. Our modern language comes from Malay language which is more influenced by Arabic than Indian.

But it is true that before Islam, we get more influence from India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Max

Tiger7 said:


> Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia were only influenced by Indian Dynasties as the medieval writing systems,



Indus is mother of all south, southeast Asian civilization.. 

Yeah agree you have more to do with Indonesia bcoz of close proximity but what they (gangaland dynesties exported through those writing? Hinduism? Buddhism? 

who wrote vedas which led to Hinduism and which further led to birth of Buddhism? it was people of Indus.. who civilized wanna be Indians aka gangalanders? people of Indus..

anyways thats what written in Wikipedia about name Indonesia..

The name _Indonesia_ derives from the Greek translation of the _Indus River_ and the word _nèsos_, meaning "Indian island".[12]

India means 

Historically the *name India* may referred to either the region of Greater India and the Indian subcontinent. Today it refers to to the contemporary Republic of India located therein.The name is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC).[1] The term appeared in Old English as early the 9th century and reemerged in Modern English in the 17th century.

So Indian subcontinent, Indian ocean is named after Indus not after republic of india which never existed before 1947..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Piper said:


> Interesting article if flawed. Nation states are formed due to variety of reasons and geographical uniformity though one of them is not the only one. I can give numerous examples from every corner of the globe evidencing that the geographical positioning such as river basins, mountain ranges etc are often moot but the well read people already know that.
> 
> Other important flaw in the article that Pakistan was made by it's proponents on the basis of an explicit principle so the article is merely an attempt to put a more palatable spin of geographical uniformity on what is fundamentally a closed society. How does it matter that the Indus and Gangatic civilizations are different when the reasons for the division was religion and not geography? Had that been the case then there was no need for one of the biggest cross migrations in human histories. I think OP acknowledges this and Kudos to him but retrospective revisionism is a detested scholarly act.


Creation of Pakistan was as much as influenced by ethnicity as it was influenced by religion. The fact that India has around the same amount of Muslims as the whole population of Pakistan clings on to this fact. Had Pakistan's creation entirely be influenced by religion - it would be much larger in size and would hold a much larger population.



Max said:


> Indus is mother of all south, southeast Asian civilization..
> 
> Yeah agree you have more to do with Indonesia bcoz of close proximity but what they (gangaland dynesties exported through those writing? Hinduism? Buddhism?
> 
> who wrote vedas which led to Hinduism and which further led to birth of Buddhism? it was people of Indus.. who civilized wanna be Indians aka gangalanders? people of Indus..
> 
> anyways thats what written in Wikipedia about name Indonesia..
> 
> The name _Indonesia_ derives from the Greek translation of the _Indus River_ and the word _nèsos_, meaning "Indian island".[12]
> 
> India means
> 
> Historically the *name India* may referred to either the region of Greater India and the Indian subcontinent. Today it refers to to the contemporary Republic of India located therein.The name is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC).[1] The term appeared in Old English as early the 9th century and reemerged in Modern English in the 17th century.
> 
> So Indian subcontinent, Indian ocean is named after Indus not after republic of india which never existed before 1947..


Indus is not the 'mother of all south/southeast Asian civilizations' - it had a distinct people and culture that was geographically confined by the Indus River Valley. 

Just because the name of countries is linguistically influenced by 'Indus' does not mean they were branched or had any direct influence from the Indus. 

India and Indonesia were all named by foreigners.



Maira La said:


> On the other hand, Indians are extremely racist towards us - even though we look like them!


I don't think Bangladeshis look like Indians - they have a distinct look; although many look similar.


----------



## Max

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> - it had a distinct people and culture that was geographically confined by the Indus River Valley.



So the used to live in jail, and no one else was allowed to breath there... keep ur theories to yourself..

i never talked about distinct race or culture.. i just talked about term India and Indonesia..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger7

Max said:


> Indus is mother of all south, southeast Asian civilization..
> 
> Yeah agree you have more to do with Indonesia bcoz of close proximity but what they (gangaland dynesties exported through those writing? Hinduism? Buddhism?
> 
> who wrote vedas which led to Hinduism and which further led to birth of Buddhism? it was people of Indus.. who civilized wanna be Indians aka gangalanders? people of Indus..
> 
> anyways thats what written in Wikipedia about name Indonesia..
> 
> The name _Indonesia_ derives from the Greek translation of the _Indus River_ and the word _nèsos_, meaning "Indian island".[12]
> 
> India means
> 
> Historically the *name India* may referred to either the region of Greater India and the Indian subcontinent. Today it refers to to the contemporary Republic of India located therein.The name is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC).[1] The term appeared in Old English as early the 9th century and reemerged in Modern English in the 17th century.
> 
> So Indian subcontinent, Indian ocean is named after Indus not after republic of india which never existed before 1947..


No you are wrong. The greatest Dynasties of ancient and medieval India like the Maurya, Gupta, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Chola Dynasties were all founded in India while the Indus region was not able to even produce 1 great Dynasty in the past. These Dynasties influenced whole Southeast Asia and even whole South Asia.


----------



## Max

Tiger7 said:


> No you are wrong. The greatest Dynasties of ancient and medieval India like the Maurya, Gupta, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Chola Dynasties were all founded in India while the Indus region was not able to even produce 1 great Dynasty in the past. These Dynasties influenced whole Southeast Asia and even whole South Asia.



These kingdoms were not older then IVC, Even if i accept your point, then tell us who was the one who civilized gangalanders? Which civilization they used to follow?

you followers spread ideology, way of life of Indus hence this whole subcontinent is named after land of Indus, not gangaland.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiger7

Max said:


> These kingdoms were not older then IVC, Even if i accept your point, then tell us who was the one who civilized gangalanders? Which civilization they used to follow?
> 
> you followers spread ideology, way of life of Indus hence this whole subcontinent is named after land of Indus, not gangaland.


Again wrong. We do know almost nothing about the Indus civilization as historians can not decipher the Indus script.
Perhaps it was never a real script. On the other hand the earliest written language and literature emerged in India as the oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit and Sanskrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India. The Indus region never had its own literature or identity.


----------



## Max

Tiger7 said:


> Again wrong. We do know almost nothing about the Indus civilization as historians can not decipher the Indus script.
> Perhaps it was never a real script. On the other hand the earliest written language and literature emerged in India as the oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit and Sanskrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India. The Indus region never had its own literature or identity.




@Tergon18 @Kaptaan


----------



## Tergon18

Tiger7 said:


> Again wrong. We do know almost nothing about the Indus civilization as historians can not decipher the Indus script.
> Perhaps it was never a real script. On the other hand the earliest written language and literature emerged in India as the oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit and Sanskrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India. The Indus region never had its own literature or identity.



We do not need to decipher the script of the Indus Valley Civilization to know that the civilization actually existed and it was one of the oldest in the world, Mehrgarh included (sometimes counted as seperate as IVC, but anyway) and most advanced. Ofcourse, in all probability, the IVC script was a legitimate one. If they had advanced pottery, homes, art and sewerage etc., all quite well ahead for their time, what makes you think that they would not have literature as well? That is a very absurd notion.

And secondly, you seem to be conviniently forgetting Rig Vedic Civilization and literature, which too is one of the oldest in the world and the most advanced for its age. It was formed mainly around 1500 BC at the Indus Region, Pakistan. This was a time when both those Eastern India and South India regions that you have mentioned were forested regions and had no culture or civilization. These people were still dancing around naked in trees when great works of literature and civilization were being formed at the Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiger7

Tergon18 said:


> We do not need to decipher the script of the Indus Valley Civilization to know that the civilization actually existed and it was one of the oldest in the world, Mehrgarh included (sometimes counted as seperate as IVC, but anyway) and most advanced. Ofcourse, in all probability, the IVC script was a legitimate one. If they had advanced pottery, homes, art and sewerage etc., all quite well ahead for their time, what makes you think that they would not have literature as well? That is a very absurd notion.
> 
> And secondly, you seem to be conviniently forgetting Rig Vedic Civilization and literature, which too is one of the oldest in the world and the most advanced for its age. It was formed mainly around 1500 BC at the Indus Region, Pakistan. This was a time when both Eastern India and South India were forested regions and had no culture or civilization. These people were still dancing around naked in trees when great works of literature and civilization were being forged at the Indus.


You seem to forget that even the Vedic society did not have any writing systems. The Vedic hyms were not written down until the 3rd century BC. Before the 3rd century BC the Vedic hyms were orally passed down so it is quite possible that the Indus Valley people did not have a real writing system. The oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India and both literature emerged in the 3rd century BC. On the other hand the Indus region was not able to produce its own literature which is the main reason why we know more about ancient eastern India and ancient south India than the Indus region.


----------



## Tergon18

Tiger7 said:


> You seem to forget that even the Vedic society did not have any writing systems. The Vedic hyms were not written down until the 3rd century BC. Before the 3rd century BC the Vedic hyms were orally passed down so it is quite possible that the Indus Valley people did not have a real writing system. The oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India and both literature emerged in the 3rd century BC. On the other hand the Indus region was not able to produce its own literature which is the main reason why we know more about ancient eastern India and ancient south India than the Indus region.



Well, the Rig Veda and Vedic literature was mostly carried on by oral tradition, yes, however the earliest evidence of it being written down comes from 11th century Nepal. And anyway, the literature still is Rig Vedic and is of the Indus, its only written in a seperate place. It is wholly possible that Rig Vedic literature was written down earlier on at the Indus but got lost since it is actually more than 3000 years old, which is what most scholars speculate as well.

And about the Indus Valley Civilization, it is pretty much obvious that they do have a script, the only problem with it is that it is yet to be deciphered, which was the same case with Egyptian hieroglyphs. And just like the hieroglyphs, I'm sure that it will eventually be deciphered as well.

About the Indus Region and literature, I'm sure you have heard of Taxila and Taxila University which was one of the oldest and most advanced centre of learning of it's era and people from all over Asia and even Greece, Rome etc. came here to study. Indus has existed and thrived for thousands of years before Ganges-Dravida even learned to be civilized. That is fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiger7

Tergon18 said:


> Well, the Rig Veda and Vedic literature was mostly carried on by oral tradition, yes, however the earliest evidence of it being written down comes from 11th century Nepal. And anyway, the literature still is Rig Vedic and is of the Indus, its only written in a seperate place. It is wholly possible that Rig Vedic literature was written down earlier on at the Indus but got lost since it is actually more than 3000 years old, which is what most scholars speculate as well.
> 
> And about the Indus Valley Civilization, it is pretty much obvious that they do have a script, the only problem with it is that it is yet to be deciphered, which was the same case with Egyptian hieroglyphs. And just like the hieroglyphs, I'm sure that it will eventually be deciphered as well.
> 
> About the Indus Region and literature, I'm sure you have heard of Taxila and Taxila University which was one of the oldest and most advanced centre of learning of it's era and people from all over Asia and even Greece, Rome etc. came here to study. Indus has existed and thrived for thousands of years before Ganges-Dravida even learned to be civilized. That is fact.


Not really. We barely have any ancient written records from the Indus region. The earliest literature is the Prakrit literature from eastern India and the Sangam literature from south India. We know from foreign records that there existed some kind of institution in Taxila but not any texts from Taxila were preserved. The earliest inscriptions of South Asia were made during the Maurya period in eastern India and it was this script which spread to the Indus region. Which confirms that the Indus people did not have their own literature. The first great historical Dynasties in South Asian history were also established in eastern India and southern India which were the Maurya Dynasty and the Satavahana Dynasty. On the other hand the Indus region was after the fall of the Indus Valley civilization mostly dominated by tribal communities which is the main reason why the Indus region was mostly ruled by foreign invaders


----------



## Tergon18

Tiger7 said:


> Not really. We barely have any ancient written records from the Indus region. The earliest literature is the Prakrit literature from eastern India and the Sangam literature from south India. We know from foreign records that there existed some kind of institution in Taxila but not any texts from Taxila were preserved. The earliest inscriptions of South Asia were made during the Maurya period in eastern India and it was this script which spread to the Indus region. Which confirms that the Indus people did not have their own literature. The first great historical Dynasties in South Asian history were also established in eastern India and southern India which were the Maurya Dynasty and the Satavahana Dynasty. On the other hand the Indus region was after the fall of the Indus Valley civilization mostly dominated by tribal communities which is the main reason why the Indus region was mostly ruled by foreign invaders



Nope, technically the oldest written records are those of the Indus Valley Civilization, which however are yet to be deciphered, but that does not mean that they dont exist (same used to be the case with Egyptian hieroglyphs). And all modern scholars believe that the Rig Vedic texts were actually written down much before, however they didnt survive into the present day, but thats a different matter. And there are numerous records both foreign and native about Taxila, which many speculate to be as old as the 8th century BC, a time when the Ganges-Dravida land knew not of language or civilization, and apart from that there are actual ruins and remains of its site.
Anyway, most of these 'foreign' kingdoms actually got absorbed into the local sphere and had local variants of them. It was geographic positioning more than anything which caused this, being right next to or at the crossroads of Central, South and West Asia.
However, the fact remains that the Indus Region has been inhabited for several thousand years before Ganges-Dravida even got civilized. Those regions only got civilized in the Middle Iron Age (800-500 BC) when proper axes were invented to cut down it's forests, which is relatively recent. The Indus, however has had advanced civilizations like Mehrgarh which existed more than 8000 years ago. That makes the region quite unique in the history and fabric of the world. All this while Ganges-Dravida was inhabited with primitive forest tribes with no culture, language or civilization. This was while IVC and Rig Vedic Civilization, with one of the oldest and advanced cultures for its age, flourished at the Indus Region.
It is pretty much obvious *who civilized* *whom and *who owes it's history to whom.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@Tergon18 You deserve a positive rating for that. It's still case of neighbour claming everything under the next door's neighbours property as his. 

And Indus Region gave everything, civilization, culture, history and even the damned name !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tergon18

I think it was Adi Shankara, an 8th century Hindu saint, more than any of us or Aitzaz Ahsan really, that had the strongest case for the seperation of the Indus Basin from Ganges-Dravida land.
He was the one who formed 'Shankaracharya' or the heads of monasteries in four corners (in addition to a central one) of what he considered his land.

Shankaracharya (IAST: Śaṅkarācārya, Shankara acharya) is a commonly used title of heads of monasteries called mathas in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. The title derives from Adi Shankara, an 8th-century CE reformer of Hinduism. He is honored as Jagadguru, a title that was used earlier only to Krishna.


●The Dakshiānmnāya Sri Sharada Peetham(main matha) at Sringeri Sharada Peetham in Shringeri, Karnataka.

●The Uttarāmnāya matha (northern matha) at Jyotir Math in the city of Jyotirmath also known as Joshimath, Uttarakhand.

●The Pūrvāmnāya matha (eastern matha), or the Govardhana matha at Puri, Odisha.

●The Paśchimāmnāya matha (western matha), or the Shāradā Pitha at Dwarka, Gujarat.

●Finally Sarvagna Peetham Kanchi Moolāmnāya Sri kanchi Kamakoti Peetham(Sarvjna Peetham), or the Kamakoti at Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu.

The four points or mathas of Adi Shankara:






None of his four points of India are in the Pakistan Region or Indus Basin, which pretty much proves that the region was considered distinct, even 1500 years ago.
Adi Shankara could be called the proginetor of the Indus theory or Indus Saga of Aitzaz Ahsan and as the one who really made the basis for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> View attachment 318499
> I think it was Adi Shankara, an 8th century Hindu saint, more than any of us or Aitzaz Ahsan really, that had the strongest case for the seperation of the Indus Basin from Ganges-Dravida land.
> He was the one who formed 'Shankaracharya' or the heads of monasteries in four corners (in addition to a central one) of what he considered his land.
> 
> Shankaracharya (IAST: Śaṅkarācārya, Shankara acharya) is a commonly used title of heads of monasteries called mathas in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. The title derives from Adi Shankara, an 8th-century CE reformer of Hinduism. He is honored as Jagadguru, a title that was used earlier only to Krishna.
> 
> 
> ●The Dakshiānmnāya Sri Sharada Peetham(main matha) at Sringeri Sharada Peetham in Shringeri, Karnataka.
> 
> ●The Uttarāmnāya matha (northern matha) at Jyotir Math in the city of Jyotirmath also known as Joshimath, Uttarakhand.
> 
> ●The Pūrvāmnāya matha (eastern matha), or the Govardhana matha at Puri, Odisha.
> 
> ●The Paśchimāmnāya matha (western matha), or the Shāradā Pitha at Dwarka, Gujarat.
> 
> ●Finally Sarvagna Peetham Kanchi Moolāmnāya Sri kanchi Kamakoti Peetham(Sarvjna Peetham), or the Kamakoti at Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu.
> 
> The four points or mathas of Adi Shankara:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of his four points of India are in the Pakistan Region or Indus Basin, which pretty much proves that the region was considered distinct, even 1500 years ago.
> Adi Shankara could be called the proginetor of the Indus theory or Indus Saga of Aitzaz Ahsan and as the one who really made the basis for it.


How did you dig out this info? Did Aitzaz Ahsan tell you?


----------



## Tergon18

Bharat Muslim said:


> How did you dig out this info? Did Aitzaz Ahsan tell you?



What do you mean?


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> What do you mean?


How do you find the relevant info in the spur of moment?


----------



## Tergon18

Bharat Muslim said:


> How do you find the relevant info in the spur of moment?



Are you talking about the Adi Shankara part? Its all over the internet. Just Google him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> Are you talking about the Adi Shankara part? Its all over the internet. Just Google him.


Even to Google you have to know a bit about it BEFOREHAND.


----------



## Tergon18

Bharat Muslim said:


> Even to Google you have to know a bit about it BEFOREHAND.



I read Aitzaz Ahsan's book

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Tergon18 said:


> I read Aitzaz Ahsan's book



I read somewhere about the public-bath of Mohenjo-daro. That's nice. It means free, safe, unrestricted show of Indus women for voyeurs. Or is there a catch? Did something obstruct the view?


----------



## Tergon18

Bharat Muslim said:


> I read somewhere about the public-bath of Mohenjo-daro. That's nice. It means free, safe, unrestricted show of Indus women for voyeurs. Or is there a catch? Did something obstruct the view?



Lol wtf

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Kuchh naya bolo guys!

@Tergon18 @Kaptaan

@Max

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Bharat Muslim said:


> Kuchh naya bolo guys!
> 
> @Tergon18 @Kaptaan
> 
> @Max


What?

Reactions: Like Like:

2


----------



## Mentee

Kaptaan said:


> What?


Tell him something new


----------



## mubs

I think Pakistan and India are quite different, the problem is that the north western parts of India are too similar to Pakistan.

It is true that the Rigvedic Civilization was centred in the Indus River system, however, the poets also mention rivers in India and Afghanistan (Narmada and Khuba for instance). Similarly, the IVC was mostly contained in Pak but did reach out into parts of India esp Gujarat (into Afghanistan too I believe).

When I visited Rajasthan I toured a fort which I was told was built by a Jaisal Bhatti. I found it strange hearing the name Bhatti of an "Indian" Hindu Warrior, in the UK I had associated the name with Pakistanis. I later learnt this was a Sanksrit based name used often by Kashmiri Pandits. I found it sad thinking the Pakistani Bhatti guy in the UK would never know about the great warrior Jaisal Bhatti.

I believe the Vedic Civilzation started out centred around the Indus Valley and spread out both East and West. This culture then became more settled and became the IVC. I consider all Pashtuns, Pakistanis and North Indians to be of the same group (notice for instance the look of Long Hair + Beard which we also find in Taliban, Sikhs and Hindu Priests, I guess this look must go back a long way). Once you get beyond Delhi and Gujarat it becomes more different, but the important point is it is hard to draw a definitive line anywhere and say these are two different civilizations as there will always be overlap, as this is a continuous geographic region.

The word Hind, refers to Indus Valley, the earliest mention being Hapta Hendu, an Iranian form of Sapta Sindhu. Thus Hindustan should refer to Pakistan. Note that even west of Indus was called White India just prior to Islam, on account of the Pashtuns being considered 'white Indians'. I suppose the term Hindustan may have been used to refer to the Delhi region due to Delhi being an economic powerhouse and thus the Mughal capital. I also recall reading somewhere that an a Mongol King, when he wanted to invade India, spoke to a Afghan King who told him "Hind starts from Multan".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sliver

The OP really is trying hard to find a different history than that of the Indian sub continent.
1)by the logic that a "Pakistani" is the child of Indus (the OP states this in 1965), then Bangladesh should never have been Pakistan
2) What is the problem with having a shared heritage with India? you can stil go your separate ways. having a shared history does not mean you need to have a shared future.
3) More than finding your own roots to be Unique, it feels like this person is more bent on denying India the history of the IVC/Harappan civilization.

The Mehrgarh and Andronovo culture have proved that there can be a shared civilization that have later branched out into different peoples

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mentee

Sliver said:


> The OP really is trying hard to find a different history than that of the Indian sub continent.
> 1)by the logic that a "Pakistani" is the child of Indus (the OP states this in 1965), then Bangladesh should never have been Pakistan
> 2) What is the problem with having a shared heritage with India? you can stil go your separate ways. having a shared history does not mean you need to have a shared future.
> 3) More than finding your own roots to be Unique, it feels like this person is more bent on denying India the history of the IVC/Harappan civilization.
> 
> The Mehrgarh and Andronovo culture have proved that there can be a shared civilization that have later branched out into different peoples


Iam a Punjabi what have I got to do with a u.p dweller or lets say a madrasi, except we both breathe
Edit : Why an American is getting annoyed on what I.V.C folks claim -------

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sliver

Mentee said:


> Iam a Punjabi what have I got to do with a u.p dweller or lets say a madrasi, except we both breathe
> Edit : Why an American is getting annoyed on what I.V.C folks claim -------



My favourite pastime - Ancient history..
finished the crash course 3 times over, Scot chestworth's ancient history twice. currently on columbia university's Richerd Bulliet's class on ancient history and valley civilizations.

I had to look up where Punjabi was but its right there along the plains of sub continent India. Its an interesting culture up there. I can share a few insights if you are up for it on a different thread - complete with the flow of peoples from the Andronovo Culture to Mehrgarh to Harappa and then into present Pakistan/India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sliver said:


> The OP really is trying hard to find a different history than that of the Indian sub continent.
> 1)by the logic that a "Pakistani" is the child of Indus (the OP states this in 1965), then Bangladesh should never have been Pakistan
> 2) What is the problem with having a shared heritage with India? you can stil go your separate ways. having a shared history does not mean you need to have a shared future.
> 3) More than finding your own roots to be Unique, it feels like this person is more bent on denying India the history of the IVC/Harappan civilization.
> 
> The Mehrgarh and Andronovo culture have proved that there can be a shared civilization that have later branched out into different peoples




Bangladesh was never meant to be part of Pakistan either..

P=Panjab
A=Afghania/KP
K=Kashmir
iS:Sindh
TAN=Balochistan


EP was a freak of history .. With alien culture,language or customs.. And shared nothing with us ..

Unlike that Modern Pak has been united since centuries as part of the same Muslim dynasties and we have lived with eachother for thousands of years.



Sliver said:


> My favourite pastime - Ancient history..
> finished the crash course 3 times over, Scot chestworth's ancient history twice. currently on columbia university's Richerd Bulliet's class on ancient history and valley civilizations.
> 
> I had to look up where Punjabi was but its right there along the plains of sub continent India. Its an interesting culture up there. I can share a few insights if you are up for it on a different thread - complete with the flow of peoples from the Andronovo Culture to Mehrgarh to Harappa and then into present Pakistan/India



Panjab itself isn't a heterogenous province .. There is no heterogenous people in Panjab.. It's more like an umbrella term for the people who live in Panjab or have adopted the Panjabi language ...

I can suggest several books .. One of them being the Indus Saga,Sepoy and the Raj etc.

And if you observe Panjab itself (is divided in different regions) and has historically been more closer and part/satrapies of Iran or Afghanistan .. The culture again is different (as are the different civilisations that were born there) than the gangetic plains of India.


Even today if you observer the Indian Panjabis who are pretty homogenous .. You will see the Sikhs in other countries being proud of Panjab rather than India .. Ask a Sikh where he is from and the answer most of the time will be Panjab ..

In Indian Panjab .. The Panjabis consider themselves superior to the other "Hindustanis" the proper term for Indians (bar Panjab)... Which you will also see in British records .. British who defeated the State of Panjab and annexed it to British India..

A people who have always held the "indians" in contempt.. Who have for the most part of recorded history been a seperate entity and had a seperate culture than "india".

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Sliver said:


> plains of sub continent India.


That is a region the size of Europe. Does Portugal and Latvia have same history? Whilst there maybe some convergence - at the end day everybody is part of the globe but that does not mean what happens in Balochistan is going to have much impact in Bengal. They al have their own currents in the wash of history. It is when one does not have anything that you feel you need to "piggy back" others.

And "India" had Burma, even Aden and modern Dubai part of it. Do we draw some conclusions from that? If your so pent up about East Bengal what about Burma being part of India?

And did you know up till 1840s Indian soldiers recieved* extra pay* when serving in Sindh and Punjab [what is now Pakistan] because the Indus region was percieved to be "f*oreign*"?

Excerpt

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Sliver

Kaptaan said:


> That is a region the size of Europe. Does Portugal and Latvia have same history? Whilst there maybe some convergence - at the end day everybody is part of the globe but that does not mean what happens in Balochistan is going to have much impact in Bengal. They al have their own currents in the wash of history. It is when one does not have anything that you feel you need to "piggy back" others.
> 
> And "India" had Burma, even Aden and modern Dubai part of it. Do we draw some conclusions from that? If your so pent up about East Bengal what about Burma being part of India?
> 
> And did you know up till 1840s Indian soldiers recieved* extra pay* when serving in Sindh and Punjab [what is now Pakistan] because the Indus region was percieved to be "f*oreign*"?
> 
> Excerpt



I do not know about portugal and Latvia. As of past few years the reading and the courses have been on valley civilizations of the near east and the Indus. so cannot comment on that.
frankly none of what you said has anything to do with the OP in my opinion.
Here is what I have a problem with the OP:

The OP says Pakistan is a child of Indus while differentiating the culture of of the Gangetic plains from Indus. almost to the point that he goes on to say that the culture of India has no relation to the Indus culture of the Harappa. That is not true since the roots of the culture of the Gangetic plain are also part of the roots of the Harappan culture.

There was a point of inflection at which regions closer to the Arab/Persian states moved closer to Islam while the regions closer to the Gangetic plain have continued to resist that change of religion and culture. 

Ultimately, culture is what the people believe and follow. The present day Pakistan is different from India not because the roots are different - but because you chose to grow differently. You cannot deny the history to India in the same way as India cannot deny the present and future of Pakistan. in effect, they are children of Indus too. 

TL;DR:

What I see is, some Indians yearn that Pakistanis have "left" the fold of the vedic ancestry - that is wrong. India cannot deny Pakistan's right to follow a different path from the same point. 
Conversely I see some Pakistanis feel that the IVC history belongs to Pakistan alone and India has no rights to it. This is wrong as well. Pakistan, cannot deny the stark connections to the north and western regions of Indian subcontinent (sorry for the GoT pun in there).


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Sliver said:


> The OP says Pakistan is a child of Indus while differentiating the culture of of the Gangetic plains


He is correct in that assertion. Ganges is entirely distinct from Indus despite it's pathetic attempts at bootlicking Indus. The fact is there are threads informing many cultures that may have some common roots. No culture, no civilization ever was nurtured inside a test tube. All cultures whilst being distinct overlap with others at so many differant levels.

IVC was only discovered in 1900s. Prior to that there was non of this yearning for Indus. These very Indian's who had not even developed the concept of unitarian state in 1900 were oblivious to IVC as they were of the backside of the moon.

What we have here is in the modern age competing societies try to showcase their great past in order to show off, to proffer ancient greatness and in doing so stand above the ordinary. In the race for historical oscars the Ganga India has nothing. I mean nothing, nothing other than hanging exposed balls betweeen skinny legs, hanging off trees in the jungles of the thick tropical jungles of Ganga having even failed to learn how to sew cloth which is why the Sari - a minimalist piece of cloth wrapped around the as*s was still king until 1980s.

It is these people of the Ganga and even more redundant Indians from the South who now look around and find in far away Indus Valley, a dry semi arid region, a cradle of history, a place which they now place their grubby hands to prove to the world "we were not savages". How exactly a jungly Orrissan, a Bengali, a Assamese, a Tamil and other hotch potch of peoples even claim on a land they have never seen or most likely will never see and know even less about is beyond me. Bad news for them, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehr Garh are in, well Pakistan.

What next? The Pakistani's might as well claim Greece because the Greeks came to Pakistan during Alexanders time. Illusions of Hellenic greatness?

And are you Indian American?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Sliver

Kaptaan said:


> He is correct in that assertion. Ganges is entirely distinct from Indus despite *it's pathetic attempts at bootlicking Indus*. The fact is there are threads informing many cultures that may have some common roots. No culture, no civilization ever was nurtured inside a test tube. All cultures whilst being distinct overlap with others at so many differant levels.
> 
> IVC was only discovered in 1900s. Prior to that there was non of this yearning for Indus. These very Indian's who had not even developed the concept of unitarian state in 1900 were oblivious to IVC as they were of the backside of the moon.
> 
> All we have is in the modern age where competing societies try to showcase their great past in order to compete with other societies to proffer ancient greatness and in doing so stand above the ordinary. In the race for historical oscars the Ganga India's have nothing. I mean nothing, nothing other* than hanging exposed balls betweeen skinny legs*, hanging off trees in the jungles of the thick tropical jungles of Ganga *have even failed to even learn how sew cloth* which is why the Sari - a minimalist piece of cloth arapped around was still king until 1980s.
> 
> It ios these people of the Ganga and even more redundent Indioans from the South who now look around and find in far away Indus Valley, a dry semi arid region a place which* they can now place their grubby hands to prove to the world "we were not savages". How exactly a jungly Orrissan, a Bengali, a Assamese, a Tamil and other hotch potch of peoples can even claim on a land they have never seen or most likely will never see and know even less about it. Until they found out Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehr Garh are in, well Pakistan.*
> 
> What next? The Pakistani's might as well claim Greece because the Greeks came to Pakistan during Alexanders time.
> 
> And are you Indian American?



You and me have different ideas of personhood and cultures. there is a lot of bigotry, racism, arrogance in that post you just wrote. you will probably not even acknowledge that let alone figure out ways to reduce that. Which is fine - its your way of life. 
Its not mine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sliver

@Kaptaan

First relating to Brahmanda Purana, one of the major eighteen Puranas, it mentions 64 Shakthi Peetha of Goddess Parvati in the Bharat or Greater India including present day India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and parts of southern Pakistan. Another text which gives a listing of these shrines, is the _Shakthi Peetha Stotram_, written by Adi Shankara, the 9th-century Hindu philosopher.[10]
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peetha
(I dont understand much of that but I am still putting it all together: my current interest is to know the progression of people from the ancient Babylon/Sumer towards east via Andronovo culture, Mehrgar, Harappa and the Vedic age )

parts of Pakistan have been together with India centuries before Islamism spread through Pakistan. They were eventually wiped out and you are finding it hard to see yourselves associated with "_jungly Orrissan, a Bengali, a Assamese, a Tamil and other hotch potch of peoples can even claim on a land they have never seen or most likely will never see and know even less about it_".

The area that is now Pakistan was actually filled with temples, peoples with vedic scriptures and knwledge as their religious base for most of the time before the advent of islam. the holy pillgrimages of these peoples included parts of Pakistan. so they already knew their history and did not have to wait "_Until they found out Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehr Garh are in, well Pakistan._"

I am interested to see what you know about the following:
Before the advent of Islam in Pakistan, what do you think were the beliefs of the people in that area were? you might want to say Buddhism alone.. what about before that?

if you listen to Scot Chestworth's podcasts you will be able to deduce how the evolution of peoples from "sumeria/babylon" continued both eastward and westward.

Did you know that the gods of Ancient Iran, and Ancient India were the same? this shows the continuation of peoples from Iran to India and beyond. Pakistan is smack in the middle of this it was more a cultural center of these people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@Sliver

1. Are you Indian-American?

2. There was no Ancient India.That term is recently constructed and is being "retro-fitted". If on the off chance I am wrong please produce me one primary source that uses the term "*India"*. Do not give me other terms that you ascribe as "India". I mean the actual term "India" and that means what it means today. Until you do that I am not going to waste my time with you.

3. This mythical "Bharat" that you have conjued up, relying on Hindu myth is not India or even Greater India. I might as well find some name from antiquity, equate that to Pakistan and then plish my ego by stretching it further into "Greater Pakistan".

Jeez. Your Indian. Answer to No. 1 is not needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mentee

Sliver said:


> @Kaptaan
> 
> First relating to Brahmanda Purana, one of the major eighteen Puranas, it mentions 64 Shakthi Peetha of Goddess Parvati in the Bharat or Greater India including present day India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and parts of southern Pakistan. Another text which gives a listing of these shrines, is the _Shakthi Peetha Stotram_, written by Adi Shankara, the 9th-century Hindu philosopher.[10]
> from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peetha
> (I dont understand much of that but I am still putting it all together: my current interest is to know the progression of people from the ancient Babylon/Sumer towards east via Andronovo culture, Mehrgar, Harappa and the Vedic age )
> 
> parts of Pakistan have been together with India centuries before Islamism spread through Pakistan. They were eventually wiped out and you are finding it hard to see yourselves associated with "_jungly Orrissan, a Bengali, a Assamese, a Tamil and other hotch potch of peoples can even claim on a land they have never seen or most likely will never see and know even less about it_".
> 
> The area that is now Pakistan was actually filled with temples, peoples with vedic scriptures and knwledge as their religious base for most of the time before the advent of islam. the holy pillgrimages of these peoples included parts of Pakistan. so they already knew their history and did not have to wait "_Until they found out Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehr Garh are in, well Pakistan._"
> 
> I am interested to see what you know about the following:
> Before the advent of Islam in Pakistan, what do you think were the beliefs of the people in that area were? you might want to say Buddhism alone.. what about before that?
> 
> if you listen to Scot Chestworth's podcasts you will be able to deduce how the evolution of peoples from "sumeria/babylon" continued both eastward and westward.
> 
> Did you know that the gods of Ancient Iran, and Ancient India were the same? this shows the continuation of peoples from Iran to India and beyond. Pakistan is smack in the middle of this it was more a cultural center of these people.


 
all your assertions are based on religion, ok. For the sake of the argument we consider your views as gospel truth, then can we consider the French and the Spaniards the same? Or the Iraqis and Iranians coz they share a common border and religion for millenniums 

P.S you are awesome , pplz go through this whole thread and come up with something new. Mr. Sharma

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@Sliver You are aware there are Hindu temples, Hindu cultures found east of India. In Bangladesh, Burma [Myanmar], Thailand, Laos, Indonesian Archipelago including the famous Bali Island. In Fact South East Asia has huge impress of Hindu temples and cultures with even languages having heavy Hindu influence.

Now why, I wonder don't you Indian's spend any energy in spreading your muck in those regions? Simple there is not much in way of ancient history you can brag in front of the West. Therefore your forced to "bootlick" the Indus instead, because that is where all the historical action is. My quote again.



> Ganges is entirely distinct from Indus despite *it's pathetic attempts at bootlicking Indus*.


The need for Ganga India to look West and Indus Pakistan is explained.


Did you forget this Greater India?







Largest Hindu temple in the world all the way in Cambodia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat






I only wish you Ganga Lords looked East to Greater India in Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bali all the way to Borneo.

And Sri Lanka, Nepal.

And finally - a bas*tard can do what he wants, wish what he wants but he can't change his progenitor. Indian's are always going to be *Children of Ganga*. Pakistani's always *Children of Indus*. Both flow in opposite directions. Both empty in differant sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Sliver

@Kaptaan Let me know when you would like to discuss one on one and we can do that quicker.

_Now why, I wonder don't you Indian's spend any energy in spreading your muck in those regions? Simple there is not much in way of ancient history you can brag in front of the West. Therefore your forced to "bootlick" the Indus instead, because that is where all the historical action is. My quote again._

First, I am a history buff and that too ancient history. I have no interest in religion wars or establishing supremacy of one religion over the other.
second. my only issue in the OP was this: Pakistan cannot claim to be the "only" people of Indus that argument is flawed.

I am currently researching the links between the ancient Iranian and Indian culture. this predates almost all of the existing religions till date. Please remember "culture" is not always "religion". for example, Bengali culture is different from Pakistani culture now but their religion is same. however, there are some aspects of the culture (before the separation) which are common. Now, why do you think the names for various gods is same in Ancient Iranian and Ancient Indian. All I am saying is that these people have claim to a common history.

What people make their present is up to them. but you cannot deny anyone their history

_And finally - a bas*tard can do what he wants, wish what he wants but he can't change his progenitor. Indian's are always going to be *Children of Ganga*. Pakistani's always *Children of Indus*. Both flow in opposite directions. Both empty in differant sea_

you calling anyone bastards is deplorable. but i have seen how racist you get when you make a point so I am not expecting that your civility will be any better next time around. Pakistan are children of the Indus.. you cannot claim anything about any other peoples just because you want them to be from a different ancestry.

@Mentee you should probably read a little more history. can you and @Kaptaan please give me a chronology of your area from circa 2000 BC until the advent of Islam? what were the practices? what were the cultures? how different are these from the cultures of the people in your vicinity at that time?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mentee

Sliver said:


> @Kaptaan Let me know when you would like to discuss one on one and we can do that quicker.
> 
> _Now why, I wonder don't you Indian's spend any energy in spreading your muck in those regions? Simple there is not much in way of ancient history you can brag in front of the West. Therefore your forced to "bootlick" the Indus instead, because that is where all the historical action is. My quote again._
> 
> First, I am a history buff and that too ancient history. I have no interest in religion wars or establishing supremacy of one religion over the other.
> second. my only issue in the OP was this: Pakistan cannot claim to be the "only" people of Indus that argument is flawed.
> 
> I am currently researching the links between the ancient Iranian and Indian culture. this predates almost all of the existing religions till date. Please remember "culture" is not always "religion". for example, Bengali culture is different from Pakistani culture now but their religion is same. however, there are some aspects of the culture (before the separation) which are common. Now, why do you think the names for various gods is same in Ancient Iranian and Ancient Indian. All I am saying is that these people have claim to a common history.
> 
> What people make their present is up to them. but you cannot deny anyone their history
> 
> _And finally - a bas*tard can do what he wants, wish what he wants but he can't change his progenitor. Indian's are always going to be *Children of Ganga*. Pakistani's always *Children of Indus*. Both flow in opposite directions. Both empty in differant sea_
> 
> you calling anyone bastards is deplorable. but i have seen how racist you get when you make a point so I am not expecting that your civility will be any better next time around. Pakistan are children of the Indus.. you cannot claim anything about any other peoples just because you want them to be from a different ancestry.
> 
> @Mentee you should probably read a little more history. can you and @Kaptaan please give me a chronology of your area from circa 2000 BC until the advent of Islam? what were the practices? what were the cultures? how different are these from the cultures of the people in your vicinity at that time?


Mr. Sharma you aren't getting it, are you? THERE WAS NO ANCIENT INDIA TO BEGIN WITH .PERIOD
Now first clear your delusions of ancient India and then we'll talk. Repetition of same thing doesn't make it credible

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Sliver said:


> what were the practices? what were the cultures


Whatever they were - rest assured they can be easily shoehorned into "Hindu" or like I said "retrofitted". It's very simple and even made more simple by the fact that even Supreme Court of India could not define Hinduism.

_"When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more."
_
and best of all. First Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru on Hinduism.

"_Hinduism_ is '_all things to all men_"

This means whatever practices that our ancestors followed will be in eyes of nationalist Hindutva Indian's be manipulated into Hindu". They will see the dots and join them together to draw what they want - made more easy by the fact that Hinduism is like liquid. You can make it fit any vessel. Further even if some of us followed practices that might bear some resemblance to Indian's today, that hardly shakes the land of Indus. Vedic religion first evolved in the Indus region then moved into the thick jungles of the Ganga bringing much needed civilization to that tract of savages.

And as I said before what about the more (recent) and even present Hinduim as seen in Bangla, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Borneo and Sri Lanka?

Then again those regions don't have Harrapa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehr Garh, Taxila, Sirkap etc do they? That is why Ganga won't leave Indus alone but is entirely happy to forget Irrawaddy, Mekong etc.



Mentee said:


> THERE WAS NO ANCIENT INDIA TO BEGIN WITH .PERIOD
> Now first clear your delusions of ancient India and then we'll talk


I already asked him but he spat out some myths about Bharat and then equated that myth with India or sorrry "Greater India". Delusional .....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sliver

Mentee said:


> Mr. Sharma you aren't getting it, are you? THERE WAS NO ANCIENT INDIA TO BEGIN WITH .PERIOD
> Now first clear your delusions of ancient India and then we'll talk. Repetition of same thing doesn't make it credible



as I said.. I am not bothered about the politcial or religious battles of the present day locations between you both. All I said was you cannot deny the history of the location to the people who have lived there and migrated or lived there and converted. 

the gods, practices, rituals of the zoroastrian people was similar to the ancient Indian people (Indian - is the name of the peoples as how the historians say it). the similarity emerges due to shared traditions. 

So shall we go ahed with the chronological order of the present day peoples of Pakistan starting from 2000 BC until the advent of Islam?


----------



## Mentee

Sliver said:


> ancient Indian people (Indian - is the name of the peoples as how the historians say it). the similarity


You are beyond repair Mr Sharma 
@Kaptaan sir report him and move along

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sliver

Kaptaan said:


> Whatever they were - rest assured they can be easily shoehorned into "Hindu" or like I said "retrofitted". It's very simple and even made more simple by the fact that even Supreme Court of India could not define Hinduism.
> 
> _"When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more."
> _
> and best of all. First Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru on Hinduism.
> 
> "_Hinduism_ is '_all things to all men_"
> 
> This means whatever practices that our ancestors followed will be in eyes of nationalist Hindutva Indian's be manipulated into Hindu". They will see the dots and join them together to draw what they want - made more easy by the fact that Hinduism is like liquid. You can make it fit any vessel. Further even if some of us followed practices that might bear some resemblance to Indian's today, that hardly shakes the land of Indus. Vedic religion first evolved in the Indus region then moved into the thick jungles of the Ganga bringing much needed civilization to that tract of savages.
> 
> And as I said before what about the more (recent) and even present Hinduim as seen in Bangla, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Borneo and Sri Lanka?
> 
> Then again those regions don't have Harrapa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehr Garh, Taxila, Sirkap etc do they? That is why Ganga won't leave Indus alone but is entirely happy to forget Irrawaddy, Mekong etc.
> 
> 
> I already asked him but he spat out some myths about Bharat and then equated that myth with India or sorrry "Greater India". Delusional .....



lets look at the retrofit issue.
here is an interesting example of the ancient gods of the people in that region:
Indra is the most important god worshiped by the Rigvedic tribes and is the son of Dyaus and the goddess Savasi.

The same Indra is also a god in the Iranian texts of the Avesta.

I am talking about circa 3 century BC or before.
How can this be a retrofit?


Another aspect of the retrofit Issue:
I could care less if this belongs to the Hindu religion or whatever faith that is in there. All I am saying is that there is a shared history here that is clearly evidenced. you cannot deny the history to the people. You can certainly claim a different present (from the advent of Islam) and "claim" you are better. but you cannot deny shared history of the place.

something more of interest:
Indra is supposed to be a connoisseur of an ephedrine laden drink called soma - basically a stimulant as well as a way for getting high. (this plant is endemic to the moutains in Afghanistan - Merhgarh/Andronovo culture). Indra is son of Dyaus.

The Greek god Dynoysus is a god of wine, alcohol and generally "getting high".

Why cannot the Hindu people claim the East Asian as their descendents? 
Honestly, I havent gone that far yet. I am still learning/ understanding the Andronovo/Mehrgarh culture and its implications on the movement of the peoples across the region. But I doubt that the culture of that time spread to East asia so soon. it might even be a later development.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Mentee said:


> sir report him and move along


There is no point in wasting time with these guy's. If they want to lick our balls. Go ahead. I can't understand them - they have *Ganga*. Thet swim in it. They shit in it. They worship it. They "bury" themselves in it. They purefy themselves in it. They call it holy. Ganga is that and all. In addition maybe over 600 million of them (majority) either live on it's plains or surrounding watershed.

If they (Ganga Dwellers) want to bootlick Indus/Pakistan. Let them. In fact should we feel slight sense of bluster? I think so!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Eminent Mainstream Media

Sliver said:


> @KaptaanFirst relating to Brahmanda Purana, one of the major eighteen Puranas, it mentions 64 Shakthi Peetha of Goddess Parvati in the Bharat or Greater India including present day India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and parts of southern Pakistan. Another text which gives a listing of these shrines, is the _Shakthi Peetha Stotram_, written by Adi Shankara, the 9th-century Hindu philosopher.[10]
> from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peetha
> (I dont understand much of that but I am still putting it all together: my current interest is to know the progression of people from the ancient Babylon/Sumer towards east via Andronovo culture, Mehrgar, Harappa and the Vedic age )



Its an interesting story- There was a King Daksha, who had a daughter "Sati"- Sati was incarnation of Goddess of Power(Shakti means power)- She falls into love with Shiva(The third in trinity and the one tasked with destruction of world- which is contradictory in itself as he is the one saving everyone's asses when there is real trouble )- Shiva lives in wilderness and doesn't associates with passions of life- However Sati convinces him to marry and marries him against the wishes of her father-

Now this Daksha is very angry and vows to teach his daughter a lesson- He organizes a huge Yagya and invites all Devas and Gods, Goddesses and great saints but he doesn't invite Shiva- Sati on knowing this wants to go there but Shiva cautions her against this- But she is stubborn and goes anyway- at arriving in her own house, she is disrespected and her father abuses her husband calling him savage uncivilized and similar insults- to this she vows to end her life right there as her husband was dishonored and steps in the Hawan Kund(the fire where offerings are made in the yagya) she is badly burnt and dies- Now some of Shiva's associates who had accompanied Sati come crying back to Shiva and narrates everything- Shiva gets very angry and It is very bad when he gets angry- He reaches the place fuming- steps into the fire and takes out the burnt body of sati- he is so raged that he starts dancing in anger which causes Sati's body parts to fly all across the universe- later the other gods some how gets Shiva under control before he ended up destroying half of the world and all of Daksha's kingdom-

It is these body parts of Sati which fell on various places are known as Shaktipeeths(Places of power)- I have one just 3km from my house and Its the eye of Goddess- All of this is mythology but very much part of the History If one wants to understand Ancient Indian history completely as It helps in understanding It better-


----------



## Levina

Kaptaan said:


> How exactly a jungly Orrissan, a Bengali, a Assamese, a Tamil and other hotch potch of peoples even claim on a land they have never seen or most likely will never see and know even less about is beyond me.


Mind your language. 

We don't have to claim something which we have been following since last thousands of years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Levina said:


> We don't have to claim something which we have been following since last thousands of years.


Levina, my old flame, if you don't even know what you have been following, for the last thousand years, how in the hell are you in a position to even claim anything?

Your first Prime Minister Nehru could not even struggled to define what was being followed at the *present*. Let alone thousand years.

Quote

""_Hinduism_ is '_all things to all men_"

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Soulspeek

Get your head checked. Noone says that there was always a political entity called India in the past. India is the the whole south asian land mass which shared same culture throughout its history. In this landmass of common culture, there have been kingdoms which were small and there have been kingdoms which encompassed even lands as far as afghanistan, burma, SE Asia.
So, get this fact drilled on your head. When we talk of India, it is the ancient cultural entity we are talking about. Present political India is half of real cultural, ancient India. We are the cultural inheritors of India. The land of Sindhu and Ganga. You are just desert dwelling arab wannabes who take pride in foreign culture instead of native Indian culture.



Mentee said:


> Mr. Sharma you aren't getting it, are you? THERE WAS NO ANCIENT INDIA TO BEGIN WITH .PERIOD
> Now first clear your delusions of ancient India and then we'll talk. Repetition of same thing doesn't make it credible


----------



## Mentee

Soulspeek said:


> India is the the whole south asian land mass which shared same culture throughout its history



 kill me.




Soulspeek said:


> You are just desert dwelling arab wannabes who take pride in foreign culture instead of native Indian culture.



Plz spare me these mumbo-jumbos . I won't let a guy from asaam on nagaland to dictate me what I should believe about the land on which my ancestors were living for centuries

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tergon18

Sliver said:


> @Kaptaan
> 
> Another text which gives a listing of these shrines, is the _Shakthi Peetha Stotram_, written by Adi Shankara, the 9th-century Hindu philosopher.[10]
> from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peetha



Too bad Adi Shankara the great sage didn't consider the Indus Basin as part of his Holy Bharat Mata and didn't make it a part of his four main mathas  I think he didn't like us.


The _Dakshiānmnāya Sri Sharada Peetham_(main matha) at Sringeri Sharada Peethamin Shringeri, Karnataka.
The _Uttarāmnāya matha_ (northern matha) at Jyotir Math in the city of Jyotirmath also known as Joshimath, Uttarakhand.
The _Pūrvāmnāya matha_ (eastern matha), or the Govardhana matha at Puri, Odisha.
The _Paśchimāmnāya matha_ (western matha), or the Dvaraka Pitha at Dwarka,Gujarat.
Finally Sarvagna Peetham Kanchi_Moolāmnāya Sri kanchi Kamakoti Peetham_(Sarvjna Peetham), or the Kamakoti at Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu









> (I dont understand much of that but I am still putting it all together: my current interest is to know the progression of people from the ancient Babylon/Sumer towards east via Andronovo culture, Mehrgar, Harappa and the Vedic age )



I dont think anyone relates the people or culture of Ancient Sumeria/Babylon with that of the Andronovo-BMAC one. Also, Mehrgarh pre-dated Sumeria and Andronovo by a couple of thousand years, you're mixing up the dates here.



> parts of Pakistan have been together with India centuries before Islamism spread through Pakistan.



Islamism is word used for modern day radical movements and terrorists, I'd advise you to refrain from using that. And for the vast majority of it's history, as it's constantly been written about above in great detail, the Indus Basin has been seperate from the Gangetic and Dravidic (South of Vindhyas) regions. It's just simple fact. Deal with it.




> The area that is now Pakistan was actually filled with temples, peoples with vedic scriptures and knwledge as their religious base for most of the time before the advent of islam. the holy pillgrimages of these peoples included parts of Pakistan. so they already knew their history and did not have to wait "_Until they found out Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehr Garh are in, well Pakistan._"
> 
> I am interested to see what you know about the following:
> Before the advent of Islam in Pakistan, what do you think were the beliefs of the people in that area were? you might want to say Buddhism alone.. what about before that?



The people followed different creeds, Buddhism had a large presence (it had a major presence in Gangetic India as well before elimination by the Gupta Brahmanics around 1st century), along with different Vedic cults. Look at the folk religion of the Kalash people for an example. There was a form of ancestor worship known as Jathera present as well.
Anyway, the argument based on religion is flawed because:

a) It can be used to justify sameness with MENA (Middle East and North Africa) since they are Muslims as well.

b) Hinduism isnt the name of an actual religion. It was a name given by the British to different and varying beliefs/cults of people living in their conquered territories in the 19th century.

"Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word.” [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi, 1983, p.75]

“Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory answer has been given.” [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178]

“Hinduism defies definition… It has no specific creed.” [Khushwant Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19]

“The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to define it in a single phrase… A Hindu may have any religious belief or none.” [Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan, 1961, p.40]




> Did you know that the gods of Ancient Iran, and Ancient India were the same? this shows the continuation of peoples from Iran to India and beyond. Pakistan is smack in the middle of this it was more a cultural center of these people.



They werent the same. There was similarity and overlap between the Avestan of Iran and the Rig Veda of the Indus Basin. Indra and Mithra were the common gods. The term India itself has had different meanings and connotations in different time periods and should be viewed with historic context. I believe Kaptaan has made a thoroughly detailed and informative post about the meaning and connotations of the word India in different time periods.

The Rig-Veda itself was formed at the Indus Basin, Sapta Sindhu (Land of the Seven Rivers as its called) circa 1500 BC. This was a time when Gangetic India and Dravidic India were still uncivilized regions and were forested. They were only civilized in the Middle Iron Age period (800-500 BC) when proper axes were invented to cut down its thick forested cover. It didnt have much part in the period that you are discussing.






The Avestani Iranians knew this land and had some overlap with this land:

Northern valley of the seven Indus rivers** (Upper Indus Basin)
Gandhara (Waihind)***, Punjab and Kashmir in N. Pakistan.

This is the region that was mentioned as part of the sixteen lands of the Iranian Vendidad, not the 'India' that you are thinking i.e Gangetic and Dravidic Land.

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@Tergon18 Great stuff. I would love to give you +rating but can't. Indeed I would pefer if you had my TTC. I look forward more from your contribution in this section. Again respect. I will email you later ....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Levina

Kaptaan said:


> Levina, my old flame, if you don't even know what you have been following, for the last thousand years, how in the hell are you in a position to even claim anything?



Frankly @Kaptaan , I'm glad that you take pride in your links with IVC. Hats off to you! 
It's people like you who have kept Mohanjodaro and Harappa alive among your people. 
Not so long back Haroon Khalid,a Pakistani, confessed in his book _(In search of SHIVA),_ that religious parties within Pakistan such as *Jamaat-i-Islami *have in the past claimed that these archaeological sites have nothing to do with the Pakistani civilisation, terming them as belonging to the* zamana-e-jahalliya*, a time period before the advent of Islam when human civilisation was lost in the ignoble state of ignorance and darkness. They even suggested that instead of unearthing the secrets of these cities, Pakistanis should rather fill them up again as humanity has nothing to learn from that ignoble time period.
Au contraire, Pakistanis like you must be rightly rewarded for trying to like Pakistan back to its Sanatana dharma roots. 
Your politicians have also shown their ignorance and paid no heed to the fact that these sites should be preserved.
If I'm not wrong, it was Bilawal Bhutto whose election campaign ended up destroying a part of Harappa. 
Such sites are precious but alas! not many understand this. 

Despite the historical inaccuracies in your posts, I respect you for spreading the awareness about these sites. 
I mean come to think of it, your people were at the verge of delinking themselves from the "cradle of civilisation", for they do not want to be linked with Sanatana dharma anymore.


Now to answer your question- how is my country linked to IVC?
Tree worship and offerings of mud toys to a shrine, some traditions which have often been mocked by your brethren, have actually been linked to IVC era. 
The famous shiva stamp is nothing but a reminder of how prevalent Santana dharma was during IVC's hay days. 
Anyways, I'm not here to hijack this thread, but to pat your back.
Keep it up @Kaptaan im proud of you. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@Levina The same religious groups were the ones who opposed creation of Pakistan so no surprises there. And that so called Shiva stamp means what exactly? You are aware that Swastika has been found as far away as Europe. Therefore this Shiva stamp (as if that is a Shiva in the first place - retrofiting again) means nothing. 

And we don't want to de link or link with Sana what ever. It means nothing. Even those who follow it today don't know what it is and they have galls to say they see traces of it from 5,000 years ago. Read again what Nehru said or your supreme court. The definition is so loose as to mean anything can be manipulated. it is as good as me asking what shape liquid is. It will take whatever shape it is poured into. With this elasticity anything can be claimed.

That is all subjective. What is fact is that Indus/Abasin/Hendosh is river of epic importance to world history as much if not more than Nile or Tigris/Euphrates or Yellow River. Each of these rivers has nourished a civiization and today still supports a nation. Indus of course is Pakistan. Both are two sides of the same coin. No Indus and Pakistan would shrivel into dry baked desert. This is fact.

And all the best to Mother Ganges .... from Father Indus !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Levina

Kaptaan said:


> @Levina The same religious groups were the ones who opposed creation of Pakistan so no surprises there.


Come again?
I thought these religious groups were the impetus behind division of India.


Kaptaan said:


> And that so called Shiva stamp means what exactly? You are aware that Swastika has been found as far away as Europe.


Blunder!!!
Swastika is NOT shiva.
Or are you trying to deviate from the topic in hand?


Kaptaan said:


> And we don't want to de link or link with Sana what ever. It means nothing.


Conciously-unconsciously you guys are getting back to your roots. Isn't that incredible!
To me, you're a dove with an olive branch. 


Kaptaan said:


> Read again what Nehru said or your supreme court. The definition is so loose as to mean anything can be manipulated. it is as good as me asking what shape liquid is. It will take whatever shape it is poured into. With this elasticity anything can be claimed


RE-READ what you've posted.
You must understand Sanatana dharma to understand the legacy of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Strerch your imagination @Kaptaan . Nothing is beyond the realm of possibility. Sanatana dharma is not a religion but a set of rules, an eternal order. Even an atheist can be a Hindu if he lives by these rules. I'm not surprised that you don't understand something so simple. You've a habit of complicating things for yourself. Lol


Kaptaan said:


> No Indus and Pakistan would shrivel into dry baked desert. This is fact


Finally!
I'm glad you've confessed it.
In your own words you've accepted why a claim on IVC is imperative to you.


Kaptaan said:


> all the best to Mother Ganges .... from Father Indus !


Once again, you've hinted at something which has been at the heart of Sanatana dharma- fertility.
Guess what? Shiva is a symbol of fertility.


----------



## Sliver

Tergon18 said:


> Too bad Adi Shankara the great sage didn't consider the Indus Basin as part of his Holy Bharat Mata and didn't make it a part of his four main mathas  I think he didn't like us.
> 
> 
> The _Dakshiānmnāya Sri Sharada Peetham_(main matha) at Sringeri Sharada Peethamin Shringeri, Karnataka.
> The _Uttarāmnāya matha_ (northern matha) at Jyotir Math in the city of Jyotirmath also known as Joshimath, Uttarakhand.
> The _Pūrvāmnāya matha_ (eastern matha), or the Govardhana matha at Puri, Odisha.
> The _Paśchimāmnāya matha_ (western matha), or the Dvaraka Pitha at Dwarka,Gujarat.
> Finally Sarvagna Peetham Kanchi_Moolāmnāya Sri kanchi Kamakoti Peetham_(Sarvjna Peetham), or the Kamakoti at Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu



have you looked at the sites that are called the peices where the holy spirit (shakthi) of Rg Vedic people landed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peetha - check the map - includes Baluchistan province of Pakistan.

here is the image of the locations:






Tergon18 said:


> I dont think anyone relates the people or culture of Ancient Sumeria/Babylon with that of the Andronovo-BMAC one. Also, Mehrgarh pre-dated Sumeria and Andronovo by a couple of thousand years, you're mixing up the dates here.


Mehrgar : founded 7000 BC, abandoned 2600 BC
Sumer : Uruk (earliest city: founded 4000 BC - continued atleast 1500 BC)
Andronovo: from 2000 BC to 900 BC

there is a clear overlap there for atleast a few millenia between them




Tergon18 said:


> Islamism is word used for modern day radical movements and terrorists, I'd advise you to refrain from using that. And for the vast majority of it's history, as it's constantly been written about above in great detail*, the Indus Basin has been seperate from the Gangetic* and Dravidic (South of Vindhyas) regions. It's just simple fact. Deal with it.


Dont know about the dravidic, but it is not separate from Gangetic. the culture of anceint peoples of Indus and Ganges is the same (loads of proofs for it)




Tergon18 said:


> The people followed different creeds, Buddhism had a large presence (it had a major presence in Gangetic India as well before elimination by the Gupta Brahmanics around 1st century), along with different Vedic cults.


how or where did you get that term "Brahmanics"? you just made it up and decided it? the rg veda mentions one of the earliest "brahman" as the "ultimate reality" (A sigularity - if you will). and that is much older than 1st century and even older than Buddhism. BY that logic, Gupta "brahmanics" were only going back to the roots that started during Rg vedic period (and since Gupta period I see is well integrated into Gangetic plain, as well as connected to the Rg vedic people, you got your continuity over there itself) (sorry I burst your bubble there). @Levina would probably have a chuckle. Please note the inclusion of parts of Pakistan area as well.





for reference, the above map is at 3 century CE.

the map at 3 BC is as below:







Tergon18 said:


> Look at the folk religion of the Kalash people for an example. There was a form of ancestor worship known as Jathera present as well.
> Anyway, the argument based on religion is flawed because:
> 
> a) It can be used to justify sameness with MENA (Middle East and North Africa) since they are Muslims as well.
> 
> b) Hinduism isnt the name of an actual religion. It was a name given by the British to different and varying beliefs/cults of people living in their conquered territories in the 19th century.
> 
> "Hinduism, as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many-sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word.” [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, New Delhi, 1983, p.75]
> 
> “Frankly speaking, it is not possible to say definitely who is a Hindu and what Hinduism is. These questions have been considered again and again by eminent scholars, and so far no satisfactory answer has been given.” [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 178]
> 
> “Hinduism defies definition… It has no specific creed.” [Khushwant Singh, India: An Introduction, New Delhi, 1990, p. 19]
> 
> “The more Hinduism is considered, the more difficult it becomes to define it in a single phrase… A Hindu may have any religious belief or none.” [Percival Spear, India: A Modern History, Michigan, 1961, p.40]


that doesnt mean that the cultures of the people practicing Hinduism is different. What the above means is that "Hinduism" cannot be defined by the same way as an Abrahamic faith (hence the mystery of the east for many of us)


Tergon18 said:


> *They werent the same.* There was similarity and overlap between the Avestan of Iran and the Rig Veda of the Indus Basin. Indra and Mithra were the common gods. The term India itself has had different meanings and connotations in different time periods and should be viewed with historic context. I believe Kaptaan has made a thoroughly detailed and informative post about the meaning and connotations of the word India in different time periods.


your very own timeline of "BUdhism" and then "Gupta Brahmanics" gives clear continuation between Rg vedic Indus and the Gangetic plains. 



Tergon18 said:


> The Rig-Veda itself was formed at the Indus Basin, Sapta Sindhu (Land of the Seven Rivers as its called) circa 1500 BC. This was a time when Gangetic India and Dravidic India were still uncivilized regions and were forested. They were only civilized in the Middle Iron Age period (800-500 BC) when proper axes were invented to cut down its thick forested cover. It didnt have much part in the period that you are discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avestani Iranians knew this land and had some overlap with this land:
> 
> Northern valley of the seven Indus rivers** (Upper Indus Basin)
> Gandhara (Waihind)***, Punjab and Kashmir in N. Pakistan.
> 
> This is the region that was mentioned as part of the sixteen lands of the Iranian Vendidad, not the 'India' that you are thinking i.e Gangetic and Dravidic Land.
> 
> http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm



<sarcasm on> sure, there is nothing between ancient Iranian and Ancient Indian. The similarity of their gods, their similarity of culture is all just an overlap <sarcasm off>



Kaptaan said:


> @Tergon18 Great stuff. I would love to give you +rating but can't. Indeed I would pefer if you had my TTC. I look forward more from your contribution in this section. Again respect. I will email you later ....



Please see the rebuttal - you can still thank him though .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Levina said:


> Come again?
> I thought these religious groups were the impetus behind division of India.



Division of *British Colonial* India, union formed by British guns.



> Blunder!!!
> Swastika is NOT shiva.
> Or are you trying to deviate from the topic in hand?



No serious historian connects the sitting male figure found in Mohenjodaro to Shiva or some sort of proto-Shiva.
Writing in 2002, Gregory L. Possehl concluded that while it would be appropriate to recognize the figure as a deity, its association with the water buffalo, and its posture as one of ritual discipline, regarding it as a proto-Shiva would "go too far."[18]
Shiva was a Vedic Indo-Aryan deity which had nothing to do with IVC.
And lots of Hindootvas try to claim that IVC was some form of proto-Hindu civilization due to Swastikas being found there, conviniently forgetting that the same are found in Eastern Europe and Ural Mountains as well.



> RE-READ what you've posted.
> You must understand Sanatana dharma to understand the legacy of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Strerch your imagination @Kaptaan . Nothing is beyond the realm of possibility. Sanatana dharma is not a religion but a set of rules, an eternal order. Even an atheist can be a Hindu if he lives by these rules. I'm not surprised that you don't understand something so simple. You've a habit of complicating things for yourself. Lol



And, regarding Sanatan Dharma, it's a very vague term and can denote any religion since Hinduism isnt one. Hardly anyone used this term and Zoroastrianism, Buddhism etc. can be called that as well: (from wiki)
>The term was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi in 1921.[2]
Again, whatever you consider Hinduism to be isnt connected with IVC at all and was brought in by the Rig-Vedic Indo-Aryans, who came after the decline of IVC.



> Finally!
> I'm glad you've confessed it.
> In your own words you've accepted why a claim on IVC is imperative to you.



Lol, no. He's merely saying that without the Indus River (not ancient civilization), and its tributaries the Indus Plain would be a dry deserted area instead of an agricultural plain as it is now. Read properly before you put your tin foil Hindootva hat on.



Sliver said:


> have you looked at the sites that are called the peices where the holy spirit (shakthi) of Rg Vedic people landed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peetha - check the map - includes Baluchistan province of Pakistan.
> 
> here is the image of the locations:



Where the Rig Vedic people landed? Lol, they didnt come from Mars. These peethas arent connected with the Rig-Vedic period or people (which flourished around 1500 BC), and was centered in the Indus Basin (Sapta Sindhu) which these peethas gleefully ignore.
So out 56 different peethas, all concentrated in the Gangetic or Dravidic regions, only one token site in the Southern Makran coast far off in whats now Balochistan? You are actually proving my point.
And I wasnt talking about these peethas in the first place, try to stay on topic. I was talking about the four main mathas of Adi Shankara (Shakaracharaya) which he had formed in his land, none of which were in the Indus Basin. Westernmost in Dwarka, Gujarat, Northernmost in Uttarakhand, Southernmost in Karnataka and Easternmost in Bengal. He didnt even consider us as part of Holy Bharat Mata. I'm offended 



> Mehrgar : founded 7000 BC, abandoned 2600 BC
> Sumer : Uruk (earliest city: founded 4000 BC - continued atleast 1500 BC)
> Andronovo: from 2000 BC to 900 BC



I wasnt necessarily talking about the time periods only, I was talking about your vision about the progression of people from Sumeria to Mehrgarh via Andronovo, and some sort of supposed continuity between these people, which no one sees. Mehrgarh was mainly an Early Neolithic site and predates both Andronovo-BMAC and Sumeria by a couple of thousand years.
What sort of continuity or progression do you propose between these regions?
Sumeria:






Andronovo







Mehrgarh-IVC








> Dont know about the dravidic, but it is not separate from Gangetic. the culture of anceint peoples of Indus and Ganges is the same (loads of proofs for it)



How are you supposed to say that culture of *Ancient* people of the Indus and Ganges is the same, when during the *Ancient* period that you are talking about, the Gangetic regions wasnt even civilized or had any culture in the first place. This is true both for IVC and for the Rig-Vedic period, both primarily based in the Indus Basin. Thr Gangetic Region only got civilized in the Middle Iron Age (800-500 BC) when proper axes were invented to cut down its thick forested cover. Your remark therefore, more than anything, is hilarious.



> how or where did you get that term "Brahmanics"? you just made it up and decided it? the rg veda mentions one of the earliest "brahman" as the "ultimate reality" (A sigularity - if you will). and that is much older than 1st century and even older than Buddhism. BY that logic, Gupta "brahmanics" were only going back to the roots that started during Rg vedic period (and since Gupta period I see is well integrated into Gangetic plain, as well as connected to the Rg vedic people, you got your continuity over there itself) (sorry I burst your bubble there). @Levina would probably have a chuckle.



Brahmanics, Brahmins call them whatever you like. I wasnt talking about the Rig-Vedic period now, honestly learn to understand context and time periods. No ones arguing for Buddhism to predate the Rig-Vedic period either, what are you on about?
As for going back to their roots, the Guptas most definitely were not since their region of Bihar had absolutely nothing to do with the Rig-Vedic period or civilization. If anything, they were adopting the foreign roots of the Indus Basin (Sapta Sindhu, land of the Rig Vedics). In addition to Levina, I would have a chuckle as well on this.



> Please note the inclusion of parts of Pakistan area as well.
> 
> for reference, the above map is at 3 century CE.
> 
> the map at 3 BC is as below:



The Guptas never ruled west of the Sutlej. The land was in contention between them and the Sassanids and changed hands. Only a few parts of Easternmost Punjab and Sindh was under them. Some consider these to have been a tributary state of the Guptas, but that would still make it seperate from the Gupta Empire, proper.






And when has anyone denied the Mauryan rule (which lasted around 80 years) over the Indus Basin? Apart from that the only time it was united was for 400 or so under foreign Mughals/Turkics, and 98 under British. For the vast majority of it's history, it has indeed been seperate.

Indo-Greeks






Parthians






Achaemenids:





Circa 800 AD






Alexander's Empire






Circa 600 AD








> that doesnt mean that the cultures of the people practicing Hinduism is different. What the above means is that "Hinduism" cannot be defined by the same way as an Abrahamic faith (hence the mystery of the east for many of us)



No, that means that Hinduism is just an umbrella term imposed by the British to differing cults practiced in their conquered territories and isnt a religion that one can accuse another of practicing. And you have pointedly ignored this part of my comment:

Ayway, the argument based on religion is flawed because it can be used to justify sameness with MENA (Middle East and North Africa) since they are Muslims as well. How is that any different from saying that Pakistanis and Middle Easterners are one since they both are Muslims? Dont you see the irony here?



> your very own timeline of "BUdhism" and then "Gupta Brahmanics" gives clear continuation between Rg vedic Indus and the Gangetic plains.



The Rig-Vedic period (set mainly at the Indus Basin), predates both the Guptas (Gangetic) and Buddhism by almost a thousand years. What continuation are you seeing?



> <sarcasm on> sure, there is nothing between ancient Iranian and Ancient Indian. The similarity of their gods, their similarity of culture is all just an overlap <sarcasm off>



Again, pointedly ignoring everything I have said and going on to make that rather childish remark. I think I've explained to you, in great detail, why 'Ancient Iran' (Avestan period) and 'Ancient India' dont have overlap. The Avestani Persians had similarities in linguistic and mythology with the Rig-Vedics settled in the Indus Basin, not the Gangetic and Dravidic regions, which you are taking as 'India'. These regions were still covered by thick forests and were uncivilized at the time. The region of Sapta Sindhu/Hapta Hendu (Indus Basin) has been mentioned as one of the sixteen nations of the Vendidad, and not Gangetic or Dravidic land. Why do I need to repeat myself again and again?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tergon18

Sher Talwar Rana said:


> Hi, the only part of your post I disagree with is that is the assertion that Bihar had nothing to do with Rig Vedic period.
> By the late Vedic period, Vedic civilisation had reached the Gangetic plains:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kingdoms of Videha and Kosala are mentioned in all Vedic texts from the middle period onwards.
> In fact many Vedic texts from the later period where composed in the Gangetic plains (one example):
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudhayana_Shrauta_Sutra



That isn't the Rig-Vedic period, genius, that is the later Vedic period after cutting down and clearing the forested cover of the Gangetic Region, the culture spread over to there. The Rig-Vedic period (around 1500 BC) was centered around the Indus Basin (Sapta Sindhu).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tergon18

Sher Talwar Rana said:


> That's what I said, I said they "reached" the gangetic plains. The Vedic civilisation had completely shifted to the Gangetic plains, that's why the low caste population is so high in Pakistan. The upper caste Vedic folk had shifted Eastwards leaving the Dalits to mingle in the Indus basin. The period following the later Vedic period was the Mahajanapada's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see the Vedic folk had created there own kingdoms in the Gangetic plains while the Indus basin Dalits lived in poverty.



That is not the Rig-Vedic period. The Rig-Vedic period was circa 1500 BC, when the Gangetic Region was still uncivilized and forested. Only later did the Rig-Vedic culture spread into the Gangetic Region, after the the thick forested cover of the Ganges was cut using axes invented in the Middle Iron Age period (800-500 BC). 
"As bemused Sanskrit scholars have long pointed out, the Rig Veda is about Punjab, principally; its vision also encompasses what is now eastern Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan. Sindh and peninsular India are unknown. Disconcerting as it is to pious Hindus, the Rig Veda has its heartland in Pakistan" 
-Empires of Indus by Alice Albania. 

Nice trolling and ranting on about dalits btw.

Reactions: Like Like:
 4


----------



## Tergon18

Sher Talwar Rana said:


> Strawman fallacy, you basically just repeated the same thing which I had acknowledged. It is an undeniable fact that Vedic civilisation expanded Eastwards and that almost all the later period Vedic texts where composed in the Gangetic plains. Please tell me why none of the later Vedic texts where composed in the Indus basin?
> 
> The Mahajanapadas followed directly after the Vedic period and the kingdoms and were all in the Gangetic plains, at the same period the Indus basin had produced absolutely and was conquered by the Kambojas. And majority of Pakistanis are Dalit descendants. It's a fact, some of you have some Islamic invader blood however.



The culture of the Rig-Vedics did not spread to the Gangetic plains, only the later Vedic culture did, that too around 500 years after the Rig-Vedic Civilization flourished in the Indus Basin.
During this period the Ganges region indeed was forested and uncivilized for 500 years, in addition to the near ten thousand years of Merhgarh-IVC in the Indus Basin.
As for the Kambojas and all, apart from some mythology the actual history on this is rather hazy, but that doesnt have anything to do with the Rig-Vedic period anyway.

Now, it would be pretty much obvious to anyone how the leafy jungles of Ganges got cleared and the natives, I believe there is a word for them (Adivasis), got civilized and adopted Vedic culture. One can also say that this would have happened through forceful intermixture (I believe that there is a word for that as well) between the Rig-Vedics or the later Vedics and the native Adivasis of the leafy Ganges swamps. This fact is corroborated rather well by genetics as well, given that Indian populations in general have higher ASI than their Pakistani counterparts and all lower castes of various states have higher ASI than upper castes. The data speaks for itself about Dalits and whatnot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mentee

halupridol said:


>


If you don't have anything substantial to contribute then plz stay out of this thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Bhai logh plz stop fighting. Science have proven dalits and Indians in general had nothing to do with IVC or Early vedic civilisation. First IVC people were like Neolithic Iran farmers genetically and guess which group in south asia are more related to them? Pakistanis and after that dalits and Indians in general.



Tergon18 said:


> The culture of the Rig-Vedics did not spread to the Gangetic plains, only the later Vedic culture did, that too around 500 years after the Rig-Vedic Civilization flourished in the Indus Basin.
> During this period the Ganges region indeed was forested and uncivilized for 500 years, in addition to the near ten thousand years of Merhgarh-IVC in the Indus Basin.
> As for the Kambojas and all, apart from some mythology the actual history on this is rather hazy, but that doesnt have anything to do with the Rig-Vedic period anyway.
> 
> Now, it would be pretty much obvious to anyone how the leafy jungles of Ganges got cleared and the natives, I believe there is a word for them (Adivasis), got civilized and adopted Vedic culture. One can also say that this would have happened through forceful intermixture (I believe that there is a word for that as well) between the Rig-Vedics or the later Vedics and the native Adivasis of the leafy Ganges swamps. This fact is corroborated rather well by genetics as well, given that Indian populations in general have higher ASI than their Pakistani counterparts and all lower castes of various states have higher ASI than upper castes. The data speaks for itself about Dalits and whatnot.



You are talking about region UP/Bihar which is source of dalit population, see chuhras of punjab are dalit invaders from UP. Upper castes in UP bihar are still more closer to UP dalits then other way around after centuries of mixing with local dalits. The so called nomadic gypsy/dalits groups in Pakistan, they migrated from Rajasthan as their clan names, genetics and oral history proves. And so called high castes Indians in other regions migrated from Pakistan once upon a time. This is why high castes barely make 5% of Indian population, rest are like dalits.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tergon18

Sher Talwar Rana said:


> You're trying to create an entirely separate period, there was no such thing as a "Rig Vedic" period, there was one Vedic period that was composed of a early, middle and later sections.
> As I previously posted it but you seemed to ignore it here:
> Upanisads by Patrick Ollive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should also add that Vedic books mentioned sons of Videhas, Kosalas and other Vedic tribes moving eastward so there goes your adivasi theory.
> 
> There was a literary shift east and the Indus region became entirely irrevelevent. No books were composed in your region during the Middle Vedic period.you were irrelevant and forgotten. Adivasis are not found in the gangetic plains but inhabit the area known as the Chota Nagpur belt which includes Jharkhand, Orrisa, Bengal. Completely irrelevant and a failed attempt at deflection. The ASI component in Pakistanis is only low in Iranic groups like Pashtuns and Baloch. Punjabis and Sindhis have ASI similar to Indian groups, a Punjabi Dalit sample has similar ASI to Tamils. It may be a bit lower since Punjab was conquered and raped multiple times by Islamic invaders who no doubt changed the genetic make up of the Dalit population.
> 
> Anyway it seems that you don't actually have any knowledge of the Vedic period but are instead trying to manipulate it with Pakistani nationalism.



There is a Rig-Vedic period that was based mostly in the Indus Basin. Do you admit that for almost 500 or so years when the Rig-Vedics had their civilization in the Indus Basin, the Gangetic region was uncivilized with no culture (which basically is fact anyway)?
The fact of the matter is that the Gangetic Region indeed was uncivilized and forested for around 500 years when the Rig-Vedic Civilization flourished at Sapta Sindhu i.e the Indus Basin. Whats the point of mentioning that irrelevant point about the Upanishads, when they arent even being discussed here? There is a reason that the Iranian Avestan and Vendidad mentions this land as part of its 'sixteen good nations' as I have stated in previous comments with detail, and not some leafy Gangetic forest. Its obvious therefore how Rig Vedic culture spread to the erstwhile uncivilized swampy land of the Ganges some 500 years after its inception at the Indus Basin: forceful admixture with the natives of the forests of the Ganges i.e Adivasis and Bhils. This also goes on to show how anything of substance and value to the Gangetic swamps came from the Indus Basin. This is not even mentioning the thousands of years of Mehrgarh and IVC all the while the Gangetics sat in their forests naked eating their bananas, looking at the Indus Valley Civilization with awe and confusion.

As for the ASI component, Punjabis and Sindhis have it much lower than your average Indian populations (around 25-28%) why are you lying? Only the Dalits of Punjab have similar ASI levels to UPites and Rajasthanis (around 50%) not even the people of Tamil Nadu. Its obvious who is a Dalit and has Adivasi majority ancestory.
And the Indian populations such as UPites, Rajasthanis etc. also lack the North-Eastern Euro, Caucasus and Mediterrenean components not to mention having a very diluted form of Baloch (Gedrosian), which their ASI majority component dwarves.
And before you go on ranting about rape by Mughals, the admixture of these components is much more archaic than 500 years back to the Mughal era.

Anyway thanks for trolling and derailing this thread with your low IQ rants. You have made the Hindootvas proud.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kabira

Sher Talwar Rana said:


> Birader this is all wrong, in fact Dalits came to gangetic plains because Vedic Aryans needed slaves to carry there belongings. They recruited these Dalits from Indus Valley area.



Bhai logh this is scientifically wrong, alhamdulillah by grace of god we can prove with genetics that dalits and Indians are one and same. Usually dalit can be spotted on basis of looks alone but this isn't scientific. Not that it matter anymore but its good to keep track of migrations of people through history.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Tergon18

Sher Talwar Rana said:


> I work at Anthropological Institute of Calcutta and I must disagree, after heavy research we can see that Dalit and Pakistanis (including Pashtuns and Baloch) and from the same stock. Some mixture with Islamic invader settlers has polluted there Dalit warrior blood but it's still there.








Where are the mods btw? @waz @WAJsal

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Mentee

^^^ @Maira La @waz @Irfan Baloch

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Oh Rana again....I bet the Indians are thinking they missed a bullet had he headed there after his postings here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mentee

waz said:


> Oh Rana again....I bet the Indians are thinking they missed a bullet had he headed there after his postings here.


Punjab pulse reaches at the crime scene faster than the mods  plz delete this Rana SB rants

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maira La

Mentee said:


> ^^^ @Maira La @waz @Irfan Baloch



That multi-id troll.. everyone knows this bull$hitter - even Indians realize he's taking their fabricated theories too far. ; )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mentee

Maira La said:


> That multi-id troll.. everyone knows this bull$hitter - even Indians realize he's taking their fabricated theories too far. ; )


He has proved our point, what else do we want

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tergon18



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Levina

Tergon18 said:


> No serious historian connects the sitting male figure found in Mohenjodaro to Shiva or some sort of proto-Shiva.


Who is a serious historian according to you?
One who confirms to the notions you hold?


Tergon18 said:


> Writing in 2002, Gregory L. Possehl concluded that while it would be appropriate to recognize the figure as a deity, its association with the water buffalo, and its posture as one of ritual discipline, regarding it as a proto-Shiva would "go too far."[18]


Confirmation bias!
Archeologists like John Marshall had clearly identified it to be one of the earliest depictions of the Hindu god Shiva or Rudra, who is associated with asceticism, yoga, and linga; regarded as a lord of animals. This is the reason why its called *Pashupati seal.*
The word* pashupati *means - lord of animals; a word associated with Shiva.
Then there were other scholars, for instance, Herbert Sullivan, who wrote that Marshall's analysis "has been accepted almost universally and has greatly influenced scholarly understanding of the historical development of Hinduism".

If not Shiva who else do you think this seal represents?










Tergon18 said:


> And, regarding Sanatan Dharma, it's a very vague term and can denote any religion since Hinduism isnt one. Hardly anyone used this term and Zoroastrianism, Buddhism etc. can be called that as well: (from wiki)
> >The term was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi in 1921.[2]
> Again, whatever you consider Hinduism to be isnt connected with IVC at all and was brought in by the Rig-Vedic Indo-Aryans, who came after the decline of IVC.



Hahaha
Could not help but laugh at your ignorance. When you dont know about a religion this is what happens- misinterpretation.
Let me tell you Sanatana dharma is synonymous to Hinduism. Infact the word, Hindu is of a Persian origin, and was used vaguely for people who lived beyond sindhu. I'm sure you know this part of it.
The word sanatana means eternal, while dharma is duty. Put togther the word means everyone's duty. Anyone who follows a set of rules laid by sanatanis is the follower of sanatana dharma.The principles of Dharma are transcendent and eternal laws, and thus applicable to everyone,forever. People who do not understand this call it vague.
Like our SC says, its not just a religion but our way of life. To us its not about just "god" , its about how we should lead our lives.


Tergon18 said:


> Lol, no. He's merely saying that without the Indus River (not ancient civilization), and its tributaries the Indus Plain would be a dry deserted area instead of an agricultural plain as it is now. Read properly before you put your tin foil Hindootva hat on.


That was sarcasm which obviously whooshed over your head.
Me and kaptaan have forever been debating this issue, so new entrants like you might find it a lil hard to grasp what i actually meant. Lol

BTW, *be respectful* and use the right word- Hindu, Hindutva. You give respect, you get respect!


----------



## Bharat Muslim

@Kaptaan, @Tergon18,

Which site gives more authentic information? PDF or Quora? On PDF, Pakistanis are so proud of IVC. On Quora, Pakistanis behave as if IVC is a dirty foreign thing which they are tolerating.

Quoting a Pakistani on Quora:

"Pakistanis are all right with IVC. If we hated them, we would've bombed them a la Afghan Talibans bombing Buddhas in Bamiyan. We haven't. We haven't even bombed the stupas in Swat and the remains of the world’s oldest university in Taxila. We can be nice too when we feel like it."

Link: https://www.quora.com/What-do-Pakistanis-think-of-the-Indus-Valley-Civilization


----------



## Mugwop

^^Moron quotes 1 Pakistani on quora and takes his word for it





^That is Cernunnos,He looks similar to the deity on IVC seals.

*A guy sitting in a lotus position is not yoga! Real yoga was invented in 1960's by some indian dude.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zeeshan Farooqi

Aitzaz Ahsan is a good man.some more very important things he raised.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

If Indus civilization indeed belongs to Pakistan, why hasn't the Pakistani community produced a Srinivas Ramanujam (mathematician) or M. Visvesvaraya (an eminent engineer)?

If Pakistanis bring up the example of Abdus Salam, let me state that Nobel Prize is often about politics than good work in science. Pakistanis don't believe Indians. So quoting some Western source criticizing Abdus Salam.

*This is what Luciano Bertochhi, former deputy director of ICTP had to say about Salam:*

"This is the story of my relations with Abdus Salam, which were quite close for almost thirty years, and very intense for the last twenty. The first time I heard the name of Salam was in the fall of 1956, when as a young student, I was preparing my Italian Master thesis on dispersion relations. My supervisor gave me a copy of the lecture notes on dispersion relations which had been delivered by Salam at Rochester. These were hand-written notes – they appear in the list of his publications kept at our library as publication no. 24 – and the way they were written was very typical of Salam's approach and style.

Even for formulae, although the beginning and the final result were correct, the intermediate passages were full of mistakes; but the final result was right. This was typical of Salam: to be able to pick up, in physics as well as all other domains, the most important points and to look at them very carefully, neglecting the less important details, provided the final result was correct."

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001190/119078Eb.pdf


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

Bharat Muslim said:


> *Children of the Indus*
> 
> In an exclusive interview for The Friday Times, lawyer and veteran political activist Aitzaz Ahsan talks to Ziyad Faisal about the experiences and methods which formed the basis for his well-known theory of the Indus people and Pakistani history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arrested, yet again
> 
> *How has your theory of the Indus identity been shaped by your personal experiences?*
> 
> I think it was substantially shaped by my personal experiences: in the sense that what impressed me most since my childhood – and later agitated me most when I found that we were depriving ourselves of it – was the plurality of this society. The social fabric of Pakistan, despite Partition, was so magnificently plural. We had with us Hindu students and Christian students. There were, alas, no Sikh classmates but there were elders who remembered the Sikhs quite fondly. There were relatives among the Sikhs on the other side of the border. And the plurality gradually began to dwindle, culminating in Zia-ul-Haq’s policies. We had very large and very vibrant Christian and Parsi communities in Lahore, but they were leaving the country by the 1980s.
> 
> An interesting incident which hit me was a conversation with the mother of an English friend, during my first year at Cambridge. I had gone to stay with them for a long weekend, and the first time I met her, over dinner, Auntie Beatrice asked me where I was from. I told her I was from Pakistan. She asked where Pakistan is located: you must remember that this was 1965, and not as many people abroad knew about Pakistan as they do today. I told her Pakistan was north-west of India. She remarked “Oh, you are the ones who broke away from India!” and I confirmed it. She asked why we felt the need to break away. I told her it was because we were not Indians. So she asked “Very well, you aren’t Indians. So then, what are you?” to which I replied that we are Muslims. She then asked if there were no Muslims in India, and I told here that there were indeed many Muslims there. She asked “Are they Pakistani?” to which I replied in the negative. She asked if the Arabs are Muslims, to which I replied “Yes”. The friendly, cajoling cross-examination went on, and she asked if the Arabs are Pakistanis. I clarified that Arabs and Pakistanis are not the same people.
> 
> At this point she asked me a question which continued to haunt me ever since: “We have established that you are Muslims, but neither Indian nor Arab. So what are you?”
> 
> Later in Zia’s time, when the minorities of Pakistan came under greater threat and doctrines of exclusivity were legislated, I found myself serving long tenures in jail as a political prisoner. It was there that I had the luxury of time and reflection. I began to reflect on who I was, and what my identity was. If we were Indian, why had we parted ways with India? If I was not Indian, then what was I? I came to a conclusion which was substantiated by my readings: the bibliography of The Indus Saga will testify to the research I carried out. I came to the conclusion that rivers, throughout time, have sired and sustained civilisations. So if the Indus goes on a path different from the Ganges and its tributaries, then the Indus and the Ganges valleys will sire and sustain different civilizations. Peninsular India will be distinct due to its own rivers too. That is where it clicked: I felt a sense of self-confidence. I knew that I was thinking in the right direction, and I just had to discover and unravel the truth and evidence for it. The more I reflected on it, and the more I read, the more evidence I got, so as to be able to write The Indus Saga.
> 
> It is therefore a quest to discover the identity of the Indus person – and mine own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aitzaz Ahsan with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1976
> 
> *What sort of conditions were you held in during imprisonment? Were these conditions conducive to reflection and study?*
> 
> In prison I was sometimes in solitary confinement, which was bad. Sometimes I had very good company: very elegant and generous political prisoners. We are speaking of the elite among political prisoners, such as the late Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi, the late Abdullah Malik, Mian Mahmood Ali Kasuri, Dr Mubashar Hassan and IA Rehman.
> 
> I always had access to books. Interestingly, every prisoner was allowed two books a fortnight. I used to distribute cartons of K2 cigarettes in exchange for fellow prisoners’ signatures: requesting books which I needed. We were allowed any volume, as long as it did not refer to the contemporary political situation in a militarised Pakistan. So they were very generous in allowing us access to books from the pre-1947 era. I still have with me many books that I carried with me through jail. I had bookshelves in my cell. So I was able to do a lot of reading and research during my time in jail.
> 
> *So perhaps you can relate to Nehru’s experience in jail? He too found himself and his people while he was in a colonial jail.*
> 
> Well, rather ambitiously (and perhaps not without a certain degree of vanity), I choose in the very preface of my book to enter into a contest with Jawaharlal Nehru. He believed in the oneness of India – the Akhund Bharat. For him, Bharat was one from Kabul to Cape Comorin and from Assam to Balochistan. Defined by the mountains and the ocean, this subcontinent was one unit to Nehru, as it was to Vivekananda and even to others, going back to ancient times. Even the epic Mahabharata talks of India as one from Kashgar to Ceylon.
> 
> *So you could not find yourself in this grand vision of history, which sees India as a very broad region incorporating within itself so many ethnicities and religious groups?*
> 
> No, I have a more territorial concept of such matters, which I consider a more realistic vision of history. But what I was contesting was also a certain dogmatic foundation of history, one which saw Pakistan being created the day the first Indian became a Muslim. I found a more solid basis for Pakistan as having originated in ancient history, rather than the time of Muhammad bin Qasim. I felt it was essential to give a certain degree of confidence to my generation and coming ones: that Pakistan was a stable entity whose roots pre-date religious conversions. Its rivers had nurtured a pluralistic polity since time immemorial, and this was distinct from the Indian polity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aitzaz Ahsan in the Senate, 1998
> 
> *Are there any particular historians and schools of historiography that most influenced your own view of history?*
> 
> Marx as a historiographer was very important to me, apart from being a social scientist or a so-called prophet of future economic developments. His dialectical conception of history, derived from Hegel, became a tool for me to discern our own history. To that extent, the Marxist method, but not the argument, is the one that I employ.
> 
> But there was a diverse array of historians and political analysts that helped me come to my conclusions. There was Sibt e Hassan, in “Maazi ke Mazaar” and “Moosa se Marx tak”. Romila Thapar is a very objective historian. There is DD Kosambi, who was basically a mathematician, but gave very perceptive analyses of ancient history based on the Marxist method. From Professors Ahmed Hassan Dani, Mubarik Ali and K.K.Aziz I obtained clarity of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Graduation at Cambridge in 1967
> 
> The dialectical method has been a heavy influence for me. But while using this method, I read a lot. And most of what I read was not by Marxist historians. Perhaps 90 percent of what I read was not by Marxist historians. So I used a tool of analysis, but the facts I collected and the realities I wrote about were substantiated not necessarily by Marxist historians.
> 
> *Is The Indus Saga more of a response to our own flawed historiography or to mainstream Indian historiography?*
> 
> Initially it was more a response to fundamentalist visions of history within Pakistan. But I had to confront, obviously, the other perspective too. I saw the concept of a Maha Bharat as being false too. When The Indus Saga came out in 1996, it also entered the Indian market, but was exported there from here in Pakistan. It became controversial there, as Indian scholars began to write against it, except Khushwant Singh and Subhas Chakraborty. Many wrote against me, flogging me for the sacrilege of providing a basis for the division of “Mother India”. They asked things such as “If Pakistan’s creation was justified, then why did Bengal break away?” but for me it merely substantiated my territorial theory. For me, it is territories which make states and polities, not dogmas. Bengal had a different history, a different territory and consequently a different civilisation, no less distinct from us than Turks or Indonesians. Happily we are all Muslims, but culturally and civilisationally different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bushra Aitzaz during the struggle against the Zia dictatorship
> 
> *Could this have been an oversight also on the part of the founders of Pakistan, perhaps?*
> 
> In the enthusiasm of the Pakistan movement, during that short span of history, religion was the foremost impetus and emotion for very many people. But in the long span from prehistory to post-modernity, when you look at history as an extended continuum, then you find that territoriality and rivers define civilisations.
> 
> When I speak of the Indus civilisation, I do not refer merely to Mohenjodaro and Harrappa – that is a dated conception. For me, the Indus civilisation has been a polity distinct from India in a continuum from the earliest times until today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Benazir Bhutto in 1990
> 
> *How do you view contestations of Pakistani identity from within Pakistan? How do you reconcile Pashtun, Sindhi, Baloch and other competing nationalisms with your conception of Pakistani identity?*
> 
> These are all, for me, sub-nationalities within the Indus people. They are distinct and this is important, but they create a weave of plurality and diversity. A nationality does not necessarily have to be based on absolute uniformity. These different shades weave into each other gradually: Sindhi to Seraiki to Punjabi to Potwari to Pashto, or Sindhi to Balochi and Brahwi – these are all layers of the Indus people.
> 
> Going back to ancient history, you see that the Vedas were written in the Indus region. If you take, for instance, the Rig-Veda and compare it to the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, and you will see some crucial differences. The gods are different, the men are different, the culture is different and the attitudes are different.
> 
> The Indus attitude is one of brash impetuosity: coming to conclusions before having properly reasoned them out. This is a national characteristic which continues in us to this day.
> 
> The man of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana is reflective. The very discourse in the Gita is a discussion between a god and a warrior on why a war must be fought, what a just war is. The man has to be convinced with logic and reason to go into that war.
> 
> The Vedic man is boisterous and consumerist. The Gangetic man is frugal. You can see the distinction between the Indus person and the Indian person stretching far back into history, reflected in the epic myths themselves.
> 
> *If the Indus people can be so clearly defined based on geography, as you have attempted to, then why is it that a rejection of Indian-ness is still so integral to Pakistani nationalism and identity?*
> 
> The point at which this rejection of the Indian identity should have been most extreme in us was the decade immediately after Partition, a process marked by rioting, killing and mayhem. And yet, this was the decade-and-a-half which was a time of the most comfortable relations between India and Pakistan. That is the time when Indian movies used to play easily in Pakistan. Pakistani pehelwans and cricketers competed in India. We signed the Indus Water Treaty. The “un-Indian-ness” was not so necessary, and there was a great degree of comfort between the two countries.
> 
> The circumstances which changed all this came with the military take-over in 1958. Armies, particularly since the emergence of democratic systems, have had no political, moral or constitutional right to take over. They have to create or craft their legitimacy once in power. The only thing they can do is to base the tenuous legitimacy of their rule on perceived threats to national security. Now this implies two things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Benazir Bhutto in court, 1997
> 
> First, you have to convert the state (from whatever it is) into a national-security state, to justify military rule. In Pakistan, we had the conceptual basis for a social welfare state until the military take-over of 1958. After that, we began to move towards a national-security paradigm.
> 
> Second, when you start justifying yourself on a need for national security, then you have to also find an enemy.
> 
> *So you feel that this threat has been more manufactured than existential?*
> 
> Now it is established that we went to war in 1965. That was the impulsion of the national security establishment. Drumbeats of war began, with “Crush India” stickers on cars, patriotic songs like “Ay puttar hattaan tey naen vikde” enchanted and enthused us with great nationalistic fervour.
> 
> Whatever we won or lost in that war, one thing is clear: we did not gain the objective for which Ayub Khan had gone into war, i.e. to liberate Indian Occupied Kashmir. We simply stood where we stood. We managed to save Lahore. Without a doubt, the soldiers fought bravely, for instance Major Aziz Bhatti, an icon in military history. But our higher military command, including Field Marshal Ayub Khan, had started the war to achieve a certain objective. Did we fulfil it? The answer is “No”.
> 
> *Do you feel it is tragic that when one questions the mainstream narrative of Pakistani history, one’s loyalty to Pakistan is called into question, especially these days?*
> 
> Yes, it is tragic. The official narrative is narrow and exclusive. The hardcore, official narrative cannot be sold to a member of a minority religious group of Pakistanis. You start by saying that the state is governed by (or partial towards) a particular religion. The moment you start with that, you negate completely what Barrister Jinnah, the Quaid e Azam, had said in his address to the Constituent Assembly on the 11th of August, 1947. He had said that your religion has nothing to do with the business of the state.
> 
> And now, based on the constitution, your President has to be Muslim. The 18th amendment to the Constitution, for all its positive aspects in terms of devolution of power and provincial autonomy, has also added the stipulation that the Prime Minister must be Muslim. With this, you are excluding the children of lesser gods from aspiring to the highest offices.
> 
> In this sense our official narrative is narrow and exclusivist. You begin to view society not as a diverse, interwoven fabric, but as a single weave. Tensions within one weave are inevitable.
> 
> So you have a doctrine or narrative that Islam and Muslims will have a preferred status, contrary to the Quaid’s exhortations. People like to bring up various things he said, but his most important speech was that of the 11th of August, 1947. This was where he laid out the Grundnorm for Pakistan. Had the Quaid lived, and had he had the opportunity to pilot a constitution through the Constituent Assembly, his co-pilot and author would have been a Hindu – Jogendra Nath Mandal, the law minister. The Quaid’s foreign minister belonged to a community which we have declared non-Muslims since, the Ahmadis.
> 
> The Quaid had the concept of a pluralistic Pakistan: a state which will not go into the question of the religion of individuals. By adopting discriminatory laws and practices we have negated the idea that every citizen is a son or daughter of this state. If there was ever an “ideology of Pakistan”, it was laid out in the Quaid’s speech to the Constituent Assembly.
> 
> In 1971, the concocted “ideology of Pakistan” properly emerged as the mullahs (as represented by elements such as the Badr and Shams brigades) and the military came onto the same page. As a consequence of the 1971 war, we lost East Pakistan.
> 
> In the Zia-ul-Haq era, we became an essential piece of a jigsaw puzzle of global conflict. We became the piece of the puzzle where the Soviet Union met with a resistance which, while fierce and passionate, was well-oiled with Saudi and American assistance. It was here that the initial betrothal between mullahs and military became a proper union. The jihadis became an arm of the Western world and then of the Pakistani state.
> 
> *As a stalwart of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), how do you view the party’s historical role? How far did Bhutto’s discourse appeal to you?*
> 
> Bhutto took nationalism to a great height. He became the acclaimed hero emerging from the period after the 1965 war. He inspired the youth with his speeches, and I was among those influenced by him. There were multiple dimensions to his charisma. One of these was, of course, anti-Indian sentiment. Another was his anti-imperialism. And then there was, of course, his socialism.
> 
> We found this heady discourse very inspiring. We saw ourselves as leftists.
> 
> Even in my letter to Yahya Khan, refusing to join the civil service after having qualified for it, I wrote that I was not prepared to serve a military government. I wrote that I would not jeopardise my talent and integrity by serving such a regime.
> 
> Had Bhutto been a Jamaat-e-Islami nationalist, he would not have attracted me. But Bhutto was a combination of many things. His vision was of a more open society, where the disadvantaged, such as minorities and women, would see a change in their status. This is what we aspired to.
> 
> *Were you able to reconcile the anti-Indian sentiment with your pluralistic vision of history and the Indus identity?*
> 
> I was young at that time. I was nineteen years old during the 1965 war, so I was certainly gripped by the nationalistic fervour prevalent at that time. We went to forward defense positions as young people. We dug trenches and hailed the soldiers. It was a time which did enrich me in a way. As Wordsworth says,
> 
> “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!”
> 
> We saw ourselves as defending our territory and heritage. Bhutto emerged as a man who was not prepared to buckle even at Tashkent.
> 
> *Did you ever feel the need to re-assess your youthful view of Bhutto and what he represented, perhaps in light of your later understanding of a more pluralistic heritage?*
> 
> Yes, but Bhutto was succeeded by another very charismatic person: his daughter. She truly embraced plurality and diversity. She was a much softer incarnation of Bhutto’s thought, more in tune with my own inclinations. My own PPP was formed more in opposition to the military-fundamentalist regime of Zia-ul-Haq.
> 
> Ziyad Faisal is based in Lahore. He may be reached at ziyadfaisal@gmail.com
> 
> - See more at: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/children-of-the-indus/#sthash.Y6QT4nwO.dpuf


*AN APT SONG FOR THIS TOPIC:*


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

abcxyz0000 said:


> If Indus civilization indeed belongs to Pakistan, why hasn't the Pakistani community produced a Srinivas Ramanujam (mathematician) or M. Visvesvaraya (an eminent engineer)?
> 
> If Pakistanis bring up the example of Abdus Salam, let me state that Nobel Prize is often about politics than good work in science. Pakistanis don't believe Indians. So quoting some Western source criticizing Abdus Salam.
> 
> *This is what Luciano Bertochhi, former deputy director of ICTP had to say about Salam:*
> 
> "This is the story of my relations with Abdus Salam, which were quite close for almost thirty years, and very intense for the last twenty. The first time I heard the name of Salam was in the fall of 1956, when as a young student, I was preparing my Italian Master thesis on dispersion relations. My supervisor gave me a copy of the lecture notes on dispersion relations which had been delivered by Salam at Rochester. These were hand-written notes – they appear in the list of his publications kept at our library as publication no. 24 – and the way they were written was very typical of Salam's approach and style.
> 
> Even for formulae, although the beginning and the final result were correct, the intermediate passages were full of mistakes; but the final result was right. This was typical of Salam: to be able to pick up, in physics as well as all other domains, the most important points and to look at them very carefully, neglecting the less important details, provided the final result was correct."
> 
> http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001190/119078Eb.pdf



Bhai... this thread is about IVC - not some random mathematicians who appeared thousands of years after.

You guys are getting desperate by the day and finding the most stupid and unrelated excuses to try and attempt to claim our history. Just like how black nationalists try to claim ancient Carthage and Egypt.

You Gangas have been debunked by history, genetics, geography and so much more - yet you still dwelve in RSS stories. You drool over the Indus while your own holy Ganges has been transformed into a polluted shitpool

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Bhai... this thread is about IVC - not some random mathematicians who appeared thousands of years after.
> 
> You guys are getting desperate by the day and finding the most stupid and unrelated excuses to try and attempt to claim our history. Just like how black nationalists try to claim ancient Carthage and Egypt.
> 
> You Gangas have been debunked by history, genetics, geography and so much more - yet you still dwelve in RSS stories. You drool over the Indus while your own holy Ganges has been transformed into a polluted shitpool


Srinivasa Ramanujan is not any random mathematician. He is highly regarded all over the world. Just as Viswanathan Anand is highly regarded all over the world.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

abcxyz0000 said:


> Srinivasa Ramanujan is not any random mathematician. He is highly regarded all over the world. Just as Viswanathan Anand is highly regarded all over the world.


I don't even know who the are, hell I can't even pronounce their names. No one in the US knows know they are. Even if they were 'highly regarded' - they have nothing to do with IVC. They were probably born a thousand miles from anywhere near the Indus. Stop bringing in unrelated subjects in a poor attempt to claim the IVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I don't even know who the are, hell I can't even pronounce their names. No one in the US knows know they are. Even if they were 'highly regarded' - they have nothing to do with IVC. They were probably born a thousand miles from anywhere near the Indus. Stop bringing in unrelated subjects in a poor attempt to claim the IVC.


They are not as unrelated as you think.

Now you agree that IVC is a great engineering feat and today's modern Indians show such engineering talent. Thus the two topics are one and the same. In fact when Visveswaraiah contributed his engineering skills to water works of Sukkur, he had actually returned to the place which was part of his ancestor's home.

By the way, you haven't heard of Vishy Anand and Srinivas Ramanujan? Really? Are you modern day Robinson Crusoe or what? Cut off from contact with humans?


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I don't even know who they are


Either junglee Ganga's or Dravids - take your pick, makes little differance. But what will be common between both is the need to come to the *Indus valley* in hope that some of the gold dust rubs off on them. They can't exactly lick Mesopotamia or Egypt - too far so they find the nearest motherlode of civilzation and that would be *our* motherland - the Indus Valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-72M1

Kaptaan said:


> *our* motherland - the Indus Valley.


you srs, a bunch of kufr jaahils from jahallat times ?


----------



## Indus Pakistan

T-72M1 said:


> kufr jaahils


All were "kufr jaahils" and that even includes the prophets (pbuh) ancestors. However what marks our "kufr jaahils" from others is they laid cradle of civilization. That is source of pride - right under our feet. The dirt we walk on is riddled with history and bones of our ancestors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehman_Dheri
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1876/


This map (below) says it all. Pakistan, the mighty Indus weaving it's way along the entire length of the country and joining all the provinces of Pakistan. The ancient sites straddling both sides of the Indus and with rather appropriately the modern capital of Pakistan Islamabad, adjacent to the ancient Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I don't even know who the are, hell I can't even pronounce their names. No one in the US knows know they are. Even if they were 'highly regarded' - they have nothing to do with IVC. They were probably born a thousand miles from anywhere near the Indus. Stop bringing in unrelated subjects in a poor attempt to claim the IVC.





Kaptaan said:


> Either junglee Ganga's or Dravids - take your pick, makes little differance. But what will be common between both is the need to come to the *Indus valley* in hope that some of the gold dust rubs off on them. They can't exactly lick Mesopotamia or Egypt - too far so they find the nearest motherlode of civilzation and that would be *our* motherland - the Indus Valley.



The first paper your Abdus Salam published was based on Ramanujan's work. It was titled: 'Problem of Ramanujan'.

Vishwanathan Anand is the guy who has held the world's no. 2 Chess player title CONTINUOUSLY for at least 25 years!

And you say nobody in US knows them.

*It is preposterous to suggest that during such a long period of 5000 years, only negligible degree of mass movement of people took place from either Indus region towards the East or from East towards the Indus or from far West towards Indus region. 

A case in point is the location of Brahui community. Brahui language is said to be a Dravidian language. How did it end up as far as Pakistani Baluchistan, Iranian Baluchistan and Afghanistan?*


----------



## django

@abcxyz0000 For all your boasts, out of a monumental sized population you have only produced Ramnajuan a brilliant mathematician but by no means the greatest in the 20th century let alone of all time......I have an interesting theory as to why the bookworming southerners are not at the forefront of engineering or science , even their IIT students get exposed at better western institution, my theory is as follows, it may be correct it may not be yet i find it most interesting, I have read articles about how head circumference affects intelligence and memory, people who were prone to dementia and alzeimer disease tend to have foreheads which have smaller circumference and tend to have smaller brain,,,I have seen enough southerners in UAE, the thing I noticed about them is that they have very small heads compared to folks from the North ie Sikhs or Pak folks, I am honestly not trying to bait you into a trollfest,,,,like I said smaller heads may not necessarily mean inferior intelligence, but their are erudite scientists who believe it does and make no mistake about it you southerners on average seeming to have foreheads which are less in circumference.Kudos
@Kaptaan @Zibago


----------



## Indus Pakistan

django said:


> smaller heads


So Django, let me get it right - they are small *up* there and small* down* there as well? I don't know which of the two is worse?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## django

Kaptaan said:


> So Django, let me get it right - they are small *up* there and small* down* there as well? I don't know which of the two is worse?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6161691.stm hahahhahaha

@abcxyz0000 The truth is men from the Indus region are physcially bigger and better, I suspect their intellect may be higher and accroding to IQ studies Pak scored higher than India despite having a population which is generally less exposed to education, I think the southerners dragged the H!ndian number down, I suspect the northerners were of comparable intelligence



abcxyz0000 said:


> Srinivasa Ramanujan is not any random mathematician. He is highly regarded all over the world. Just as Viswanathan Anand is highly regarded all over the world.


No one has even heard of Viswanathan Anand hahahahahhahahahaaaaa.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Post Colonnial

Very interesting thread and I will have to read thru. But as I go thru the initial posts I find it ironic that in one sentence he would use the term 'realistic' and with the next sentence take that huge flight of fancy to credit Mir Qasim as founding Pakistan. Obviously this is a conceptual link of Pakistan to the advent of Muslims to India but then that only fortifies the author's own initial dilemma of more muslims in India than in Pakistan. Highly worthwhile read though so far, to understand what intellectual Pakistanis go through to get to their 'Pakistanihood'.


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

django said:


> No one has even heard of Viswanathan Anand hahahahahhahahahaaaaa.


Conversely, could there be any distinguished Pakistanis about which Indians are oblivious? Throw light on it.

Anyway, it's surprising that any educated person having plenty of access to internet and who travels across countries would not have heard of Vishy Anand. I thought it's like adult not knowing what sun and moon are.


----------



## django

abcxyz0000 said:


> Conversely, could there be any distinguished Pakistanis about which Indians are oblivious? Throw light on it.
> 
> Anyway, it's surprising that any educated person having plenty of access to internet and who travels across countries would not have heard of Vishy Anand. I thought it's like adult not knowing what sun and moon are.


The only H!ndian who was at the forefront of his field was Ramnajuan and no I am not aware of some obscure engineer from Gangadesh.Kudos man from the south.


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

django said:


> The only H!ndian who was at the forefront of his field was Ramnajuan and no I am not aware of some obscure engineer from Gangadesh.Kudos man form the south.


You didn't get the question. I asked about PAKISTANIS who were/are at the forefront of their field. Just as you are unaware about Anand, who knows we, Indians too may be unaware about Pakistan's counterpart of Anand.


----------



## Jackdaws

Amusing to see Pakistani try so hard to deny their Indic roots. Isn't Lahore named after the son of Lord Ram?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## django

abcxyz0000 said:


> You didn't get the question. I asked about PAKISTANIS who were/are at the forefront of their field. Just as you are unaware about Anand, who knows we, Indians too may be unaware about Pakistan's counterpart of Anand.


Professor Salam was certainly at the forefront of theoretical Physics, he should have won the Nobel prize twice,,,,,,Pakistan only has a fraction of the population of Gangadesh, despite all the investments initially by Nehru and co in those overated IITs, you guys are nowhere to be seen in science, for heaven sakes compare your pitiful performances at the Olympiads against our Iranian friends, where your bookworms make virtually no impact, ,,,despite all the investment I believe you folks from the south are not blessed with innate intellect, sure the law of averages says that their will be the odd exceptional person here and their due to the magnitude of your population yet the vast majority are probably on par IQ wise with Sub-Saharan Africa.Kudos, sorry to bring you down a peg or two young fellow,,,I bid you farewell.



Jackdaws said:


> Amusing to see Pakistani try so hard to deny their Indic roots. Isn't Lahore named after the son of Lord Ram?


Well if you mean gangadesh, we have no link with those folk nor do we want any association with them, BTW why use Indic when you folks are Gangacentric nation,,,a very artificial nation at that.Kudos Jack

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

django said:


> Well if you mean gangadesh, we have no link with those folk nor do we want any association with them, BTW why use Indic when you folks are Gangacentric nation,,,a very artificial nation at that.Kudos Jack


Do you see the delusion of these Ganga's? He talks about us denying our "Indic" roots. He overlooks that Indic is derived from Indus. We are openly celebrating our Indus motherland. 

Now look this @Jackdaws It is he who is denying his own *Ganga* roots. He is from Ganga, Ganga is his motherland and he considers Ganga as holy yet talks about Indus. Without Indus these Ganga-deshis are just bare naked junglees.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## django

Kaptaan said:


> Do you see the delusion of these Ganga's? He talks about us denying our "Indic" roots. He overlooks that Indic is derived from Indus. We are openly celebrating our Indus motherland.
> 
> Now look this @Jackdaws It is he who is denying his own *Ganga* roots. He is from Ganga, Ganga is his motherland and he considers Ganga as holy yet talks about Indus. Without Indus these Ganga-deshis are just bare naked junglees.


Their ignorance (deliberate ignorance) is truly astounding, believe it or not some of them even claim Kabul Afghanistan as being part of their Utopian H!ndia/Gangadesh ie Tarek the fat pig fateh alongside some so-called Khattak nodding along as well as homosexual Amer mastikhan, it was funny and ridiculous as hell.Kudos

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indika

Jackdaws said:


> Amusing to see Pakistani try so hard to deny their Indic roots. Isn't Lahore named after the son of Lord Ram?


peshawar too comes from sanskrit word purusapura. Then we have kashmir as well.


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

django said:


> Professor Salam was certainly at the forefront of theoretical Physics, he should have won the Nobel prize twice,,,,,,Pakistan only has a fraction of the population of Gangadesh, despite all the investments initially by Nehru and co in those overated IITs, you guys are nowhere to be seen in science, for heaven sakes compare your pitiful performances at the Olympiads against our Iranian friends, where your bookworms make virtually no impact, ,,,despite all the investment I believe you folks from the south are not blessed with innate intellect, sure the law of averages says that their will be the odd exceptional person here and their due to the magnitude of your population yet the vast majority are probably on par IQ wise with Sub-Saharan Africa.Kudos, sorry to bring you down a peg or two young fellow,,,I bid you farewell.
> 
> 
> Well if you mean gangadesh, we have no link with those folk nor do we want any association with them, BTW why use Indic when you folks are Gangacentric nation,,,a very artificial nation at that.Kudos Jack


In Iran 100℅ (each and every person) people are very intelligent. In India, 99.99℅ of people are duffers. Only 0.01℅ are good. But that 0.01℅ is so extraordinary that they are better than all Iranians! Now which team would be more effective in solving science and technology problems? The team having all members very intelligent or the team having only 0.01℅ of members intelligent but better than the top of other team?

Hundred blows of goldsmith is comparable to one blow of iron-smith.


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

Kaptaan said:


> Do you see the delusion of these Ganga's? He talks about us denying our "Indic" roots. He overlooks that Indic is derived from Indus. We are openly celebrating our Indus motherland.
> 
> Now look this @Jackdaws It is he who is denying his own *Ganga* roots. He is from Ganga, Ganga is his motherland and he considers Ganga as holy yet talks about Indus. Without Indus these Ganga-deshis are just bare naked junglees.


Now just you wait till I apprise you of more of 'my delusions'.


----------



## patman

Jackdaws said:


> Amusing to see Pakistani try so hard to deny their Indic roots. Isn't Lahore named after the son of Lord Ram?



it is, i've seen so many Pakistanis throwing random bs trying to deny their ancestors were Hindus


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

*Twist in the investigation*:

The perception of River Indus defining the Pakistani nation was created by an unexpected institution: RAW (India's external intelligence agency). As part of this brilliant plan, RAW did the ghostwriting for the book 'Children of the Indus'. RAW put the idea that Pakistan is distinct from India in the minds of Pakistanis.

RAW did this to make Pakistanis disassociate themselves from some far West countries. RAW wanted to prevent Pakistan from forming an alliance with certain countries.

If Pakistan is related to neither to West nor to India, who are they then? One would wonder. There should be some explanation. So RAW gave Pakistanis a romantic identity.

Hence RAW came up with this theory. The rouse worked perfectly!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

abcxyz0000 said:


> In Iran 100℅ (each and every person) people are very intelligent. In India, 99.99℅ of people are duffers. Only 0.01℅ are good. But that 0.01℅ is so extraordinary that they are better than all Iranians! Now which team would be more effective in solving science and technology problems? The team having all members very intelligent or the team having only 0.01℅ of members intelligent but better than the top of other team?
> 
> Hundred blows of goldsmith is comparable to one blow of iron-smith.


You truly are delusional, and *your logic is absurd*,,,,,nothing new, now i realise you are a attention seeking troll, so from now on you are on my ignore list, so do not bother replying.


----------



## Jackdaws

django said:


> Well if you mean gangadesh, we have no link with those folk nor do we want any association with them, BTW why use Indic when you folks are Gangacentric nation,,,a very artificial nation at that.Kudos Jack





Kaptaan said:


> Do you see the delusion of these Ganga's? He talks about us denying our "Indic" roots. He overlooks that Indic is derived from Indus. We are openly celebrating our Indus motherland.
> 
> Now look this @Jackdaws It is he who is denying his own *Ganga* roots. He is from Ganga, Ganga is his motherland and he considers Ganga as holy yet talks about Indus. Without Indus these Ganga-deshis are just bare naked junglees.



LOL - that doesn't answer the question about Lahore being named after the son of Lord Ram. Of course we are a Gangacentric nation. We don't believe in denying our roots. But I can understand the need for Pakistanis to do so.


----------



## Mugwop

Most of the ways into IVC lead to Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## django

Mugwop said:


> Most of the ways into IVC lead to Pakistan


Is that @amardeep mishra

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

abcxyz0000 said:


> It is preposterous to suggest that during such a long period of 5000 years, only negligible degree of mass movement of people took place from either Indus region towards the East or from East towards the Indus or from far West towards Indus region.


and how did you come up with this assumption

your hindutva fairytales have been debunked over and over yet you still cling onto these stories in attempt to associate yourselves with our culture, ethnicities and heritage while you are ashamed of your own.

Just look at genetics for example
Pakistanis to these day retain the Harappan Haplogroup





There is no gene-flow towards India which indicates there was no serious migration. The only major migration that took place was towards the West not to the East (India). R1 is thought to have originated in Northern Pakistan and spread to Central Asia and then Western Europe. It's also one of the reasons why Punjabis, Pashtuns, Kashmiris, and far North Pakistanis share very close physical features with Europeans.






People within the Indus Basin form a distinct and a genetically compact 'race'.








abcxyz0000 said:


> *A case in point is the location of Brahui community. Brahui language is said to be a Dravidian language. How did it end up as far as Pakistani Baluchistan, Iranian Baluchistan and Afghanistan?*


You can ask them yourself and they'll tell you that they migrated during Mughal Era. Even some of their clan names are based off of South Indian cities. Genetically, they are nowhere near close Indians.








Jackdaws said:


> Amusing to see Pakistani try so hard to deny their Indic roots. Isn't Lahore named after the son of Lord Ram?


It's pathetic to see that you deny your Ganga roots and in shame you try to claim the Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Jackdaws said:


> that doesn't answer the question about Lahore being named after the son of Lord Ram


Who cares whether the Peshawar is derived from Sanskrit or Lahore is from Ram? Rig Veda was most likely written in the Indus Valley and so was Sanskrit. It then *moved* from us to you *Ganga's*. Are you aware of this? Sanskrit has been imposed on Ganga and Dravid aboriginals. Sanskrit is sister language old Iranic Avestan.

If you can demonstrate to me that Sanskrit or Rig Veda was imposed on us in the Indus Valley from you Ganga's I might feel humbled but I know we exported Rig Veda and Sanskrit from the Indus to you Ganga's and then later it spread to your Dravid buddies in the south. So stop reminding us about Sanskrit or where Peshawar was derived from.

If you want to you can thank us for giving you Sanskrit and Rig Veda.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## war&peace

django said:


> Is that @amardeep mishra


He is the foremost and the leading forensic expert came out of 1.2 billion ganga-doos . He can determine whether the conducted missile test was fake or not using just his naked eyes and by watching only a few seconds of the footage of any of the missile test in the world. Though he can't see properly even with glasses due to strongly squinted eyes..but anyways the whole country of 1.2 billion people relies on his "expertise" and soon he be will made NSA of india.



Kaptaan said:


> Who cares whether the Peshawar is derived from Sanskrit or Lahore is from Ram? Rig Veda was most likely written in the Indus Valley and so was Sanskrit. It then *moved* from us to you *Ganga's*. Are you aware of this? Sanskrit has been imposed on Ganga and Dravid aboriginals. Sanskrit is sister language old Iranic Avestan.
> 
> If you can demonstrate to me that Sanskrit or Rig Veda was imposed on us in the Indus Valley from you Ganga's I might feel humbled but I know we exported Rig Veda and Sanskrit from the Indus to you Ganga's and then later it spread to your Dravid buddies in the south. So stop reminding us about Sanskrit or where Peshawar was derived from.
> 
> If you want to you can thank us for giving you Sanskrit and Rig Veda.


oh sir, why are you wasting your energies on them..it is evident that they haven't studied their own history or rather distorted history..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

war&peace said:


> 1.2 billion *ganga-doos*


Ganga-Doos

_*Copyright. Now spread it around._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Post Colonnial

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> Indian Punjabi Population : 44,000,000
> Pakistani Punjabi population: 93,500,000
> 
> Pakistani Sindhi Population : 35,700,000
> Indian Sindhi population: 3,810,000
> 
> Indian kashmiri population: 12,541,302
> Pakistani kashmiri population: 2,580,000 and Gilgit-Baltistan is 870,347
> 
> I am not even counting those Urdu speaking muhajirs who migrated from india and still has some relatives in there.
> 
> Are Pakistani pashtun any different to afghan pashtuns when have same tribes exist in boht countries Pakistan and Afghanistan? You are confusing nationality with ethnic groups which are two different identity. I am saying that Pakistan and India both host different ethnic groups so differences vary from one ethnic group to others rather than one country to others. Different ethnicities of Pakistan got united under the banner of Islam to create this country we call Pakistan..
> 
> 
> What are differences beside religion?



Pretty straight forward from these numbers.But numbers don't help, we can always try percentages (like that classic 'Punjabis are only 3% of Indian population').

BTW don't know why religion is any greater demarcation - number of mulsims in India and Pakistan are not that far away. Or may be you mean absence of other religions in Pakistan


----------



## MultaniGuy

Those genetics map prove Pakistanis are different from Indians.

We have nothing in common with the 1.2 billion Indians

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Rig Veda originated from what is now north Pakistan - Khyber Pakhtunhkwa province and Punjab. *Panini* who codified Sanskrit lived in what is now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan near Indus River. So in fact modern Hinduism originates from our lands. Instead of pointing fingers I think Indian's need to show some respect to us. We gave them their religion like Europeans gave Christianity to Africans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## django

war&peace said:


> He is the foremost and the leading forensic expert came out of 1.2 billion ganga-doos . He can determine where the missile test was fake or not using just his naked eyes and by watching only a few seconds of the footage of any of the missile test in the world. Though he can't see properly even with glasses due to strongly squinted eyes..
> Soon he will made NSA of india.


Indeed he looks like he has very severe myopia and a myopic mind.Kudos sir



Kaptaan said:


> If you want to you can* thank u*s for giving you Sanskrit and Rig Veda.


Not only is their "you know what" too small, their hearts are also too small to be grateful to the Indus folks for bringing civilisation to their forest dwelling feral ancestors.Kudos


----------



## Jackdaws

Kaptaan said:


> Who cares whether the Peshawar is derived from Sanskrit or Lahore is from Ram? Rig Veda was most likely written in the Indus Valley and so was Sanskrit. It then *moved* from us to you *Ganga's*. Are you aware of this? Sanskrit has been imposed on Ganga and Dravid aboriginals. Sanskrit is sister language old Iranic Avestan.
> 
> If you can demonstrate to me that Sanskrit or Rig Veda was imposed on us in the Indus Valley from you Ganga's I might feel humbled but I know we exported Rig Veda and Sanskrit from the Indus to you Ganga's and then later it spread to your Dravid buddies in the south. So stop reminding us about Sanskrit or where Peshawar was derived from.
> 
> If you want to you can thank us for giving you Sanskrit and Rig Veda.


"Moved from us"? LOL - but didn't you lot come in with the Arab invaders? Make up your mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

abcxyz0000 said:


> If Indus civilization indeed belongs to Pakistan, why hasn't the Pakistani community produced a Srinivas Ramanujam (mathematician) or M. Visvesvaraya (an eminent engineer)?
> 
> If Pakistanis bring up the example of Abdus Salam, let me state that Nobel Prize is often about politics than good work in science. Pakistanis don't believe Indians. So quoting some Western source criticizing Abdus Salam.
> 
> *This is what Luciano Bertochhi, former deputy director of ICTP had to say about Salam:*
> 
> "This is the story of my relations with Abdus Salam, which were quite close for almost thirty years, and very intense for the last twenty. The first time I heard the name of Salam was in the fall of 1956, when as a young student, I was preparing my Italian Master thesis on dispersion relations. My supervisor gave me a copy of the lecture notes on dispersion relations which had been delivered by Salam at Rochester. These were hand-written notes – they appear in the list of his publications kept at our library as publication no. 24 – and the way they were written was very typical of Salam's approach and style.
> 
> Even for formulae, although the beginning and the final result were correct, the intermediate passages were full of mistakes; but the final result was right. This was typical of Salam: to be able to pick up, in physics as well as all other domains, the most important points and to look at them very carefully, neglecting the less important details, provided the final result was correct."
> 
> http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001190/119078Eb.pdf





abcxyz0000 said:


> They are not as unrelated as you think.
> 
> Now you agree that IVC is a great engineering feat and today's modern Indians show such engineering talent. Thus the two topics are one and the same. In fact when Visveswaraiah contributed his engineering skills to water works of Sukkur, he had actually returned to the place which was part of his ancestor's home.
> 
> By the way, you haven't heard of Vishy Anand and Srinivas Ramanujan? Really? Are you modern day Robinson Crusoe or what? Cut off from contact with humans?



*NEUTRAL SOURCE NEW YORK TIMES SAYS:*

*SCIENTIST AT WORK: Abhay Ashtekar; Taste-Testing a Recipe for the Cosmos*

By JAMES GLANZ
APRIL 20, 1999

Dr. Abhay Ashtekar, the leader of a worldwide effort to unify the two most profound, abstract and mathematically baroque theories of physics discovered in this century, is sprinkling frozen mango cubes on scoops of vanilla ice cream.

After a meal of fish and tamales during which he puttered about his kitchen in a green apron emblazoned with bright flowers and the words ''golden poppies,'' Dr. Ashtekar serves the dessert to his wife, Christine Clarke, and two visitors while needlessly apologizing for his cooking skills.

''I have never been able to follow a recipe,'' he says ruefully. ''I just add what seems right.''

The irony in this bit of self-criticism is lost on no one at the sun-splashed kitchen table. A flair for working without a recipe is a necessity for pursuing the central scientific passion of Dr. Ashtekar, who heads the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University and is in town to help organize a six-month workshop.

His passion boils down to this: An attempt at creating a sort of cosmic nouvelle cuisine by merging Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity with the laws of quantum mechanics, which were first worked out in the 1920's by a number of physicists including Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Einstein. No recipe exists, and only a few of the ingredients are known.

Between them, these theories seem to explain the observed universe, but they express profoundly different conceptions of matter, time and space. That philosophical schism also leaves physicists in deep doubt over how to deal with phenomena in which both theories should be valid -- in the realms of the very small and the very energetic, like the Big Bang in which the universe was allegedly born.

''We have two wildly successful theories that have defined 20th-century physics,'' said Dr. Gary Horowitz, a physicist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where the workshop is being held through July. ''These theories are fundamentally incomplete and inconsistent with each other, and we just can't go on like that.''

Relativity theory describes how the gravity of everything from subatomic particles to massive stars distorts and curves the four dimensions of space-time, like coconuts rolling on a rubber sheet. That changing curvature, in turn, determines exactly how the objects orbit about one another or fall together. A large enough congregation of matter can collapse to a point of infinite density, called a singularity, and shroud itself in a sphere of darkness -- a black hole, whose gravity is so powerful that nothing can escape from it, not even light.

On the other hand, standard quantum mechanics tells the tale of a ''flat'' space in which particles refuse to orbit smoothly; instead, they can hop suddenly from one spot to another, carrying with them only specific, sharply defined amounts of energy called quanta, like tourists holding no bills smaller than a 20. And far from respecting the crisp determinism of classical relativity, these particles sometimes exist not at definite positions but rather as fuzzy clouds of probability.

In culinary terms, these two kinds of physics have remained as distinct as a Tex-Mex barbecue and a New Age vegetarian picnic taking place in the same park. But most physicists, like Dr. Ashtekar, believe that since there is just one universe, there should be just one fundamental way of describing it.

Dr. Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford said that both theories also had internal problems, like the strange singularities that form in general relativity and the unmanageable infinities that also crop up in quantum mechanics. ''The expectation is that to resolve these issues, we need the correct union between general relativity and quantum mechanics,'' Dr. Penrose said. ''In my view,'' he added, Dr. Ashtekar's approach ''is the most important of all the attempts at 'quantizing' general relativity.''

That approach has led to a daring conception of space-time that shares characteristics with both the quantum world and general relativity. On incredibly tiny scales -- 10-33 centimeters, or smaller than a trillionth of a trillionth of the diameter of an atom -- space-time becomes jagged and discontinuous. At those scales, Dr. Ashtekar said, space dissolves into a sort of polymer network, ''like your shirt,'' which looks continuous from a distance but is actually made of one-dimensional threads.

These developments had their start in the 1980's with a mathematical reformulation of Einstein's theory by Dr. Ashtekar, which allowed it to be molded into something that looked like a modified quantum theory. The equations that resulted were later shown to predict the polymers by Dr. Ashtekar, Dr. Carlo Rovelli of the Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Marseilles in France and Dr. Lee Smolin of Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Ashtekar freely points out that no one yet knows if this conception is right, whether nature has actually chosen to fricassee space at the smallest scales. His approach to unification is not even the most popular one; many elementary particle physicists, including Dr. Horowitz, the Santa Barbara physicist, think that vibrations of 10-dimensional entities called strings might hold the key to all the forces of nature, including gravity.


But because it uses relativity theory as its jumping-off point, the approach dreamed up by Dr. Ashtekar and his colleagues is ''the most in the spirit of Einstein,'' said Dr. Thomas Thiemann, a physicist at the Albert Einstein Institute, a part of the Max Planck Society in Potsdam, Germany.

Though known as a researcher of intimidating mathematical prowess, Dr. Ashtekar, 49, seems to approach his metier without much solemnity about its cosmic implications. After lunch, he sat outside in brilliant sunlight near an orange tree, sipping tea, shuffling through visual depictions of what the fabric of space might be. On his mug, a Gary Larson cartoon showed a schoolboy raising his hand in class and asking: ''Mr. Osborne, may I be excused? My brain is full.''

Dr. Ashtekar's light touch is more than a matter of style. Later, when pressed, he shrugged off the almost religious significance that some cosmologists have suggested a final theory will have. ''That arrogance is somewhat misplaced,'' he said. ''I personally feel this is a great intellectual challenge; it's very difficult and all that.'' But physics, he said, ''is only a part of the whole mystery of nature, of existence and ourselves.''

Abhay Ashtekar grew up in small cities in the Indian state of Maharastra, which contains Bombay. At 15, while living in Kolhapur, a town surrounded by lush green sugar cane fields, he came across the popular book ''One, Two, Three . . . Infinity'' (last printed in 1988 by Dover) by the physicist George Gamow and decided that he liked mathematics and cosmology. Two years later (after the first year of college in India), a math professor explained to him that it was actually possible to make a living doing research on such topics.


''Coming from a middle-class family, you either became a doctor or an engineer or you entered civil service,'' Dr. Ashtekar said. The notion of a career fiddling with ideas ''was a total revelation,'' he said. ''And my mind was set. I wanted to try to do pure research.''

He began showing a flair for not following scientific recipes almost immediately, discovering a small but significant error in the answer to a problem given in ''The Feynman Lectures on Physics,'' a set of introductory volumes written by the late Dr. Richard P. Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner. Dr. Ashtekar wrote to Feynman -- and still has the treasured reply conceding that the textbook was wrong.

Sometime later he walked into the United States consulate in Bombay and searched university catalogues for graduate programs in gravitation. He eventually landed, a very uncertain 20 years old, at the University of Texas, Austin. On his first day on campus, he had to work up his courage just to enter the physics building. Eventually he entered, climbed a set a stairs, looked both ways down a corridor and hurried out again.

His confidence returned quickly. He went on to complete his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, and then to appointments in Oxford, Paris and Syracuse, N.Y., before settling at Penn State.


Dr. Ashtekar gradually became interested in a field that many theorists before him had entered at their peril. ''The history of quantum gravity,'' wrote Dr. Rovelli of Marseilles in a recent review, ''is a sequence of moments of great excitement followed by great disappointments.''

In an early attempt, Schrodinger announced in 1947 that he had managed to unify Einstein's equations with the theory of electromagnetic fields. But Einstein dismissed the work and condemned the worldwide news coverage it had scored.

From such episodes, wrote Einstein, ''the reader gets the impression that every five minutes there is a revolution in science, somewhat like the coups d'etat in some of the smaller unstable republics.''

Later, Feynman and others tried to slip gravity into the quantum version of electromagnetism that had been developed, but the hybrid theory exploded with mathematical infinities when all the interactions it permitted were added up. And in the heyday of a unified theory called supergravity, Dr. Stephen W. Hawking, the physicist at the University of Cambridge, gave a talk titled ''Is the End of Physics in Sight?''


It was not, yet, and when infinities reared their head in supergravity, some of its ideas were salvaged and woven into string theory.

Dr. Ashtekar's approach, which drew in part on work in the 1960's by Dr. John Wheeler of Princeton University, began with Einstein's equations directly. Following his mathematical taste buds rather than accepted formalisms, Dr. Ashtekar searched for some way to transmute the theory's geometric spirit into the fuzzy quantum world.

His first step was to express Einstein's equations in terms of variables with a chirality, or ''handedness,'' in which a circle drawn in the clockwise sense would look different from one drawn in the opposite sense. Against all intuition, Einstein's equations, which show no preference for direction, broke into simpler pieces in the Ashtekar variables. From that vantage, first achieved in 1986, he was able to use straightforward tricks developed in the 1920's for creating a quantum theory from a deterministic one.

''It's rather curious,'' said Dr. Chris Isham, a theorist at Imperial College in London. ''At one level, it was simply a redefinition of variables, which one might think was a fairly minor thing to do. But it really rejuvenated the whole field and caused quite an explosion of activity,'' Dr. Isham said.


Soon there followed the solutions showing the polymerlike structure of space. The interlocking polymers ''quantize'' space in a particularly odd way, since each strand is somehow loaded with a definite amount of cross-sectional area. So to figure out the area inside a circle in this weird space, one would count up the strands that puncture its surface and multiply by the quantum of area carried by each of them. In this way, area is not smooth but comes in bundles.

The same rule holds for the area of a black hole's event horizon, the place beyond which anything is drawn into the black hole. Last year Dr. Ashtekar, Dr. John Baez of the University of California at Riverside, Dr. Kirill Krasnov of Penn State and Dr. Alejandro Corichi of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico showed that the polymers running into a black hole in a sense hold it ''still'' at the puncture points, like a water balloon supported on blunt pins. The rest of the horizon is free to jiggle about quantum mechanically.

Like the bouncing and jiggling of atoms in an ordinary gas, such motion has a definite entropy (or randomness) and therefore a temperature. Drawing on earlier formulas obtained with Dr. Jerzy Lewandowski of the University of Warsaw, Dr. Ashtekar and his colleagues were able to calculate the entropy for a black hole, matching a legendary 1974 prediction by Dr. Hawking. The theory has other bizarre consequences, such as a bending of space that could be caused by immensely energetic photons of light. But the theory still faces challenges, particularly in the treatment of the ''time'' part of space-time. Until better observational tests turn up, the furious bake-off whose prize is unifying physics will remain a theoretical one. The entrants are not limited to strings and quantum geometry, which are beginning to look almost conservative. Dr. Penrose of Oxford believes that quantum mechanics itself will have to be modified before a fully successful merger with relativity can be made. Dr. Rafael Sorkin of Syracuse University is starting from scratch, postulating bits of existence he calls ''the atoms of space-time'' and working upward toward the macroscopic laws of physics.

In his side yard, Dr. Ashtekar, after a brief disappearance, brings a late afternoon snack for his visitors. It is a reminder that no matter what package of formulas emerges, he is likely to be kneading and rolling them in his mathematical kitchen, so to speak, with results that could not be predicted by looking at the picture on the box.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/04/...ar-taste-testing-a-recipe-for-the-cosmos.html


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Jackdaws said:


> but didn't you


Who told you that? Your fantasy is it? Arabs landed in Sindh and never even managed to make it north of Multan. But what we do know for a fact is that Rig Veda was composed in what is now Pakistan. Panini codified Sanskrit. Only then was this passed to you aboriginals in the Ganga. Like I said before you don't need to thank us but at least show some respect for being the soil that even gave you a religion and a language. Fact *Indus* gave you everything. I bet it must eat you guy's to think the land of your enemy (Pakistan) is the source of everything. We gave you civilization, Sanskrit and laid the basis of your religion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> Is that @amardeep mishra


Hi @django
I certainly do not reply to threads like these but since you have tagged me here,I would like to point out that kindly refrain from tagging me in posts that do not relate to science in general or aerospace engineering/control engineering. I sincerely hope you'd comply!
And I do not know whose picture you have tagged me in

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi @django
> I certainly do not reply to threads like these but since you have tagged me here,I would like to point out that kindly refrain from tagging me in posts that do not relate to science in general or aerospace engineering/control engineering. I sincerely hope you'd comply!
> *And I do not know whose picture you have tagged me in*


Noted...........He is the so-called Indian expert who allegedly exposed the Babur 3 submarine launched missile test as a fake.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

abcxyz0000 said:


> *NEUTRAL SOURCE NEW YORK TIMES SAYS:*
> 
> *SCIENTIST AT WORK: Abhay Ashtekar; Taste-Testing a Recipe for the Cosmos*
> 
> By JAMES GLANZ
> APRIL 20, 1999
> 
> Dr. Abhay Ashtekar, the leader of a worldwide effort to unify the two most profound, abstract and mathematically baroque theories of physics discovered in this century, is sprinkling frozen mango cubes on scoops of vanilla ice cream.
> 
> After a meal of fish and tamales during which he puttered about his kitchen in a green apron emblazoned with bright flowers and the words ''golden poppies,'' Dr. Ashtekar serves the dessert to his wife, Christine Clarke, and two visitors while needlessly apologizing for his cooking skills.
> 
> ''I have never been able to follow a recipe,'' he says ruefully. ''I just add what seems right.''
> 
> The irony in this bit of self-criticism is lost on no one at the sun-splashed kitchen table. A flair for working without a recipe is a necessity for pursuing the central scientific passion of Dr. Ashtekar, who heads the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University and is in town to help organize a six-month workshop.
> 
> His passion boils down to this: An attempt at creating a sort of cosmic nouvelle cuisine by merging Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity with the laws of quantum mechanics, which were first worked out in the 1920's by a number of physicists including Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Einstein. No recipe exists, and only a few of the ingredients are known.
> 
> Between them, these theories seem to explain the observed universe, but they express profoundly different conceptions of matter, time and space. That philosophical schism also leaves physicists in deep doubt over how to deal with phenomena in which both theories should be valid -- in the realms of the very small and the very energetic, like the Big Bang in which the universe was allegedly born.
> 
> ''We have two wildly successful theories that have defined 20th-century physics,'' said Dr. Gary Horowitz, a physicist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where the workshop is being held through July. ''These theories are fundamentally incomplete and inconsistent with each other, and we just can't go on like that.''
> 
> Relativity theory describes how the gravity of everything from subatomic particles to massive stars distorts and curves the four dimensions of space-time, like coconuts rolling on a rubber sheet. That changing curvature, in turn, determines exactly how the objects orbit about one another or fall together. A large enough congregation of matter can collapse to a point of infinite density, called a singularity, and shroud itself in a sphere of darkness -- a black hole, whose gravity is so powerful that nothing can escape from it, not even light.
> 
> On the other hand, standard quantum mechanics tells the tale of a ''flat'' space in which particles refuse to orbit smoothly; instead, they can hop suddenly from one spot to another, carrying with them only specific, sharply defined amounts of energy called quanta, like tourists holding no bills smaller than a 20. And far from respecting the crisp determinism of classical relativity, these particles sometimes exist not at definite positions but rather as fuzzy clouds of probability.
> 
> In culinary terms, these two kinds of physics have remained as distinct as a Tex-Mex barbecue and a New Age vegetarian picnic taking place in the same park. But most physicists, like Dr. Ashtekar, believe that since there is just one universe, there should be just one fundamental way of describing it.
> 
> Dr. Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford said that both theories also had internal problems, like the strange singularities that form in general relativity and the unmanageable infinities that also crop up in quantum mechanics. ''The expectation is that to resolve these issues, we need the correct union between general relativity and quantum mechanics,'' Dr. Penrose said. ''In my view,'' he added, Dr. Ashtekar's approach ''is the most important of all the attempts at 'quantizing' general relativity.''
> 
> That approach has led to a daring conception of space-time that shares characteristics with both the quantum world and general relativity. On incredibly tiny scales -- 10-33 centimeters, or smaller than a trillionth of a trillionth of the diameter of an atom -- space-time becomes jagged and discontinuous. At those scales, Dr. Ashtekar said, space dissolves into a sort of polymer network, ''like your shirt,'' which looks continuous from a distance but is actually made of one-dimensional threads.
> 
> These developments had their start in the 1980's with a mathematical reformulation of Einstein's theory by Dr. Ashtekar, which allowed it to be molded into something that looked like a modified quantum theory. The equations that resulted were later shown to predict the polymers by Dr. Ashtekar, Dr. Carlo Rovelli of the Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Marseilles in France and Dr. Lee Smolin of Pennsylvania State University.
> 
> Dr. Ashtekar freely points out that no one yet knows if this conception is right, whether nature has actually chosen to fricassee space at the smallest scales. His approach to unification is not even the most popular one; many elementary particle physicists, including Dr. Horowitz, the Santa Barbara physicist, think that vibrations of 10-dimensional entities called strings might hold the key to all the forces of nature, including gravity.
> 
> 
> But because it uses relativity theory as its jumping-off point, the approach dreamed up by Dr. Ashtekar and his colleagues is ''the most in the spirit of Einstein,'' said Dr. Thomas Thiemann, a physicist at the Albert Einstein Institute, a part of the Max Planck Society in Potsdam, Germany.
> 
> Though known as a researcher of intimidating mathematical prowess, Dr. Ashtekar, 49, seems to approach his metier without much solemnity about its cosmic implications. After lunch, he sat outside in brilliant sunlight near an orange tree, sipping tea, shuffling through visual depictions of what the fabric of space might be. On his mug, a Gary Larson cartoon showed a schoolboy raising his hand in class and asking: ''Mr. Osborne, may I be excused? My brain is full.''
> 
> Dr. Ashtekar's light touch is more than a matter of style. Later, when pressed, he shrugged off the almost religious significance that some cosmologists have suggested a final theory will have. ''That arrogance is somewhat misplaced,'' he said. ''I personally feel this is a great intellectual challenge; it's very difficult and all that.'' But physics, he said, ''is only a part of the whole mystery of nature, of existence and ourselves.''
> 
> Abhay Ashtekar grew up in small cities in the Indian state of Maharastra, which contains Bombay. At 15, while living in Kolhapur, a town surrounded by lush green sugar cane fields, he came across the popular book ''One, Two, Three . . . Infinity'' (last printed in 1988 by Dover) by the physicist George Gamow and decided that he liked mathematics and cosmology. Two years later (after the first year of college in India), a math professor explained to him that it was actually possible to make a living doing research on such topics.
> 
> 
> ''Coming from a middle-class family, you either became a doctor or an engineer or you entered civil service,'' Dr. Ashtekar said. The notion of a career fiddling with ideas ''was a total revelation,'' he said. ''And my mind was set. I wanted to try to do pure research.''
> 
> He began showing a flair for not following scientific recipes almost immediately, discovering a small but significant error in the answer to a problem given in ''The Feynman Lectures on Physics,'' a set of introductory volumes written by the late Dr. Richard P. Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner. Dr. Ashtekar wrote to Feynman -- and still has the treasured reply conceding that the textbook was wrong.
> 
> Sometime later he walked into the United States consulate in Bombay and searched university catalogues for graduate programs in gravitation. He eventually landed, a very uncertain 20 years old, at the University of Texas, Austin. On his first day on campus, he had to work up his courage just to enter the physics building. Eventually he entered, climbed a set a stairs, looked both ways down a corridor and hurried out again.
> 
> His confidence returned quickly. He went on to complete his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, and then to appointments in Oxford, Paris and Syracuse, N.Y., before settling at Penn State.
> 
> 
> Dr. Ashtekar gradually became interested in a field that many theorists before him had entered at their peril. ''The history of quantum gravity,'' wrote Dr. Rovelli of Marseilles in a recent review, ''is a sequence of moments of great excitement followed by great disappointments.''
> 
> In an early attempt, Schrodinger announced in 1947 that he had managed to unify Einstein's equations with the theory of electromagnetic fields. But Einstein dismissed the work and condemned the worldwide news coverage it had scored.
> 
> From such episodes, wrote Einstein, ''the reader gets the impression that every five minutes there is a revolution in science, somewhat like the coups d'etat in some of the smaller unstable republics.''
> 
> Later, Feynman and others tried to slip gravity into the quantum version of electromagnetism that had been developed, but the hybrid theory exploded with mathematical infinities when all the interactions it permitted were added up. And in the heyday of a unified theory called supergravity, Dr. Stephen W. Hawking, the physicist at the University of Cambridge, gave a talk titled ''Is the End of Physics in Sight?''
> 
> 
> It was not, yet, and when infinities reared their head in supergravity, some of its ideas were salvaged and woven into string theory.
> 
> Dr. Ashtekar's approach, which drew in part on work in the 1960's by Dr. John Wheeler of Princeton University, began with Einstein's equations directly. Following his mathematical taste buds rather than accepted formalisms, Dr. Ashtekar searched for some way to transmute the theory's geometric spirit into the fuzzy quantum world.
> 
> His first step was to express Einstein's equations in terms of variables with a chirality, or ''handedness,'' in which a circle drawn in the clockwise sense would look different from one drawn in the opposite sense. Against all intuition, Einstein's equations, which show no preference for direction, broke into simpler pieces in the Ashtekar variables. From that vantage, first achieved in 1986, he was able to use straightforward tricks developed in the 1920's for creating a quantum theory from a deterministic one.
> 
> ''It's rather curious,'' said Dr. Chris Isham, a theorist at Imperial College in London. ''At one level, it was simply a redefinition of variables, which one might think was a fairly minor thing to do. But it really rejuvenated the whole field and caused quite an explosion of activity,'' Dr. Isham said.
> 
> 
> Soon there followed the solutions showing the polymerlike structure of space. The interlocking polymers ''quantize'' space in a particularly odd way, since each strand is somehow loaded with a definite amount of cross-sectional area. So to figure out the area inside a circle in this weird space, one would count up the strands that puncture its surface and multiply by the quantum of area carried by each of them. In this way, area is not smooth but comes in bundles.
> 
> The same rule holds for the area of a black hole's event horizon, the place beyond which anything is drawn into the black hole. Last year Dr. Ashtekar, Dr. John Baez of the University of California at Riverside, Dr. Kirill Krasnov of Penn State and Dr. Alejandro Corichi of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico showed that the polymers running into a black hole in a sense hold it ''still'' at the puncture points, like a water balloon supported on blunt pins. The rest of the horizon is free to jiggle about quantum mechanically.
> 
> Like the bouncing and jiggling of atoms in an ordinary gas, such motion has a definite entropy (or randomness) and therefore a temperature. Drawing on earlier formulas obtained with Dr. Jerzy Lewandowski of the University of Warsaw, Dr. Ashtekar and his colleagues were able to calculate the entropy for a black hole, matching a legendary 1974 prediction by Dr. Hawking. The theory has other bizarre consequences, such as a bending of space that could be caused by immensely energetic photons of light. But the theory still faces challenges, particularly in the treatment of the ''time'' part of space-time. Until better observational tests turn up, the furious bake-off whose prize is unifying physics will remain a theoretical one. The entrants are not limited to strings and quantum geometry, which are beginning to look almost conservative. Dr. Penrose of Oxford believes that quantum mechanics itself will have to be modified before a fully successful merger with relativity can be made. Dr. Rafael Sorkin of Syracuse University is starting from scratch, postulating bits of existence he calls ''the atoms of space-time'' and working upward toward the macroscopic laws of physics.
> 
> In his side yard, Dr. Ashtekar, after a brief disappearance, brings a late afternoon snack for his visitors. It is a reminder that no matter what package of formulas emerges, he is likely to be kneading and rolling them in his mathematical kitchen, so to speak, with results that could not be predicted by looking at the picture on the box.
> 
> https://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/04/...ar-taste-testing-a-recipe-for-the-cosmos.html


Please quit posting things that have nothing to do with the Indus. I know that changing topics is a part of an Indian's stage three of denial but it is really getting annoying now.


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Please quit posting things that have nothing to do with the Indus. I know that changing topics is a part of an Indian's stage three of denial but it is really getting annoying now.


I have clearly stated how that article is related to Indus civilization. If you choose to ignore the explanation, it's not my fault.


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> Noted...........He is the so-called Indian expert who allegedly exposed the Babur 3 submarine launched missile test as a fake.


I do not even know who exposed babur-3 tests. Anyways I guess folks have right to hold their opinion and even express it--provided they are capable of furnishing verifiable scientific proof in support of their arguments. This guy(in whose pic you tagged me) might sure be a joke.But instead of making fun,I believe,We should produce counter arguments that are again backed by scientific reasoning and proof.
As for babur test though,lesser said the better. Personally speaking,I infact find Ababeel test far more credible than babur-3 launch.


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> I do not even know who exposed babur-3 tests. Anyways I guess folks have right to hold their opinion and even express it--provided they are capable of furnishing verifiable scientific proof in support of their arguments. This guy(in whose pic you tagged me) might sure be a joke.But instead of making fun,I believe,We should produce counter arguments that are again backed by scientific reasoning and proof.
> *As for babur test though,lesser said the better. Personally speaking,I infact find Ababeel test far more credible than babur-3 launch.*


My dear chap both were as credible as your Mars mission.Kudos


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> My dear chap both were as credible as your Mars mission.Kudos


Hi @django 
yeah sure--as I said,everyone has right to hold their opinion.But that cant be passed on as facts,right? You sure seem to neither understand the trivial difference between the two projects nor do I have time to explain elaborately as to how they differ.But i will conclude it by saying that,for mars mission,you can find every bit of technical detail,mission planning,companies involved(pvt vendors,govt companies etc),R&D that went into rocket development etc--something un-imaginable in your country. In general even the military missile program of india is FAR MORE transparent than that of pakistan because the research culture of two countries differ a lot. I am sure,you wouldnt even want delve deeper--because that might embarrass you?
At the end of the day,one cant stitch together conflicting pieces of videos to paint something that is highly questionable. The language used by ISPR was also highly ambiguous in terms of the launch platform selected for firing the babur-3. 
Alas,I am afraid,we are veering off course!


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi @django
> yeah sure--as I said,everyone has right to hold their opinion.But that cant be passed on as facts,right? You sure seem to neither understand the trivial difference between the two projects nor do I have time to explain elaborately as to how they differ.But i will conclude it by saying that,for mars mission,you can find every bit of technical detail,mission planning,companies involved(pvt vendors,govt companies etc),R&D that went into rocket development etc--something un-imaginable in your country. In general even the military missile program of india is FAR MORE transparent than that of pakistan because the research culture of two countries differ a lot. I am sure,you wouldnt even want delve deeper--because that might embarrass you?
> At the end of the day,one cant stitch together conflicting pieces of videos to paint something that is highly questionable. The language used by ISPR was also highly ambiguous in terms of the launch platform selected for firing the babur-3.
> Alas,I am afraid,we are veering off course!


Well in the case of Mars mission the data is available as it is a civilian project whereas our missile tests were military projects were we do not wish to divulge data which could be useful for folks at the DRDO, though somehow i doubt they could indigenously take advantage of it (they would end up procuring some Russian or Israeli hardware).Kudos young man.


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> Well in the case of Mars mission the data is available as it is a civilian project whereas our missile tests were military projects were we do not wish to divulge data which could be useful for folks at the DRDO, though somehow i doubt they could indigenously take advantage of it (they would end up procuring some Russian or Israeli hardware).Kudos young man.


Hi @django
I think we are way off topic.In case you wish to discuss military/space related research and development in India or Pakistan,I would strongly urge you to open a thread or move to a relevant thread. Believe me,I can answer all of your queries with of course proper scientific proof/research papers/patents etc.I am sure you're educated enough to understand what IPRs mean?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi @django
> I think we are way off topic.In case you wish to discuss military/space related research and development in India or Pakistan,I would strongly urge you to open a thread or move to a relevant thread. Believe me,I can answer all of your queries with of course proper scientific proof/research papers/patents etc.I am sure you're educated enough to understand what IPRs mean?


I have observed your blogs on separate and more appropriate threads and in regards to Pakistan, well let me just say, the gems at NUST, PIEAS... are doing amazing research in collaboration with our strategic missile and nuclear weapons organisations which has culminated in us achieving the "Triad and MIRV" capabilty, these organistaions are not just churning out pointless papers but engaging in real practical work unlike certain instituions that I will not mention. For heaven sake their are reasons as to why some of our organisations where sanctioned immediately after the BABUR 3 test, unlike you folks the US had the sensitive capabilities to observe the test in real time, whilst you folks where notified of an impending test yet as usual your ISRO and DRDO were caught with their pants down,,nothing new their.Kudos young fellow.

NB: Amardeep instead of criticising Pakistani scientists and engineers you should be applauding them as they have ensured a balance of power due to "MAD", this means no more full scale war, as your Gangadesh would be completely destroyed and our Indus region would be equally devastated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jackdaws

Kaptaan said:


> Who told you that? Your fantasy is it? Arabs landed in Sindh and never even managed to make it north of Multan. But what we do know for a fact is that Rig Veda was composed in what is now Pakistan. Panini codified Sanskrit. Only then was this passed to you aboriginals in the Ganga. Like I said before you don't need to thank us but at least show some respect for being the soil that even gave you a religion and a language. Fact *Indus* gave you everything. I bet it must eat you guy's to think the land of your enemy (Pakistan) is the source of everything. We gave you civilization, Sanskrit and laid the basis of your religion.



We are happy you consider yourself part of the Greater Indic civlization and wish other Pakistanis concurred with you. Of course, one


Kaptaan said:


> Who told you that? Your fantasy is it? Arabs landed in Sindh and never even managed to make it north of Multan. But what we do know for a fact is that Rig Veda was composed in what is now Pakistan. Panini codified Sanskrit. Only then was this passed to you aboriginals in the Ganga. Like I said before you don't need to thank us but at least show some respect for being the soil that even gave you a religion and a language. Fact *Indus* gave you everything. I bet it must eat you guy's to think the land of your enemy (Pakistan) is the source of everything. We gave you civilization, Sanskrit and laid the basis of your religion.



LOL - a Pakistani claiming credit for the IVC is as absurd as an Englishman claiming credit for the Roman Empire because some Roman remains happen to be in England. But nice to see you consider yourself as part of the civilization which includes the Rigveda and Sanskrit. "You aboriginals" - is that what they teach in the local madrassa?


----------



## django

Jackdaws said:


> We are happy you consider yourself part of the Greater Indic civlization and wish other Pakistanis concurred with you. Of course, one
> 
> 
> LOL - a Pakistani claiming credit for the IVC is as absurd as an Englishman claiming credit for the Roman Empire because some Roman remains happen to be in England. But nice to see you consider yourself as part of the civilization which includes the Rigveda and Sanskrit. "You aboriginals" - is that what they teach in the local madrassa?


The probably the most incoherent blog I have had the misfortune of reading.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jackdaws

django said:


> The probably the most incoherent blog I have had the misfortune of reading.


I can see why it would be incoherent.


----------



## django

Jackdaws said:


> I can see why it would be incoherent.


Oh you can ,can you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> I have observed your blogs on separate and more appropriate threads and in regards to Pakistan, well let me just say, the gems at NUST, PIEAS... are doing amazing research in collaboration with our strategic missile and nuclear weapons organisations which has culminated in us achieving the "Triad and MIRV" capabilty, these organistaions are not just churning out pointless papers but engaging in real practical work unlike certain instituions that I will not mention. For heaven sake their are reasons as to why some of our organisations where sanctioned immediately after the BABUR 3 test, unlike you folks the US had the sensitive capabilities to observe the test in real time, whilst you folks where notified of an impending test yet as usual your ISRO and DRDO were caught with their pants down,,nothing new their.Kudos young fellow.
> 
> NB: Amardeep instead of criticising Pakistani scientists and engineers you should be applauding them as they have ensured a balance of power due to "MAD", this means no more full scale war, as your Gangadesh would be completely destroyed and our Indus region would be equally devastated.


Hi @django 
Do you even understand what "off topic" mean? Or do you want me to write elaborately here itself? As I said ,either open a new thread about research and development in India and Pakistan or come to relevant thread. Do some justice to the topic of this thread.
I'd be more than happy to provide you with plethora of papers, industrial patents in both the countries. But I'm sure you won't discuss that because that would put you to shame,maybe?


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> Hi @django
> Do you even understand what "off topic" mean? Or do you want me to write elaborately here itself? As I said ,either open a new thread about research and development in India and Pakistan or come to relevant thread. Do some justice to the topic of this thread.
> I'd be more than happy to provide you with plethora of papers, industrial patents in both the countries. But I'm sure you won't discuss that because that would put you to shame,maybe?


When I have the time I will open up a new thread which will comprehensively expose your missile and space programs, make no mistake about it young fellow.Kudos

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## satvikAcer

Kaptaan said:


> Rig Veda originated from what is now north Pakistan - Khyber Pakhtunhkwa province and Punjab. *Panini* who codified Sanskrit lived in what is now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan near Indus River. So in fact modern Hinduism originates from our lands. Instead of pointing fingers I think Indian's need to show some respect to us. We gave them their religion like Europeans gave Christianity to Africans.



But after the Invasion they left,you have no Connection with them. You can claim credit but you don't chant the rigveda or speak Sanskrit,so what is that is yours


----------



## Mentee

Jackdaws said:


> We are happy you consider yourself part of the Greater Indic civlization and wish other Pakistanis concurred with you. Of course, one
> 
> 
> LOL - a Pakistani claiming credit for the IVC is as absurd as an Englishman claiming credit for the Roman Empire because some Roman remains happen to be in England. But nice to see you consider yourself as part of the civilization which includes the Rigveda and Sanskrit. "You aboriginals" - is that what they teach in the local madrassa?






Kaptaan said:


> @Sliver You are aware there are Hindu temples, Hindu cultures found east of India. In Bangladesh, Burma [Myanmar], Thailand, Laos, Indonesian Archipelago including the famous Bali Island. In Fact South East Asia has huge impress of Hindu temples and cultures with even languages having heavy Hindu influence.
> 
> Now why, I wonder don't you Indian's spend any energy in spreading your muck in those regions? Simple there is not much in way of ancient history you can brag in front of the West. Therefore your forced to "bootlick" the Indus instead, because that is where all the historical action is. My quote again.
> 
> The need for Ganga India to look West and Indus Pakistan is explained.
> 
> 
> Did you forget this Greater India?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Largest Hindu temple in the world all the way in Cambodia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only wish you Ganga Lords looked East to Greater India in Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bali all the way to Borneo.
> 
> And Sri Lanka, Nepal.
> 
> And finally - a bas*tard can do what he wants, wish what he wants but he can't change his progenitor. Indian's are always going to be *Children of Ganga*. Pakistani's always *Children of Indus*. Both flow in opposite directions. Both empty in differant sea.















satvikAcer said:


> But after the Invasion they left,you have no Connection with them. You can claim credit but you don't chant the rigveda or speak Sanskrit,so what is that is yours


Egyptians speak Arabic now . So by that logic they shouldn't be claiming the Nile and the pyramids

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## satvikAcer

I don't think Egyptians hate the pharoahs or the old people,but Pakistanis call their own forefathers if at all they were as pagan and lost.when that's the case then how can you say they have any connect with the culture of those pagans


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> When I have the time I will open up a new thread which will comprehensively expose your missile and space programs, make no mistake about it young fellow.Kudos


@django 
Hi my friend! How about we do it now--itz not good to procrastinate ?What say? And kindly note,while "exposing" do not resort to "media reports" or reports that are more than 30-40 years old(wisconsin et al). 
You might use CAG reports,research papers,industrial patents to back your claims.


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> @django
> Hi my friend! How about we do it now--itz not good to procrastinate ?What say? And kindly note,while "exposing" do not resort to *"media reports*" or reports that are more than 30-40 years old(wisconsin et al).
> You might use CAG reports,research papers,industrial patents to back your claims.


So I presume no videos of that piece of useless junk the Nirbhay and are permitted.


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> So I presume no videos of that piece of useless junk the Nirbhay and are permitted.


@django 
Before even beginning to write,may I know your last qualification please?Because sadly you seem more of a troll than someone seriously interested in discussions.And lastly refrain from using smilies.


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> @django
> Before even beginning to write,may I know your last qualification please?Because sadly you seem more of a troll than someone seriously interested in discussions*.And lastly refrain from using smilies*.


One does not need to be an aerospace engineer to know that what you folks produce is nothing but junk, from the INSAS to the Nirbhay!, and young fellow do not tell your seniors what to do or not to do.Kudos


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

satvikAcer said:


> But after the Invasion they left,you have no Connection with them. You can claim credit but you don't chant the rigveda or speak Sanskrit,so what is that is yours


There was no 'invasion' and we still retain our genetics to this day. 



satvikAcer said:


> I don't think Egyptians hate the pharoahs or the old people,but Pakistanis call their own forefathers if at all they were as pagan and lost.when that's the case then how can you say they have any connect with the culture of those pagans


How do Egyptians have any connection with the culture of 'Egyptian Pagans'?


----------



## amardeep mishra

django said:


> One does not need to be an aerospace engineer to know that what you folks produce is nothing but junk, from the INSAS to the Nirbhay!, and young fellow do not tell your seniors what to do or not to do.Kudos



You still haven't answered my question. Is it because you do not understand English or you you're too embarrassed?
Sadly the thread you opened or your troll bait got closed before I opened it just now.


----------



## django

amardeep mishra said:


> You still haven't answered my question. Is it because you do not understand English or you you're too embarrassed?
> Sadly the thread you opened or your troll bait got closed before I opened it just now.


I understand English perfectly and I certainly do not need your endorsement too authenticate my education but since you are obsessed with my background, Bsc Hons Physics,,,,,,I really must have hurt you by stating a few well known truths about your nations capabilities, open up a new thread if you wish to resume the debate.Have a good day.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Your questions are very illogical and naive, but i'll answer them anyway.



Kashmiri Pandit said:


> 01 IF IVC Collapsed , Then where did its inhabitants migrated too .


Do you have any idea how many times the Egyptian, Euphratic and other civilizations based on Rivers 'collapsed'?

A 'collapse' does not mean that the inhabitants pack up their bags and go somewhere else. IVC never really (in technical terms) collapsed. 

IVC cities faced decline as trade dwindled (due to destabilization in Mesopotamia) and possible Monsoon failure. 

These factors made it near-impossible to maintain the cities and a breakdown in urban communities commenced. People simply went back to rural/village life. As prosperity returned, cities on the Indus like Gandhara, Taxila, Sialkot, Multan, Patalla and ect... began to form and would then transform into Kingdoms. These Kingdoms remained independant up till the Achaemenid, Greek and Mauryan invasions.

Not to mention, there was no reason to migrate. River valleys attracted people like a magnet, they were abundant in everything and led to prosperous communities. The Indus is located in such a way that it would deter any migration, to the East and West it is surrounded by the desert - to the North, you have the mountains and to the South, you have the ocean. 

There is a reason why people living in the Indus Basin still carry the distinct genealogy of their ancestors.

The only confirmed and relevant migration that took place was towards Central Asia and West Europe from Northern Indus, it's the reason why Punjabs, Pashtuns, Kashmiris and Dardic People share common physical traits with Europeans.











Kashmiri Pandit said:


> 02 If Aryans did Migrated , did they displaced the original inhabitants or not .


Indo-Aryan Migration theory has been and is being rejected by many scholars and is being dropped out of school syllabuses as we speak. 

Even if it did occur, a migration simply does not 'displace' people and there is no evidence that the 'natives' were displaced. Human population was small and the land was huge, there was no need for major resource/land competition. They would've most likely formed their own communities and with the passage of time, absorbed each other.



Kashmiri Pandit said:


> 03 In the Conquests from 600 BCE to 1600 CE , DID the invading forces killed all native population or not .


What stupidity is this? Did the Mughal, British, Arab invasions of India 'kill all the native population' and replace them with Turkic, Arab and White People? There is no archaeological, genetic and historically recorded evidence of a large-scale 'genocide' - there were massacres and city sacks in times of war, but these were all common throughout the world. 



abcxyz0000 said:


> For instance I think he says that River Indus covers the whole of Pakistan. I am scratching my head. I don't see that River flowing for any considerable length in Baluchistan. Baluchistan does have a share of River Indus. But it is so negligibly small that even Himachal Pradesh has stronger claims on Indus.


The Indus Basin covers majority of Balochistan. The earliest agricultural community on the Indus plains was in Mehrgarh in Balochistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Your questions are very illogical and naive, but i'll answer them anyway.
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how many times the Egyptian, Euphratic and other civilizations based on Rivers 'collapsed'?
> 
> A 'collapse' does not mean that the inhabitants pack up their bags and go somewhere else. IVC never really (in technical terms) collapsed.
> 
> IVC cities faced decline as trade dwindled (due to destabilization in Mesopotamia) and possible Monsoon failure.
> 
> These factors made it near-impossible to maintain the cities and a breakdown in urban communities commenced. People simply went back to rural/village life. As prosperity returned, cities on the Indus like Gandhara, Taxila, Sialkot, Multan, Patalla and ect... began to form and would then transform into Kingdoms. These Kingdoms remained independant up till the Achaemenid, Greek and Mauryan invasions.
> 
> Not to mention, there was no reason to migrate. River valleys attracted people like a magnet, they were abundant in everything and led to prosperous communities. The Indus is located in such a way that it would deter any migration, to the East and West it is surrounded by the desert - to the North, you have the mountains and to the South, you have the ocean.
> 
> There is a reason why people living in the Indus Basin still carry the distinct genealogy of their ancestors.
> 
> The only confirmed and relevant migration that took place was towards Central Asia and West Europe from Northern Indus, it's the reason why Punjabs, Pashtuns, Kashmiris and Dardic People share common physical traits with Europeans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indo-Aryan Migration theory has been and is being rejected by many scholars and is being dropped out of school syllabuses as we speak.
> 
> Even if it did occur, a migration simply does not 'displace' people and there is no evidence that the 'natives' were displaced. Human population was small and the land was huge, there was no need for major resource/land competition. They would've most likely formed their own communities and with the passage of time, absorbed each other.
> 
> 
> What stupidity is this? Did the Mughal, British, Arab invasions of India 'kill all the native population' and replace them with Turkic, Arab and White People? There is no archaeological, genetic and historically recorded evidence of a large-scale 'genocide' - there were massacres and city sacks in times of war, but these were all common throughout the world.
> 
> 
> The Indus Basin covers majority of Balochistan. The earliest agricultural community on the Indus plains was in Mehrgarh in Balochistan.




YA LOL

Aryans migrated from so far but Indus Valley people didn't move an inch .
Migrations are a big part of human history .
Early Humans migrated from Africa to all parts of the world but Indus Valley people didn't moved a muscle .
Those early humans who moved from Africa don't look like Modern human living at every corner of the Earth .
Modern Africans don't look like Europeans nor Indians . 

Indus Valley was often invaded by outsiders , be it Persians , Greeks or Arabs .
Migration is caused by Natural and Man made factors .
But Indus Valley people didn't migrated despite constant flooding of Indus , drying or Rivers , Desertification , Climate Change and Continuous wars .

Look at the amount of Syrians and other people from Middle east Migrating into Europe and America .
Countries with less birth rate will one day be overtaken by those ME with high birth rates .
Kashmiris migrated to Punjab before independence .
Muslims from India and Non Muslims from Pakistan Migrated at the time of partition .
Pakistanis and Indians overtaking the natives of UAE 

INDUS People are indeed a Mystery


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> YA LOL
> 
> Aryans migrated from so far but Indus Valley people didn't move an inch .
> Migrations are a big part of human history .
> Early Humans migrated from Africa to all parts of the world but Indus Valley people didn't moved a muscle .
> Those early humans who moved from Africa don't look like Modern human living at every corner of the Earth .
> Modern Africans don't look like Europeans nor Indians .
> 
> Indus Valley was often invaded by outsiders , be it Persians , Greeks or Arabs .
> Migration is caused by Natural and Man made factors .
> But Indus Valley people didn't migrated despite constant flooding of Indus , drying or Rivers , Desertification , Climate Change and Continuous wars .
> 
> Look at the amount of Syrians and other people from Middle east Migrating into Europe and America .
> Countries with less birth rate will one day be overtaken by those ME with high birth rates .
> Kashmiris migrated to Punjab before independence .
> Muslims from India and Non Muslims from Pakistan Migrated at the time of partition .
> Pakistanis and Indians overtaking the natives of UAE
> 
> INDUS People are indeed a Mystery



Dude,

Western scientists have 'Time-Machines'. Time-Machine is a vehicle used to travel back and forth in time. So using the Time-Machine, the Western investigators went back in time, collected many samples of Indus DNA and brought it to present day. The West conducted studies comparing DNA of those times with that of today's communities like Indians, Pakistanis and Europeans. Thus the West has indisputably proved and established that Pakistanis and SOME Indians like PUNJABIS alone are the descendants of Indus people.


----------



## Mamluk

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> How do Egyptians have any connection with the culture of 'Egyptian Pagans'?



Or Greeks with ancient non-Christian Greeks?

Besides Indians have 0 connection with IVC. Barely geographical. If anything, the culture (Vedic) they claim to have inherited -- its people violently put an end to the IVC civilization + any other non-Vedic civilization in the vicinity.

Even then I wouldn't ask Indians to apologize, because most Indians genetically belong to non-Vedic stock, despite cultural appropriation!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> the natives of UAE




Highly unlikely Hindus get one temple and are treated quite poorly. Emirates are tolerant but they won't let Hindus take over at all. 

Remove this delusional dream from your head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

EgyptianAmerican said:


> Highly unlikely Hindus get one temple and are treated quite poorly. Emirates are tolerant but they won't let Hindus take over at all.
> 
> Remove this delusional dream from your head.



And you should get a checkup of that idiot box of yours , Where did I mention Hindus ? 
I said *PAKISTANIS* and *INDIANS *.....................



Bharat Muslim said:


> Dude,
> 
> Western scientists have 'Time-Machines'. Time-Machine is a vehicle used to travel back and forth in time. So using the Time-Machine, the Western investigators went back in time, collected many samples of Indus DNA and brought it to present day. The West conducted studies comparing DNA of those times with that of today's communities like Indians, Pakistanis and Europeans. Thus the West has indisputably proved and established that Pakistanis and SOME Indians like PUNJABIS alone are the descendants of Indus people.










[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> Or Greeks with ancient non-Christian Greeks?
> 
> Besides Indians have 0 connection with IVC. Barely geographical. If anything, the culture (Vedic) they claim to have inherited -- its people violently put an end to the IVC civilization + any other non-Vedic civilization in the vicinity.
> 
> Even then I wouldn't ask Indians to apologize, because most Indians genetically belong to non-Vedic stock, despite cultural appropriation!



Indus Valley Falls in the Geographical Boundaries of Sub continent


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> INDIANS



What did I get wrong, the majority of Indians are Hindus are they not?


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

EgyptianAmerican said:


> What did I get wrong, the majority of Indians are Hindus are they not?



*50 %* of those INDIANS in UAE are *MUSLIMS* , *25 % CHRISTIANS* and *25 % HINDUS *.


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> *50 %* of those INDIANS in UAE are *MUSLIMS* , *25 % CHRISTIANS* and *25 % HINDUS *.




Yeah it applies to all of them, maybe not the Muslims.


----------



## Mamluk

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> 50 % of those INDIANS in UAE are MUSLIMS , 25 % CHRISTIANS and 25 % HINDUS .



Where did you get that? The vast majority of Indians in UAE are Hindus.


----------



## satvikAcer

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> Or Greeks with ancient non-Christian Greeks?
> 
> Besides Indians have 0 connection with IVC. Barely geographical. If anything, the culture (Vedic) they claim to have inherited -- its people violently put an end to the IVC civilization + any other non-Vedic civilization in the vicinity.
> 
> Even then I wouldn't ask Indians to apologize, because most Indians genetically belong to non-Vedic stock, despite cultural appropriation!



Bharati hindus are the only people to have any connection to all the ancient civilizations of the sentiment. Period.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bharat Muslim

Kashmiri Pandit said:


> YA LOL
> 
> Aryans migrated from so far but Indus Valley people didn't move an inch .
> Migrations are a big part of human history .
> Early Humans migrated from Africa to all parts of the world but Indus Valley people didn't moved a muscle .
> Those early humans who moved from Africa don't look like Modern human living at every corner of the Earth .
> Modern Africans don't look like Europeans nor Indians .
> 
> Indus Valley was often invaded by outsiders , be it Persians , Greeks or Arabs .
> Migration is caused by Natural and Man made factors .
> But Indus Valley people didn't migrated despite constant flooding of Indus , drying or Rivers , Desertification , Climate Change and Continuous wars .
> 
> Look at the amount of Syrians and other people from Middle east Migrating into Europe and America .
> Countries with less birth rate will one day be overtaken by those ME with high birth rates .
> Kashmiris migrated to Punjab before independence .
> Muslims from India and Non Muslims from Pakistan Migrated at the time of partition .
> Pakistanis and Indians overtaking the natives of UAE
> 
> INDUS People are indeed a Mystery


They may argue that these migrations are happening bcoz of modern transportation technology and say that since these technologies were absent then, the migrations didn't happen then. If you try to reason that during Mughal period, if Brahuis were involved in long distance migration from South India to Baluchistan, it is plausible that mass movement of people happened even before, they will come up with fake studies by Western researchers on the genetics of populace of South Asia. And they will say that since the studies was conducted by Westerners, it is neutral, unbiased, reliable and correct. It doesn't matter that it's doubtful whether Westerners even conduct any such studies in the first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> Where did you get that? The vast majority of Indians in UAE are Hindus.



Internet BABA 

*Indians* in the United Arab *Emirates* (*UAE*) constitute the largest part of population of the country. Over 2.2 million *Indian* migrants (mostly from the Kerala and other south *Indian* states) are estimated to be living in the *UAE*, who form over 30% of the total population of the *UAE*.

Stats belong to year ????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

@Kaptaan @save_ghenda @Tergon18 @Talwar e Pakistan @Mentee 
Now these Gangadeshis are claiming that they were responsible for the rest of mankind, and they claim to have evidence lol, from RSS sources I suspect lol. Opinion gentleman

*Genetics and the Aryan Debate*
By Michel Danino



Background

Along with the birth of anthropology, the nineteenth century saw the development of semi-scientific to wholly unscientific disciplines, such as anthropometry, craniometry or phrenology. Unquestioningly accepting the prevalent concept of race, some scientists constructed facial and nasal indexes or claimed to measure the skull’s volume for every race, of course with the result that the white race’s cranium was the most capacious and its owner, therefore, the most intelligent; others went further, insisting that amidst the white race, only the Germans were the “pure” descendants of the “Aryan race” which was destined the rule the earth.

In India, from 1891 onward, Herbert H. Risley, an official with the colonial government, set about defining in all seriousness 2,378 castes belonging to 43 “races,” all of it on the basis of a “nasal index.” The main racial groups were Indo-Aryan, Turko- Iranian, Scytho-Dravidian, Aryo-Dravidian, Mongoloid and Mongolo-Dravidian.

Unfortunately, this imaginative but wholly unscientific work weighed heavily on the first developments of Indian anthropology; in the 1930s, for instance, B. S. Guha studied skeletons from Mohenjo-daro and submitted a detailed report on the proto- Australoid, Mediterranean, Mongoloid and Alpine races peopling the city, all of them “non-Aryan” of course. Long lists of such fictitious races filled academic publications, and continue to be found in Indian textbooks today.

In the wake of World War II, the concept of race collapsed in the West. Rather late in the day, anthropologists realized that race cannot be scientifically defined, much less measured, thus setting at naught a whole century of scholarly divagations on “superior” and “inferior” races. Following in the footsteps of pioneers like Franz Boas,1 leading scientists, such as Ashley Montagu,2 now argued strongly against the “fallacy of race.” It is only with the emergence of more reliable techniques in biological anthropology that anthropometry got a fresh chance; it concentrated not on trying to categorize noses or spot “races,” but on tracing the evolution of a population, on signs of continuity or disruption, and on possible kinships between neighbouring populations.

In the Indian context, we are now familiar with the work of U.S anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.3 Their chief conclusion, as far as the Aryan debate is concerned, is that there is no trace of “demographic disruption” in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.

Die-hard proponents of such an invasion / migration have therefore been compelled to downscale it to a “trickle-in” infiltration,4 limited enough to have left no physical trace, although they are at pains to explain how a “trickle” was able to radically alter India’s linguistic and cultural landscape when much more massive invasions of the historical period failed to do so.5 Other proponents still insist that “the Indo-Aryan immigrants seem to have been numerous and strong enough to continue and disseminate much of their culture,”6 but do not explain how the “immigrants” failed to leave any trace in the anthropological record.

*A powerful new tool*

In the 1980s, another powerful tool of inquiry came on the scene: genetics, with its growing ability to read the history contained in a human body’s three billion bits of information. In particular, techniques used in the identification of genetic markers have been fast improving, leading to a wide array of applications, from therapeutics to crime detection to genealogy. Let us first summarize the basic definitions relevant to our field.

In trying to reconstruct ancestry, biologists use two types of DNA, the complex molecule that carries genetic information. The first, Y-DNA, is contained in the Y- chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes; it is found in the cell’s nucleus and is transmitted from father to son. The second, mtDNA or mitochondrial DNA, is found in mitochondria, kinds of power generators found in a cell, but outside its nucleus; this mtDNA is independent of the Y-DNA, simpler in structure, and transmitted by the mother alone. For various reasons, all this genetic material undergoes slight alterations or “mutations” in the course of time; those mutations then become characteristic of the line of descendants: if, for instance, the mtDNAs of two humans, however distant geographically, exhibit the same mutation, they necessarily share a common ancestor in the maternal line.

Much of the difficulty lies in organizing those mutations, or genetic markers, in consistent categories called “haplotypes” (from a Greek word meaning “single”), which constitute an individual’s genetic fingerprint. Similar haplotypes are then brought together in “haplogroups,” each of which genetically identifies a particular ethnic group. Such genetic markers can then be used to establish a “genetic distance” between two populations.

Identifying and making sense of the right genetic markers is not the only difficulty; dating their mutations remains a major challenge: on average, a marker of Y- DNA may undergo one mutation every 500 generations, but sudden changes caused by special circumstances can never be ruled out. Genetics, therefore, needs the inputs from palaeontology and archaeology, among other disciplines, to confirm its historical conclusions.

*India’s case*

Since the 1990s, there have been numerous genetic studies of Indian populations, often reaching apparently divergent conclusions. There are three reasons for this: (1) the Indian region happens to be one of the most diverse and complex in the world, which makes it difficult to interpret the data; (2) early studies relied on too limited samples, of the order of a few dozens, when hundreds or ideally thousands of samples are required for some statistical reliability; (3) some of the early studies fell into the old trap of trying to equate linguistic groups with distinct ethnic entities — a relic of the nineteenth-century erroneous identification between language and race; as a result, a genetic connection between North Indians and Central Asians was automatically taken to confirm an Aryan invasion in the second millennium BCE, disregarding a number of alternative explanations.7

More recent studies, using larger samples and much refined methods of analysis, both at the conceptual level and in the laboratory, have reached very different conclusions (interestingly, some of their authors had earlier gone along with the old Aryan paradigm8). We will summarize here the chief results of nine studies from various Western and Indian Universities, most of them conducted by international teams of biologists, and more than half of them in the last three years; since their papers are complex and technical, what follows is, necessarily, highly simplified and represents only a small part of their content.

The first such study dates back to 1999 and was conducted by the Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, a pioneer in the field, with fourteen co-authors from various nationalities (including M. J. Bamshad).9 It relied on 550 samples of mtDNA and identified a haplogroup called “U” as indicating a deep connection between Indian and Western-Eurasian populations. However, the authors opted for a very remote separation of the two branches, rather than a recent population movement towards India; in fact, “the subcontinent served as a pathway for eastward migration of modern humans” from Africa, some 40,000 years ago:

“We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”

In other words, the timescale posited by the Aryan invasion / migration framework is inadequate, and the genetic affinity between the Indian subcontinent and Europe “should not be interpreted in terms of a recent admixture of western Caucasoids10 with Indians caused by a putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,000–4,000 years BP.”

The second study was published just a month later. Authored by U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell,11 it dealt with the first migration of modern man from Africa towards Asia, and found that migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” Disotell made observations very similar to those of the preceding paper:


“The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000–4,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.”


Here again, the Eurasian connection is therefore traced to the original migration out of Africa. On the genetic level, “the supposed Aryan invasion of India 3000-4000 years ago was much less significant than is generally believed.”

A year later, thirteen Indian scientists led by Susanta Roychoudhury studied 644 samples of mtDNA from some ten Indian ethnic groups, especially from the East and South.12 They found “a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity,” pointing to “a relatively small founding group of females in India.” Significantly, “most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.” That is a crucial observation, which later studies will endorse: on the maternal side at least, there is no such thing as a “Hindu” or “Muslim” genetic identity, nor even a high- or low-caste one, a North- or South-Indian one — hence the expressive title of the study: “Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India is revealed by analysis of mitochondrial DNA.”

The authors also noted that haplogroup “U,” already noted by Kivisild et al. as being common to North Indian and “Caucasoid” populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup “M,” another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of the invasion: in reality, “we have now shown that indeed haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. We have also shown that the tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations.”

Also in 2000, twenty authors headed by Kivisild contributed a chapter to a book on the “archaeogenetics” of Europe.13 They first stressed the importance of the mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians.”

This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” The authors then studied the “U” haplogroup, finding its frequency to be 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia; but, in their opinion, “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.

Another important point is that looking at mtDNA as a whole, “even the high castes share more than 80 per cent of their maternal lineages with the lower castes and tribals”; this obviously runs counter to the invasionist thesis. Taking all aspects into consideration, the authors conclude: “We believe that there are now enough reasons not only to question a ‘recent Indo-Aryan invasion’ into India some 4000 BP, but alternatively to consider India as a part of the common gene pool ancestral to the diversity of human maternal lineages in Europe.” Mark the word “ancestral.”

After a gap of three years, Kivisild directed two fresh studies. The first, with nine
colleagues, dealt with the origin of languages and agriculture in India.14 Those biologists stressed India’s genetic complexity and antiquity, since “present-day Indians [possess] at least 90 per cent of what we think of as autochthonous Upper Palaeolithic maternal lineages.” They also observed that “the Indian mtDNA tree in general [is] not subdivided according to linguistic (Indo-European, Dravidian) or caste affiliations,” which again demonstrates the old error of conflating language and race or ethnic group.

Then, in a new development, they punched holes in the methodology followed by studies basing themselves on the Y-DNA (the paternal line) to establish the Aryan invasion, and point out that if one were to extend their logic to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: “the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe.” The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against “misleading interpretations” based on limited samples and faulty methodology.

The second study of 2003, a particularly detailed one dealing with the genetic heritage of India’s earliest settlers, had seventeen co-authors with Kivisild (including L. Cavalli-Sforza and P. A. Underhill), and relied on nearly a thousand samples from the subcontinent, including two Dravidian-speaking tribes from Andhra Pradesh.15 Among other important findings, it stressed that the Y-DNA haplogroup “M17,” regarded till recently as a marker of the Aryan invasion, and indeed frequent in Central Asia, is equally found in the two tribes under consideration, which is inconsistent with the invasionist framework. Moreover, one of the two tribes, the Chenchus, is genetically close to several castes, so that there is a “lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes,” a fact that can hardly be overemphasized.







This also emerges from a diagram of genetic distances between eight Indian and seven Eurasian populations, distances calculate on the basis of 16 Y-DNA haplogroups (Fig. 1). The diagram challenges many common assumptions: as just mentioned, five castes are grouped with the Chenchus; another tribe, the Lambadis (probably of Rajasthani origin), is stuck between Western Europe and the Middle East; Bengalis of various castes are close to Mumbai Brahmins, and Punjabis (whom one would have thought to be closest to the mythical “Aryans”) are as far away as possible from Central Asia! It is clear that no simple framework can account for such complexity, least of all the Aryan invasion / migration framework.

The next year, Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzed 796 Indian (including both tribal and caste populations from different parts of India) and 436 Iranian mtDNAs.16 Of relevance here is the following observation, which once again highlights the pitfalls of any facile ethnic-linguistic equation:

“Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more ‘autochthonous’ than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent.”

We finally jump to 2006 and end with two studies. The first was headed by Indian biologist Sanghamitra Sengupta and involved fourteen other co-authors, including L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill.17 Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a “Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists,” i.e. of the mythical Indo- Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an “Indo- European expansion,” an identification they called “convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic.” To them, the subcontinent’s genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: “The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages.” This is also highly suggestive (the R1a lineages being a different way to denote the haplogroup M17).

Finally, and significantly, this study indirectly rejected a “Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus....” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”

Another Indian biologist, Sanghamitra Sahoo, headed eleven colleagues, including T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap, for a study of the Y-DNA of 936 samples covering 77 Indian populations, 32 of them tribes.18 The authors left no room for doubt:

“The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian- specific lineages northward.”

So the southward gene flow that had been imprinted on our minds for two centuries was wrong, after all: the flow was out of, not into, India. The authors continue:

“The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.”


The last of the two rejected associations is that of the Indo-Aryan expansion; the first, that of the spread of agriculture, is the well-known thesis of Colin Renfrew,19 which traces Indo-European origins to the beginnings of agriculture in Anatolia, and sees Indo-Europeans entering India around 9000 BP, along with agriculture: Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. see no evidence of this in the genetic record.

The same data allow the authors to construct an eloquent table of genetic distances between several populations, based on Y-haplogroups (Fig. 2). We learn from it, for instance, that “the caste populations of ‘north’ and ‘south’ India are not particularly more closely related to each other (average Fst value = 0.07) than they are to the tribal groups (average Fst value = 0.06),” an important confirmation of earlier studies. In particular, “Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.” As a result, “it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools,” a momentous conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan paradigm, which imagined Indian tribes as adivasis and the caste Hindus as descendants of Indo-Aryans invaders or immigrants.

In reality, we have no way, today, to determine who in India is an “adi”-vasi, but enough data to reject this label as misleading and unnecessarily divisive.







*Conclusions*

It is, of course, still possible to find genetic studies trying to interpret differences between North and South Indians or higher and lower castes within the invasionist framework, but that is simply because they take it for granted in the first place. None of the nine major studies quoted above lends any support to it, and none proposes to define a demarcation line between tribe and caste. The overall picture emerging from these studies is, first, an unequivocal rejection of a 3500-BP arrival of a “Caucasoid” or Central Asian gene pool. Just as the imaginary Aryan invasion / migration left no trace in Indian literature, in the archaeological and the anthropological record, it is invisible at the genetic level. The agreement between these different fields is remarkable by any standard, and offers hope for a grand synthesis in the near future, which will also integrate agriculture and linguistics.

Secondly, they account for India’s considerable genetic diversity by using a time- scale not of a few millennia, but of 40,000 or 50,000 years. In fact, several experts, such as Lluís Quintana-Murci,20 Vincent Macaulay,21 Stephen Oppenheimer,22 Michael Petraglia,23 and their associates, have in the last few years proposed that when Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe:

“indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.” 24

Oppenheimer, a leading advocate of this scenario, summarizes it in these words:

“For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”25



We will not call it, of course, an “Indian invasion” of Europe; in simple terms, India acted “as an incubator of early genetic differentiation of modern humans moving out of Africa.”26

Genetics is a fast-evolving discipline, and the studies quoted above are certainly not the last word; but they have laid the basis for a wholly different perspective of Indian populations, and it is most unlikely that we will have to abandon it to return to the crude racial nineteenth-century fallacies of Aryan invaders and Dravidian autochthons. Neither have any reality in genetic terms, just as they have no reality in archaeological or cultural terms. In this sense, genetics is joining other disciplines in helping to clean the cobwebs of colonial historiography. If some have a vested interest in patching together the said cobwebs so they may keep cluttering our history textbooks, they are only delaying the inevitable.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

@django

Michel Danino is one of the Caucasian groupies of the RSS-inspired school of revisionist "historians". They form the Out Of India (OOI) school, opposed to a ghost from the past that no longer exists, the so-called Aryan Invasion Theory; now there is no Aryan as race, no "invasion", and no theory. However this aging group still stumbles along charging every windmill that appears, real or imagined.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## django

Joe Shearer said:


> @django
> 
> Michel Danino is one of the Caucasian groupies of the RSS-inspired school of revisionist "historians". They form the Out Of India (OOI) school, opposed to a ghost from the past that no longer exists, the so-called Aryan Invasion Theory; now there is no Aryan as race, no "invasion", and no theory. However this aging group still stumbles along charging every windmill that appears, real or imagined.


He is currently a professor at an IIT and a primary go to source for RSS "Sanghis".Kudos Joe and good to see you back.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## My-Analogous

Joe Shearer said:


> Very briefly, Indian civilisation might be said, in one sense, to have been built around river systems. Starting from the centre, these would be:
> a-
> 
> The Ganga-Yamuna rivers;
> The Brahmaputra River;
> The Mahanadi River;
> The Godavari River;
> The Krishna River;
> The Kaveri River;
> The Tungabhadra River;
> The Narmada River;
> The Indus River.
> A commonly recurring characteristic of these systems and the culture that grew around them is the gradual change and transformation that takes place between these, for instance, from the Ganga-Yamuna rivers to the Brahmaputra and its confluence with the Ganga-Yamuna. Taking any two proximate rivers will yield the same picture, of gradual shading off from the full-blown cultural manifestation at one point of the river to the equally full-blown culture at another point of a neighbouring river-centred cultural centre. The same thing happens between different points of the same river, too.
> 
> However, along with this differentiated and subtly shaded cultural diffusion, there is the common cultural binding that existed through the bulk of the three and a half thousand years of Indian history; the common themes of literature, poetry, philosophy, architecture, metaphysics and proto-scientific investigation. These cannot be wished away; they can be assigned, in the case of dance alone, to unique river systems; The Bharata Natyam is centred around the Kaveri; Kuchipudi around the Krishna and Godavari, and in their estuaries. Odissi is to be found on the Mahanadi, Manipuri in the hinterland of the Brahmaputra and Kathak on the Ganga-Yamuna. Three of the systems are not represented by dance, but they more than make up through their musical, culinary and architectural contributions; the rich and varied coast of Kerala is also linked to the Kaveri system through very many links and since the language itself split from Tamizh only three centuries ago, it is convenient to view that rich heritage as a cognate of the Kaveri culture.
> 
> Viewed in this light, the argument of Aitzaz Ahsan sahib can be seen in its proper perspective.



India don't exist on that time but river Indus do and India stole name from it so that it can claim that civilization but you guys can't change the geography of that. Indus river is in our side and it is Pakistani history not Indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

My-Analogous said:


> India don't exist on that time but river Indus do and India stole name from it so that it can claim that civilization but you guys can't change the geography of that. Indus river is in our side and it is Pakistani history not Indian.


Thank you for your illumination of this seemingly difficult subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

My-Analogous said:


> India don't exist on that time but river Indus do and India stole name from it so that it can claim that civilization but you guys can't change the geography of that. Indus river is in our side and it is Pakistani history not Indian.


@Pakistani Exile

You do realise how difficult it is to have a rational discussion with yobs slobbering all over the place?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> @Pakistani Exile
> 
> You do realise how difficult it is to have a rational discussion with yobs slobbering all over the place?



I agree with you. And I consider myself even below rank of that of a student yet I try in my failing way to post what I find to be of interest and relevant, without being too disruptive or insulting. But I find all this jingoistic **** measuring highly distracting and redundant. It does not support any point either side of the debate makes but only makes them look more silly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistani Exile said:


> I agree with you. And I consider myself even below rank of that of a student yet I try in my failing way to post what I find to be of interest and relevant, without being too disruptive or insulting. But I find all this jingoistic **** measuring highly distracting and redundant. It does not support any point either side of the debate makes but only makes them look more silly.


That really won't wash, dear Sir. Far too self-deprecating. Your posts are certainly interesting and relevant.

If I might cavil, sometimes your turns of phrase cause confusion to the sub-continental reader. [emoji12]


----------



## My-Analogous

Adiyogi said:


> i mean are you people really this much dumb, "india" is a name given by foreigners, indus is a name given by foreigners and so the word "hindu", please don't degrade the quality of content by fantasising thoughts of yours
> 
> any dumb guy from this world will know that entire northern india+present day pakistan are decendents of the indus people, though some changed religion, many migrated to india, many migrated to pakistan, and uncounted kept migrating centuries before partition. Nothing controversial just the simple truth.
> Pakistan was born in 1947, even its name was decided few years earlier, simple blunt truth.


First of all you are not only idiot(because you don't know a $hit about history) but also notorious in behavior (because you don't have right to insult 200 million people and your thinks is you are smarter then all, which is insane claim, so grown up and respect everyone). I don't accept your personal opinion and if you have any statement to prove words show it to us.

Now come to real point
Historically the name _*India*_ may referred to either the region of Greater India and the Indian subcontinent. Today it refers to the contemporary Republic of India located therein. But originally the name is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) which is in Pakistan today, and it has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC)
http://www.ancient.eu/article/203/
http://scroll.in/article/723351/was-the-ramayana-actually-set-in-and-around-todays-afghanistan
https://www.quora.com/How-and-when-did-the-name-India-come-into-use
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-India-called-bharat-in-Hindi-and-India-in-English

Even you guys claim Hindu as a religion is not exist and it was actually sindhu and it later S with H and the terms was used as people who lived near Sindhu river and that is a fact. Infect they stole everything from sindhu peoples to cover their identity crisis and every historian know this fact. Prove me wrong with proper reference and not from your mind dilation. I want independent historian references please


----------



## Joe Shearer

My-Analogous said:


> First of all you are not only idiot(because you don't know a $hit about history) but also notorious in behavior (because you don't have right to insult 200 million people and your thinks is you are smarter then all, which is insane claim, so grown up and respect everyone). I don't accept your personal opinion and if you have any statement to prove words show it to us.
> 
> Now come to real point
> Historically the name _*India*_ may referred to either the region of Greater India and the Indian subcontinent. Today it refers to the contemporary Republic of India located therein. But originally the name is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) which is in Pakistan today, and it has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC)
> http://www.ancient.eu/article/203/
> http://scroll.in/article/723351/was-the-ramayana-actually-set-in-and-around-todays-afghanistan
> https://www.quora.com/How-and-when-did-the-name-India-come-into-use
> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-India-called-bharat-in-Hindi-and-India-in-English
> 
> Even you guys claim Hindu as a religion is not exist and it was actually sindhu and it later S with H and the terms was used as people who lived near Sindhu river and that is a fact. Infect they stole everything from sindhu peoples to cover their identity crisis and every historian know this fact. Prove me wrong with proper reference and not from your mind dilation. I want independent historian references please



@Adiyogi 
@My-Analogous

It is a sad sight to see two intelligent people wrangling over somewhat trivial issues. Both of you are more or less saying the same thing; a moment's reflection will make that clear and make more engaging discussion possible.

@My-Analogous is perfectly correct in his (her?) tracing of the name India from Sindhu, pronounced by the trans-riparians without the sibiland as 'Hindu', again distorted one step further by the Greek component of the Achaemenid urban melange without the aspirate as 'Indu', or, correctly (I think @Kaptaan has already reminded us of this) as 'Indike'.
This does not, however, make two very important points; first, there was that name for the general region (greater India, or the Indian sub-continent), a geographical name; second, there was the name taken as the English/international version of the State name in 1947, as a successor name to the British colony, whose successor it was, legally. This second instance was a joint name; the name that Indians call their state when not speaking a European language should be Bharat.
That it was greater India or the Indian sub-continent was established as early as Megasthenes, who was clearly not referring to the frontier zones.
That Hindu was not originally what the followers of a particular polytheistic faith system called themselves is widely known and accepted. It is not clear how they are asserted to have 'stolen' the name, as they never used it for themselves. Foreigners did use it for all inhabitants of India, irrespective of religion, and the usage became attached to polytheism only by the broad overlap between the inhabitants and those religious forms. In short, Hindus were Indians first (cf., Persian use of the word, and also the allusion to 'dark' in using that word), and the name extended to their polytheist religions because those religions lacked any other name. By default, as it were.
Culturally speaking, the IVC spread by stages into northern India, from the IVC sites in the Punjab and Haryana to the succeeding pottery-denoted cultures of the Indus, Yamuna and Ganges basins nearest these sites. There may have been a similar diluted diffusion - only some aspects, such as pottery, seem to have travelled, and there is no evidence of city architecture, organisation, social organisation that is similar or the typical IVC seals or measurement systems in any successor site - from Gujarat (as we call it in modern times) as well.
Language has come in as an army of red herrings (that is the correct collective noun, btw!!!). Language and culture are NOT associated. Similarly, ethnicity and culture are NOT associated. Or rather, in both cases, they are, but not inevitably; there are very many variations. 
People speaking Indo-European on the steppes were not ethnically consistent, if we are to go by the identification of the Scythians as the closest to that culture. 
There is no reason to believe that the rapid spread of Indo-Aryan (the original language of the Vedas, not the 'sanskrit' created in laboratory conditions by Panini) throughout northern India was linked to a series of conquests by migrating races and tribes. 
There is every reason to remember @Pakistani Exile (he has re-ethnicised himself and I cannot remember the name) who reminded us that the Anglo-Saxons only formed a thin layer on top in Britain, after their conquests of the autochthonous Britons.
There is also no reason to believe that the existence of Dravidian (NOT Tamil) language forms as a sub-stratum in Aryan languages in north India meant that an existing population of 'Dravidians' migrated en masse to south India after their lands in the north were conquered. There is every reason to believe that there was very little movement of populations; there was, however, promotion of one language system over another. We have linguistic evidence of Austric languages lying at the roots; of Dravidian languages being dominant thereafter (with no clues about the duration and tenure); and of their submergence under a thousand-year wave of Aryan languages in north India.
The importance in the context of the IVC becomes evident immediately. 
Those who created the IVC were quite clearly local inhabitants, not migrants from Mars, and most probably stayed on in those areas after the final decline and fall of the IVC. Some may well have migrated; travel and movement was far more common in those days than we can imagine; after all, IVC artifacts have been found in Central Asia.
Their culture, degraded by urban decline and the desiccation of their original homeland, did travel. Those who took it up may not have had any ethnic links to the IVC people, whoever they were.
Those who are to be found in north India are unlikely to have been lineal descendants of the IVC people. 
Those who are to be found in south India are unlikely to have been lineal descendants of the IVC people. They retained the language spoken (perhaps) by the IVC people but they were not those people.
Indo-Aryan, and Prakrit, may have spread widely. Dravidian may have receded widely. It is not to be said that Tamils inhabited the valley of the Indus, and they retreated, taking all the culture with them.

I hope those notes and jottings will help you raise the right questions and explore them in a rational frame of mind.
All the best.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SoulSpokesman

Dada,

*Language and culture are NOT associated. *

Good point. Both you and DJT spk the same language. But no one who knows you well wud insinuate that you and he have the same culture (nauzubillah)

Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mamluk

@Joe Shearer got a question for you.

I know that Europe was populated by waves of Indo-Euro invaders (Celts, Latin, Germanic, Slavic etc.) over centuries, so was Western Asia (Medes, Persians etc.).

How many waves of Indo-Euro invaders/migrants came to the subcontinent since the Vedic people arrived (assuming they were the first one)? The Jats would be a latecomer right?

@Tergon18 feel free to chip in.



SoulSpokesman said:


> Dada,
> 
> *Language and culture are NOT associated. *



Disagree. Language carries culture. Flow of language is accompanied by flow of culture.


----------



## SoulSpokesman

XXX,

It must have been a constant stream rather than waves.

Dada,


Those who are to be found in north India are unlikely to have been lineal descendants of the IVC people.
Is it not a possibility that they might be. After all the environmental degradation that you allude to may have forced many IVC people to migrate to more fertile and better watered neighbouring regions in N and C India. This of course assumes that they had the tools to chop down the forests in these regions.

Regards


----------



## Mamluk

SoulSpokesman said:


> Is it not a possibility that they might be. After all the environmental degradation that you allude to may have forced many *IVC people to migrate* to more fertile and better watered neighbouring regions in N and *Central India*. This of course assumes that they had the tools to chop down the forests in these regions.



Right, they were totally unable to recreate the same civilization they had in Pakistan - probably left their IQ behind! Lol!


----------



## SoulSpokesman

XXX,

Maybe they didnt leave their creativity behind. But the rains and floods may have destroyed their creations in GV region much more than in IVC where the dry climate preserved their ruins.

Regards


----------



## Mamluk

SoulSpokesman said:


> XXX,
> 
> Maybe they didnt leave their creativity behind. But the rains and floods may have destroyed their creations in GV region much more than in IVC where the dry climate preserved their ruins.
> 
> Regards



Nothing adds up with that theory.

First of all, Central India wasn't up for grabs - it was already more densely populated. Moving an entire civilization into another densely inhabited territory is no easy task.

Secondly, Sindh's weather has not changed drastically in the past 3000 years. What makes you think the arid climate had driven them off while it still supports *55 million* people today?

Thirdly, there is absolutely no sign of *mass migration* of Sindhi people. A superior culture does not need mass migration to influence neighboring regions.


----------



## Joe Shearer

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> @Joe Shearer got a question for you.
> 
> I know that Europe was populated by waves of Indo-Euro invaders (Celts, Latin, Germanic, Slavic etc.) over centuries, so was Western Asia (Medes, Persians etc.).
> 
> How many waves of Indo-Euro invaders/migrants came to the subcontinent since the Vedic people arrived (assuming they were the first one)? The Jats would be a latecomer right?
> 
> @Tergon18 feel free to chip in.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. Language carries culture. Flow of language is accompanied by flow of culture.


Will reply on return.

Your point on language and culture is excellent but I wish to contest it. Please bear with me.


----------



## Joe Shearer

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> @Joe Shearer got a question for you.
> 
> I know that Europe was populated by waves of Indo-Euro invaders (Celts, Latin, Germanic, Slavic etc.) over centuries, so was Western Asia (Medes, Persians etc.).
> 
> How many waves of Indo-Euro invaders/migrants came to the subcontinent since the Vedic people arrived (assuming they were the first one)? The Jats would be a latecomer right?
> 
> @Tergon18 feel free to chip in.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. Language carries culture. Flow of language is accompanied by flow of culture.



Back a day earlier, so I'm piling on.

First, may I say, with genuine pleasure, that it was nice to see you posting this? I had gathered a melancholy impression that your view was more or less that of Colonel Custer, that the only good Indian was a dead Indian, and that nothing in the nature of these essentially historical discussions was worth the sheer pleasure of a knee in a random Indian middle. Clearly, going by these astute questions, I was wrong. A happy situation. I love being wrong in these things.

Coming to the waves of invaders in western Europe, let me answer by painting a word-picture, without doing the heavy lifting, in the interests of promptitude. Permit me, if you will, to do the same for the western Asia case. Some of this may turn out to be terribly wrong, when I return to the books later, afterwards; apologies in anticipation.

Taking the Greeks first: yes, they came in waves. The Achaeans first, destroying the Cretan and pseudo-Cretan cultures, and paving the way for the Ionians and Aeolians. The Dorians last, and prevalent over all the previous races (they had iron swords, their predecessors bronze ones; might have made a very big difference). It is worth remembering also that the authochthones, the people of the preceding culture, remained and were recognised by their different speech as late as Herodotus.

The Latins? Far more confusing. We know that the Etruscans preceded them, but we have no idea about the time-sequence of their coming to the Italian peninsula. At this distance, it looks like one agglomerated mass.

The Celts, then. They certainly formed the recognisable mass of 'European' culture, from the reaches of Iberia, contemporary Spain and Portugal, through France, with its 'indomitable' Gauls, and the entirety of the British Isles, Ireland, Scotland (with variations between Pict and Scot), Wales and central 'England'. Did they come in waves? I have to confess that I don't know, not having studied the subject as deeply as I ought to have. Honestly, I only know that the Romans found the cis-Alpine Gauls a handful, and the trans-Alpine Gauls too strong for them, as they defeated and sacked the city several times. It was only with Caesar that they were finally subdued and crushed.

The Germans, on the other hand, provide strong evidence with which to respond to you. Before going further, do note that it is assumed that the different races may have preceded or succeeded each other, but except for the very late date of the Germans, it is not clear if the Greeks, the Latins or the Celts came first or last or in which sequence. What we do think to be true is that the Germans were probably the last. I have also tried to look at each race by itself, and see if 'pulses' were there to be detected; in the case of the Greeks, they were.

Back to the Germans, as they were then, not as they are today.

The difficulty even with this relatively well-documented race's comings and goings is that the good documentation is good relative to the murk and mist covering the origins and the movements of the others - the Greeks, Latins and the Celts. We know that the Romans found them after they swept through Gaul and came to the Rhine, and gingerly penetrated the northern forests. But what they found, what we now know, is still very obscure. Let me pause here, please, largely to catch breath!

To be continued:
The Germans, their tribes, and the sequence of their coming into the Roman Empire;
The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in west Asia;
The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in sub-continental India, and some speculation of what happened before.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mamluk

Joe Shearer said:


> Back a day earlier, so I'm piling on.
> 
> First, may I say, with genuine pleasure, that it was nice to see you posting this? I had gathered a melancholy impression that your view was more or less that of Colonel Custer, that the only good Indian was a dead Indian, and that nothing in the nature of these essentially historical discussions was worth the sheer pleasure of a knee in a random Indian middle. Clearly, going by these astute questions, I was wrong. A happy situation. I love being wrong in these things.
> 
> Coming to the waves of invaders in western Europe, let me answer by painting a word-picture, without doing the heavy lifting, in the interests of promptitude. Permit me, if you will, to do the same for the western Asia case. Some of this may turn out to be terribly wrong, when I return to the books later, afterwards; apologies in anticipation.
> 
> Taking the Greeks first: yes, they came in waves. The Achaeans first, destroying the Cretan and pseudo-Cretan cultures, and paving the way for the Ionians and Aeolians. The Dorians last, and prevalent over all the previous races. It is worth remembering also that the authochthones, the people of the preceding culture, remained and were recognised by their different speech as late as Herodotus.
> 
> The Latins? Far more confusing. We know that the Etruscans preceded them, but we have no idea about the time-sequence of their coming to the Italian peninsula. At this distance, it looks like one agglomerated mass.
> 
> The Celts, then. They certainly formed the recognisable mass of 'European' culture, from the reaches of Iberia, contemporary Spain and Portugal, through France, with its 'indomitable' Gauls, and the entirety of the British Isles, Ireland, Scotland (with variations between Pict and Scot), Wales and central 'England'. Did they come in waves? I have to confess that I don't know, not having studied the subject as deeply as I ought to have. Honestly, I only know that the Romans found the cis-Alpine Gauls a handful, and the trans-Alpine Gauls too strong for them, as they defeated and sacked the city several times. It was only with Caesar that they were finally subdued and crushed.
> 
> The Germans, on the other hand, provide strong evidence with which to respond to you. Before going further, do note that it is assumed that the different races may have preceded or succeeded each other, but except for the very late date of the Germans, it is not clear if the Greeks, the Latins or the Celts came first or last or in which sequence. What we do think to be true is that the Germans were probably the last. I have also tried to look at each race by itself, and see if 'pulses' were there to be detected; in the case of the Greeks, they were.
> 
> Back to the Germans, as they were then, not as they are today.
> 
> The difficulty even with this relatively well-documented race's comings and goings is that the good documentation is good relative to the murk and mist covering the origins and the movements of the others - the Greeks, Latins and the Celts. We know that the Romans found them after they swept through Gaul and came to the Rhine, and gingerly penetrated the northern forests. But what they found, what we now know, is still very obscure. Let me pause here, please, largely to catch breath!
> 
> To be continued:
> The Germans, their tribes, and the sequence of their coming into the Roman Empire;
> The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in west Asia;
> The question of waves of immigration of such tribes in sub-continental India, and some speculation of what happened before.



Do I give that impression? Lol. Don't take my troll assaults on sanghi brigade as an expression of hate against ordinary Indians. But the ideas and agenda of those in power today are truly revolting.

Anyways, back to history. Great post and very informative (as expected).  Looking forward to the rest.


----------



## Joe Shearer

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> Do I give that impression? Lol. Don't take my troll assaults on sanghi brigade as an expression of hate against ordinary Indians. But the ideas and agenda of those in power today are truly revolting.
> 
> Anyways, back to history. Great post and very informative (as expected).  Looking forward to the rest.



YES, YES, YES.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mamluk

Joe Shearer said:


> The Germans, on the other hand, provide strong evidence with which to respond to you. Before going further, do note that it is assumed that the different races may have preceded or succeeded each other, but except for the very late date of the Germans, it is not clear if the Greeks, the Latins or the Celts came first or last or in which sequence. What we do think to be true is that the Germans were probably the last. I have also tried to look at each race by itself, and see if 'pulses' were there to be detected; in the case of the Greeks, they were.



I don't know why (did I read that somewhere?) - I always thought the Latin wave(s) pushed the Celts to the fringes of Europe. Germanic people came after for sure, seeing their geographic distribution. Again my assumption.. didn't read much about it.


----------



## Joe Shearer

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> I don't know why (did I read that somewhere?) - I always thought the Latin wave(s) pushed the Celts to the fringes of Europe. Germanic people came after for sure, seeing their geographic distribution. Again my assumption.. didn't read much about it.



I didn't know that. Let me read up on it and get back to you, but I will continue with the dregs of what I had read earlier for the time being, in the interests of continuity. 

The Gauls were Celtic, weren't they? Only Italy and Greece would have been drained of Celts, in that case, considering that Spain and Portugal, France and the British Isles were all Celtic.


----------



## Mamluk

Joe Shearer said:


> The Gauls were Celtic, weren't they? Only Italy and Greece would have been drained of Celts, in that case, considering that Spain and Portugal, France and the British Isles were all Celtic.



Right Gauls were Celtic. My ideas about the sequence of arrival are mostly based (maybe wrongly) on geographic distribution as I now little about the real history. That brings me to the question - what path did each of the groups take? Greeks must have come through Anatolia. How about the Latins? Anatolia, then Southern Europe? Steppes, then Eastern Europe? Mediterranean Sea?

Please continue. Signing off, will read tomorrow.


----------



## Joe Shearer

[USER=25628]@xxx[/USER][{::::::::::::::::::> said:


> Right Gauls were Celtic. My ideas about the sequence of arrival are mostly based (maybe wrongly) on geographic distribution as I now little about the real history. That brings me to the question - what path did each of the groups take? Greeks must have come through Anatolia. How about the Latins? Anatolia, then Southern Europe? Steppes, then Eastern Europe? Mediterranean Sea?
> 
> Please continue. Signing off, will read tomorrow.



Whoa!

When you get going, you really get going, don't you?

The Greeks, I can answer for partially; it was a long hike around, through Anatolia OR the southern steppes into Thessaly (linked to the modern city of Thessaloniki) downwards through the peninsula, and outward into the archipelago, right back to the sea coast of Anatolia. 

I'm damned if I know about the Latins.

Nobody has sent me on a source-hunt like this for a long, long time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

SoulSpokesman said:


> XXX,
> 
> It must have been a constant stream rather than waves.
> 
> Dada,
> 
> 
> Those who are to be found in north India are unlikely to have been lineal descendants of the IVC people.
> Is it not a possibility that they might be. After all the environmental degradation that you allude to may have forced many IVC people to migrate to more fertile and better watered neighbouring regions in N and C India. This of course assumes that they had the tools to chop down the forests in these regions.
> 
> Regards



Or they became gatherers, eventually hunters.

In the forests. For refuge and hideaways.

Hence did not translocate to a new river system. 

Hence no take-overs (pottery, architecture, organised dwelling concentrations, granaries) seen from different periods, since they never went back to agriculture. And over a few centuries, or even generations, lost their collective civilizational memory (a typical Hollywoodesque Post Armagedon scenario - Kevin Costner's Waterworld).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Smythe

Yes well Mehrgarh was one of the epicentres of the Indus Valley civilisation which is located in modern day Baluchistan.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Here are DETAILED Miltary maps of the three Most powerful empires in the Post Mauryan cum pre-Islamic period
You see time and again either they are stopped way before Sutlej or they are stopped in the Sialkot,Gujarat area....All of them failed to take Indus

Starting with Harsha vardhana of the Pusyabhutis ...One of the most celebrated rulers of Ancient India who is known even to this day










Now the mighty Guptas---The Greatest of Hindu Empires and possibly the only time when a Hindu empire was as mighty as any other contemporary empire or nomadic confederacy in the world..They also could extend to Sialkot and no further








Third The Rajput Empire of the Gurajara Pratiharas..they extended to just a few miles west of Silakot, and that's it....but Gujarat,Sialkot sector was not under their command during the time of their greatest extent between 890 and 920 AD


----------



## Mian Babban

Smythe said:


> Yes well Mehrgarh was one of the epicentres of the Indus Valley civilisation which is located in modern day Baluchistan.


Kachchi, where sites of Mehrgarh civilization are located, was a Pashtun majority area few centuries ago.


----------



## shas

Tergon18 said:


> First of all the Kathak dance system isnt performed in Punjab and hasnt been part of the Indus culture. It mostly received patronage from the Mughals and was based in Uttar Pradesh or Rajasthan. Why dont you enlighten us as to what the 'Indus' dance form is and exactly how it is related to those of the Ganges and Dravidia (South of the Vindhyas) regions?
> 
> The main sites of the Indus Valley Civilization, including Mehrgarh (Balochistan) are located in the Indus Valley (hence its name) at Mohenjodaro, Sindh and Harappa, Punjab. Having the North-Westernmost parts of India in it doesnt really change anything. More than 80% of it was based in the Indus Region (Pakistan). Anyway that also excludes the entirety of North, Central, South and North-Eastern India.
> The Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans are indeed theorised to have come from Bactria however in the time when the actual Rig Veda was formed (around 1500 BC) it was entirely formed in the Indus (Punjab). Also, it is devoid of much caste references and takes a monotheistic side. Later the center of Hinduism shifts to the Ganges Region, as the Indo-Aryans migrate there, with Mahabharata and Ramayana being formed there.
> 
> The Indo-Greek's capital under Menander was Sakala (Sialkot) and regional capitals such as Taxila and Charsadda existed. Alexander's campaign in 'India' took place entirely in the Indus from his Pyrrhic victory at the Hydaspes (Jhelum) against Raja Pauros too getting almost mortally wounded at the Battle of Multan. Again, having the very North-Westernmost parts of modern day India does not change anything. Look at the map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost the entirety of modern-day Punjab, beyond the Indus, was under the Achaemenid so while it indeed could be called a frontier region, it was by no means a boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the Parthians (Pahlavas) too ruled the entirety of the Indus Region, almost mimicking the boundaries of modern day Pakistan, with almost no modern day Indian territory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Adi Shankara, an 8th century Hindu saint, marked the four points (mathas) of India he added Dwarka, Gujarat as the westernmost point, Uttarakhand as the northernmost, somewhere in Bengal as the easternmost and a city in Tamil Nadu as the southernmost. Again, none of these territories are in present day Pakistan
> 
> 
> Coming to linguistics, only 3-4% of Indians
> speak North-Western Indo-Aryan languages (Sindhi, Punjabi and Dogri) while they are spoken by a majority of Pakistanis. Dardic languages arent spoken in India and neither are Iranian (Pashto and Balochi) languages spoken. Urdu is a mix between Central Indo-Aryan and Iranian and anyway its the native tongue of only 6% of Pakistanis. A minority of Indians speak Hindi (which all linguists classify as being seperate to Urdu) as a first language. Infact, in South India many dont even understand it, let alone speak it.
> 
> Please go Google the Harappa DNA Project spreadsheet, a genealogical study by an independent American genetic institute. I can't post the link since it's not allowed (dont know why). It shows the different genetics of Pakistanis and Indians. Pakistanis (Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Balochs) have much lower South Indian component and a majority Baloch (which means Gedrosian Iranic, nothing to do with actual Baloch ancestry) component, while Indians (UPites, Bengalis, Biharis, Gujratis, Rajasthanis, Tamil, Malayalis etc.) have higher South Indian component and lower Baloch/Gedrosian Iranic component.
> 
> All this goes on to show that we are ethnically, linguistically, historically and culturally two different people.



You are rewording facts to make it sound like Pakistanis and Indians are genetically very different.But genetically they are not very different,as both of them fall on South Asian cline.

If a Pakistani is 30% South Indian, 50% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

And a Indian is 50% South Indian, 30% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

That makes the Indian and Pakistani 80% similar and only 20% different.

Yes,Baloch is main component in the Pakistanis’s ancestry, and South Indian is main component in the Indian’s ancestry,but wording it like that makes it sound like they are very different but actually they are not.

By that logic,you can make someone who is 60% Black,40% White sound like very different from someone 40% Black,60% White by saying one is mostly White and other one is mostly Black.

By the way,when you average with *Low-caste populations* which are 30-40% of Sindh/Punjab population,who have more than 50% South Indian,then *average person of Pakistan Sindh/Punjab is 40-45% South Indian.* Which is not far from Indians.

And South Indian in HarappaWorld does not mean ASI.Its only part ASI. If you break it down then similarity is more.


----------



## MultaniGuy

shas said:


> You are rewording facts to make it sound like Pakistanis and Indians are genetically very different.But genetically they are not very different,as both of them fall on South Asian cline.
> 
> If a Pakistani is 30% South Indian, 50% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)
> 
> And a Indian is 50% South Indian, 30% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)
> 
> That makes the Indian and Pakistani 80% similar and only 20% different.
> 
> Yes,Baloch is main component in the Pakistanis’s ancestry, and South Indian is main component in the Indian’s ancestry,but wording it like that makes it sound like they are very different but actually they are not.
> 
> By that logic,you can make someone who is 60% Black,40% White sound like very different from someone 40% Black,60% White by saying one is mostly White and other one is mostly Black.
> 
> By the way,when you average with *Low-caste populations* which are 30-40% of Sindh/Punjab population,who have more than 50% South Indian,then *average person of Pakistan Sindh/Punjab is 40-45% South Indian.* Which is not far from Indians.
> 
> And South Indian in HarappaWorld does not mean ASI.Its only part ASI. If you break it down then similarity is more.


Nice try. Pakistanis and Indians are genetically different.

Only the Muhajir community in Pakistan may have genetics similar to Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

shas said:


> You are rewording facts to make it sound like Pakistanis and Indians are genetically very different.But genetically they are not very different,as both of them fall on South Asian cline.
> 
> If a Pakistani is 30% South Indian, 50% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)
> 
> And a Indian is 50% South Indian, 30% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)
> 
> That makes the Indian and Pakistani 80% similar and only 20% different.
> 
> Yes,Baloch is main component in the Pakistanis’s ancestry, and South Indian is main component in the Indian’s ancestry,but wording it like that makes it sound like they are very different but actually they are not.
> 
> By that logic,you can make someone who is 60% Black,40% White sound like very different from someone 40% Black,60% White by saying one is mostly White and other one is mostly Black.
> 
> By the way,when you average with *Low-caste populations* which are 30-40% of Sindh/Punjab population,who have more than 50% South Indian,then *average person of Pakistan Sindh/Punjab is 40-45% South Indian.* Which is not far from Indians.
> 
> And South Indian in HarappaWorld does not mean ASI.Its only part ASI. If you break it down then similarity is more.



"Low caste" in Pakistan does not mean Dravidian or Tamil. Jesus Christ.

Your description of genetics applies to every single neighboring region on this planet. So nobody is genetically "different". The "South Indian" component can be found in Turkey, Iran and Iraq too. It's just a name, please do get over it. You are proving time and time again that Indians cannot cope with the nomenclature.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

very informative


----------

