# The India Pakistan geographical divide is at least 1600 years old



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

*The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years 
*
_----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Notice: Commenters are requested to keep the discussions as much as possible in the era between 185 BC----1001 AD and if there is pressing need in the era between 1707 AD--1849 AD. Commenters are also requested to keep the focus on the North-western section of the subcontinent

The Logic being that the first era mentioned is the Post Mauryan but Pre-Islamic era (prior to the Battle of Peshawar)
The second era is the tussle between Durrani,Maratha and Sikh Empire in the wake of Aurangzeb's death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_

I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.

_The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._

*That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *

_This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
*
The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously. 
*
The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..

*I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
*II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
*III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-settled Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)


Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
starting with Persians,
continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....

The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.

*------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*

*1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
_*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_


*Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .

Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)

Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.

It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.

In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_

*Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
*Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
*Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan. A later more granular analysis with other posters suggest they may have failed to take the Lahore-Sialkot-Gujarat corridor*
*Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
*Shunga Empire*------*Established in 185BC to abolish the Mauryan Empire.Immediately lost the Lahore-Sialkot corridor as well as the Indian NorthWest to the Greeks. Greeks were well settled in Pakistan by 180BC as well as in much of North-West India including Mathura*


Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*


*2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *

*Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *

*3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*

*Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.

Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. Judaism cannot survive without Israel. Hinduism cannot survive without India. If tomorrow the land of Israel dissolves into the ocean,Judaism would go extinct in a couple of decades but Christianity would linger on. Same way if India were to be submerged under the ocean,Hinduism would die out all over the world while Buddhism would linger on.This same logic applies to Shintoism. Shintoism needs the Land of Japan to survive.*

One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers



However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins


*Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *



*This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
*
Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*

Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.

*The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
*
_The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._

Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour

"
_14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.


15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.


16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*

*Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*

Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
*
In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans. 
------------------------------------------------------------------*

*Closing Thoughts:*

Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire

*India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
*Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
*Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan

*Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
*Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire

Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan

Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.

At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
At the moment they are

India
Pakistan
Nepal
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
Maldives

If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities

--------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------

PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked


@Slav Defence Can you please help? I cannot post anymore on this thread as I donot have Senior Cafe priviliges..This post will be updated with academic sources, as soon as I cross the minimum number of days required to post links

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
4 | Like Like:
41


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Great to see more and more Indians admitting it. We are two different peoples, even though we share similarities in culture due to partition era migration and centuries of Mughal/British rule. Pakistanis are a distinct people, with a distinct heritage, culture, history, practices, beliefs and etc... different from Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Great to see more and more Indians admitting it. We are two different peoples, even though we share similarities in culture due to partition era migration and centuries of Mughal/British rule. Pakistanis are a distinct people, with a distinct heritage, culture, history, practices, beliefs and etc... different from Indians.




Bro, we share more cultural and genetic similarities between us and the Iranians/Afghans. Doesn't make us these people. Just as it doesn't make us indian.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-arrived Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan *
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. *
> 
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked




Finally an indian that is honest and tells the truth based on facts & not false beliefs or narratives.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Kabira

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Bro, we share more cultural and *genetic similarities between us and the Iranians/Afghans*. Doesn't make us these people. Just as it doesn't make us indian.



Afghans yes, eastern ones. Iranians? not much, stop writing BS will you?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Tesky said:


> Afghans yes, eastern ones. Iranians? not much, stop writing BS will you?




The Baloch of Pakistan are the same race as the Baloch of Iran.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The Baloch of Pakistan are the same race as the Baloch of Iran.



And Baloch of Iran make like 2% of Iran population.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Tesky said:


> And Baloch of Iran make like 2% of Iran population.



Must all be in the capital. Tehran is full of them.........lol........quite a lot of Pakistanis there too...........lol.....


----------



## django

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-arrived Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan *
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. *
> 
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked


Finally an honest one! Kudos pal.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kabira

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan *



I think you are confusing Gujrat/punjab to be named after Gurjara. Gujrat city in north punjab is named after nomadic gujjars who settled in it in Mughal era, so relatively recently.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

I think we need to be honest here. I tend to be more reactive when Indian's stuff it in our face that we are all the same. It's form of negation of 1947 or delusion that they still live in British India. Okay the British came and united us all. That does not make us same.

However we must also be realistic. It's not like Indians are *aliens* from Mars. They are our neighbours so we must also accept that there are similarities as would be expected. Please find me a border where you cross and on the other side you see aliens? What exactly is the differance when you cross German/Danish border? What differance is there when you cross French/Belgian border? what differance is there when you cross US/Canadian border?

The truth is there is more differance between Pakistan and India then you see when you cross typical borders but we should also accept that there are similarities also as would be expected. We can accept our differances and similarities I think we will have made progress. It is "we are all same" that is most annoying. Forget about Pak/India there are huge differances inside these countries between the regions.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
22


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Tesky said:


> I think you are confusing Gujrat/punjab to be named after Gurjara. Gujrat city in north punjab is named after nomadic gujjars who settled in it.



I am basing this on the maps by Joseph E. Schwartzberg in his Magnum Opus "A Historical Atlas of South Asia" (took $2 Million and 20 years of research till the 1970s)..It is freely available in the University of Chicago website at dsal uni chicago.....I would be happy to be proven otherwise, but the claim I am making is that the most powerful of Indic empires in Pre-Islamic times only could capture a small triangular incision comprising of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat........That arc would constitute what 2-3% of Pakistani territory in modern times? of course during partition Indic empire lost that small arc and in turn gained the stretch of land directly above it with the inclusion of Jammu..I am saying we are riding unseen geopolitical forces which always would want to self-correct themselves...and in that light, division of India and Pakistan is inevitable with or without Islam

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## wiseone2

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-arrived Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan *
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. *
> 
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked



Our history is too complicated to be broken down in a simple sense. The main thing to understand is that India is a composite culture. At the current time there is little in Pakistani culture that is not there in Indian culture in some variant or form. Maybe Pusthuns and Baluchis have cultural things India does not have. But they are less than 15% of Pakistan's population.

I see Pakistan developing its unique identity in the next 50-100 years. I could not say if it is for the better or the worse.


----------



## Kabira

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I am basing this on the maps by Joseph E. Schwartzberg in his Magnum Opus "A Historical Atlas of South Asia" (took $2 Million dollar and 20 years of research till the 1970s)..It is freely available in the University of Chicago website at dsal uni chicago.....I would be happy to be proven otherwise, but the claim I am making is that the most powerful of Indic empires in Pre-Islamic times only could capture a small triangular incision comprising of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat........That arc would constitute what 2-3% of Pakistani territory in modern times? of course during partition Indic empire lost that small arc and in turn gained the stretch of land directly above it with the inclusion of Jammu..I am saying we are riding unseen geopolitical forces which always would want to self-correct themselves...and in that light, division of India and Pakistan is inevitable with or without Islam



From all maps I see of Gurjara it doesn't look like they ventured into north west like Gupta empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Tesky said:


> From all maps I see of Gurjara it doesn't look like they ventured into north west like Gupta empire.



If Gurjaras and Gurjara-Pratiharas are two completely distinct entities, then you are right. else I think my argument holds water...I am sorry that I cannot post maps to further clarify my position as I am hamstrung by the dint of being a novice...take a look at dsal dot uchicago dot edu and proceed to the maps section...there you will find two sets of colonial era maps as well as the whole tome of "A Historical Atlas of South Asia"



Another point is that there was another Indic empire that had a temporary same incision like hold on Sialkot---The Shunga Empire...My greater point is that , Indic empires can never comfortably expand past the Sutlej river, other than a small pincer like hold on Sialkot.....This is a very big indicator of a Hard border forming much prior to the arrival of Islam in the Northwest in 11th century ..(Sindh being south to NW is being discounted here)


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I am basing this on the maps


You made good points. The fundamental platform that creates the historical differantiation is *geography*. That is the 'invisible force' that has shaped history. The *Indus basin* which makes the backbone of Pakistan is mostly* bone dry* with mountain plateau on the west and north but with passes that invited long history of intercourse with West/Central Asia and regions beyond. It is the Indus region with Indus river coursing through semi-arid land that has been the crucible of our history. If you look at Alexanders's invasion of South Asia he never invaded India. he kept almost perfectly within what is Pakistan. The reason was not because there was Pak/India border but as he moved east he approached a differant geographic zone - the Ganges. This zone had differant climate with plenty of precipitation and accordingly supported huge population. Alexander would have felt that he was moving into another zone and his troops definitely felt it and refused to go in another domain. This geographic boundary had been replicated during the Achaemenid Persian times. It was replicated many times after that. It was replicated during the Sikh empire/independant Sindh period. Of course there were times when Ganges and Indus were conjoined like under the British but then Indus also at times had been joined to even Greece. Alone, west, east the fate of Indus had been changing through time which is normal and happens in every part of the world. Borders are rarely static.

However we must recognize the Pakistan border does sit on approximatly natural dividing line - it could have been few miles mpore east but that is how it is.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> University of Chicago website at dsal uni chicago


Link please?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Hassan Guy

wiseone2 said:


> But they are less than 15% of Pakistan's population.


More like 30-40%

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

Hassan Guy said:


> More like 30-40%



From Wikipedia
Punjabi 45%
Sindhi 14%
Saraiki 8%
Mohajhir 8%

Pashtun 15%
Balochi 3.5%


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Kaptaan said:


> Link please?



dsal dot uchicago dot edu/
dsal dot uchicago dot edu/maps/
dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/


The Gurjara-Pratiharas vs Gurjaras confusion map

dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=068



Please replace the "dots" with their symbolic forms and cancel the spaces. Being a new user I cannot post links...But do take a look at the website..it is a veritable treasure trove of historical, racial and demographic data and best of all it is thoroughly well researched and academic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

Good to see there are Indians that admit Pakistan and India are vastly different in culture, ethnicities, and in everything else.

This is good news at last!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> From Wikipedia
> Punjabi 45%
> Sindhi 14%
> Saraiki 8%
> Mohajhir 8%
> 
> Pashtun 15%
> Balochi 3.5%


Do not base your information off of Wikipedia.

In Pakistan we don't do ethnicity census. If you are a Baloch living in Punjab, you are considered a Punjabi. Just to give you a little example, there are around 7 million Pashtuns in *Karachi* alone; all of them are marked as Sindhis.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## wiseone2

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Do not base your information off of Wikipedia.
> 
> In Pakistan we don't do ethnicity census. If you are a Baloch living in Punjab, you are considered a Punjabi. Just to give you a little example, there are around 7 million Pashtuns in *Karachi* alone; all of them are marked as Sindhis.



wikipedia breakdown is by languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Pakistan


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Please replace the "dots" with their symbolic forms and cancel the spaces. Being a new user I cannot post links...But do take a look at the website..it is a veritable treasure trove of historical, racial and demographic data and best of all it is thoroughly well researched and academic.


I will and thanks. Give feedback after I have digested the contents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Lol!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> t the current time there is little in Pakistani culture that is not there in Indian culture in some variant or form


What is the Dravidian component of your population? It has nothing to do with us. Nothing. I only groups I see similarity to is Sikhs. Contrarily Dravidians zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> From Wikipedia
> Punjabi 45%
> Sindhi 14%
> Saraiki 8%
> Mohajhir 8%
> 
> Pashtun 15%
> Balochi 3.5%


That's absolute bullshyt.

Do you know why?

Coz censuses are done on the basis of population not ethnicity in Pak.

Panjab is diverse AF in Pak.

In south you find Pashtuns and Baloch in large numbers.

Sindh again has a large percentage of Baloch population.. apart from having millions of pashtuns... (there are more Pashtuns in Karachi than kabul or Peshawar).

And KPK alone has more population than entire Afghanistan where pashtuns constitute around 40% give or take.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Kaptaan said:


> I will and thanks. Give feedback after I have digested the contents.



another resource you might be interested in is the University of Vienna website

They have various maps regarding the expansions of the Huns and Western Turks (the Pre-Islamics) into South-Central Asia and the subcontinent (Time-span being between 300-1000 AD)

pro dot geo dot univie dot ac dot at/projects/khm/showcases?language=en
pro dot geo dot univie dot ac dot at/projects/khm/?language=en

Again please do replace the "dots" with their symbolic counterparts and ignore the spaces

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Dravidians
Adivasis
Dalits
Munda
Austro-Asiatics
Tibeto- Burmans

I suspect this group [above] numbers over *400 million* in India. Get rid of them India and then we will sit and talk about being "*same*". Until then shove it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Kaptaan said:


> Dravidians
> Adivasis
> Dalits
> Munda
> Austro-Asiatics
> Tibeto- Burmans
> 
> I suspect this group [above] numbers over *400 million* in India. Get rid of them India and then we will sit and talk about being "*same*". Until then shove it.


Excellent point. We have nothing to do with India.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> wikipedia breakdown is by languages
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Pakistan


Its called assimilation.

In southern Panjab.. entire baloch tribes reside like the Mazaris,Lasharis,Buzdar and so on.. and although they follow the baloch culture.. they speak seriki.
(Although the Baloch population living in areas bordering balochistan are also bilingual)
The Pashtun Sadozais,Khakwanis,Babars etc of southern Panjab again speak seriki.

The Baloch of Sindh are also bilingual or assimilated into sindhi culture.
The Talpur dynasties and others who once ruled now speak Sindhi.. and so do other baloch tribes.

So Pakistan .. specifically panjab and sindh are melting pots of different races and cultures.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## wiseone2

Kaptaan said:


> What is the Dravidian component of your population? It has nothing to do with us. Nothing. I only groups I see similarity to is Sikhs. Contrarily Dravidians zero.



Dravidian as a language is 20% (mainly South Indian langauges)
Dravidian as a race (dark skinned people) - about the same. may be a little more 25-30%

The only problem is that Southern India is becoming mighty prosperous for you to ignore



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> That's absolute bullshyt.
> 
> Do you know why?
> 
> Coz censuses are done on the basis of population not ethnicity in Pak.
> 
> Panjab is diverse AF in Pak.
> 
> In south you find Pashtuns and Baloch in large numbers.
> 
> Sindh again has a large percentage of Baloch population.. apart from having millions of pashtuns... (there are more Pashtuns in Karachi than kabul or Peshawar).
> 
> And KPK alone has more population than entire Afghanistan where pashtuns constitute around 40% give or take.



Afghanistan has more people than KPK


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> Dravidian as a language is 20% (mainly South Indian langauges)
> Dravidian as a race (dark skinned people) - about the same. may be a little more 25-30%
> 
> The only problem is that Southern India is becoming mighty prosperous for you to ignore



My man... even sikhs make fun of your "north indians" from UP,Bihar etc... showing them as inferior,funny language speaking kammis,servants .. in their movies.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Indians have to understand that if they want to get united with Pakistan, they will have to say goodbye to Ladakh, whole of North-East sans Assam, South India...

They may gain Nepal,Bangladesh in the process
Nepalis especially the Indo-Aryan ones,only want to associate themselves with the fairer and sharper looking of Indians like Kashmiri Pandits,Kumaons,Rajputs and likes

and Pakistan would also then face a split with its Western Provinces and Gilgit Baltistan....(People from those provinces would not want to be associated with ethnicities further east due to huge disparity in looks)


All in All it would be a lose -lose situation in terms of looks and geo strategic reach for Pakistan
It would be a lose-lose situation in terms of GDP loss and mountainous territory loss for India


In short, It's not Happening..and the sooner many Indians give up the dream of Akhand Bharat (Historical reality only once for 120 years in 2,500 years documented history) the more conducive the neighbourhood situation would be, as many Pakistanis are wary of the claims of Akhand Bharat ....Both nations should be happy to have vast,diverse but still somewhat coherent Nation-states for themselves

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> Dravidian as a language is 20% (mainly South Indian langauges)
> Dravidian as a race (dark skinned people) - about the same. may be a little more 25-30%
> 
> The only problem is that Southern India is becoming mighty prosperous for you to ignore
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan has more people than KPK


Lmao.

As for the initial census report KPK has a population of over 40+ million.

Afghanistans population is around 36 mollion or so.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Indians have to understand that if they want to get united with Pakistan, they will have to say goodbye to Ladakh, whole of North-East sans Assam, South India...
> 
> They may gain Nepal,Bangladesh in the process
> Nepalis especially the Indo-Aryan ones,only want to associate themselves with the fairer and sharper looking of Indians like Kashmiri Pandits,Kumaons,Rajputs and likes
> 
> and Pakistan would also then face a split with its Western Provinces and Gilgit Baltistan....(People from those provinces would not want to be associated with ethnicities further east due to huge disparity in looks)
> 
> 
> All in All it would be a lose -lose situation in terms of looks and geo strategic reach for Pakistan
> It would be a lose-lose situation in terms of GDP loss and mountainous territory loss for India
> 
> 
> In short, It's not Happening..and the sooner many Indians give up the dream of Akhand Bharat (Historical reality only once for 120 years in 2,500 years documented history) the more conducive the neighbourhood situation would be, as many Pakistanis are wary of the claims of Akhand Bharat ....Both nations should be happy to have vast,diverse but still somewhat coherent Nation-states for themselves


Absolutely... balochistan,KPK,GB would demand to be seperate states than merge with india.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

Our similarities with Indians are shallow but our differences are deep and these are bound to get deeper with time. If we accept this reality (especially Indians), we may be able to live like good neighbours who do not need to be similar. We are Pakistani, we are majority Muslim and we have a lot more common with middle-eastern and central asian cultures and races than India but it shouldn't stop us being good friends like most of the EU nations are today.

We Pakistanis share some similarities with a minority in India (some north-western Indian people). The majority of Indians (South-eastern Indians) have nothing common with us except we both are human beings are sharing the same planet. The tribes in Amazon might have more similarities with south-eastern Indians than we have with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wiseone2 said:


> Dravidian as a language is 20% (mainly South Indian langauges)
> Dravidian as a race (dark skinned people) - about the same. may be a little more 25-30%
> 
> The only problem is that Southern India is becoming mighty prosperous for you to ignore
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan has more people than KPK


And KPK was 15% of Paks population in 2006-7. Which itself meant 25 mil population.

Not counting FATA or the Pashtun belt of Balochistan and Panjab. Or the millions of Pashtuns living in sindh.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Okay I think at best I would concede that the demography in Pakistan as a whole has significant overarching aspects with Indians living in westerly states. If India can *divide* herself like [below] this I think we can certainly sit down and talk "same".









or how about a Tibeto-Burman and Dravidian zones partitioned from India? Any takers? @wiseone2







You see I find it hilarious how Indians take the *knife* out and start *dividing* our people along *ethnic* lines. But hey let's take the knife out of their hands and* turn* it on India and see how they* like* their Dravids, Austrolids, Tibeto-Burmans get *sliced *and diced from their Indo-Aryan speakers? Boot on *their* feet feel nice?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Alternate Reality (Donot take it seriously)......It's another way of organizing 7-8 political entities

Main point is as said earlier, Looks more than economics is the biggest deciding factor in identity..and quite frankly there are many who think , any sort of unification will bring wide disparities in looks that is unsustainable in the long run.....There is natural logic behind the Indo-Pak division even without the Hinduism-Islam dichotomy

Ladakh----------------------------Independent like Bhutan
Bhutan---------------------------Independent as this reality
Indo-Aryan Land----------------North India,Bangladesh,Nepal,Pakistani Punjab,Sindh,Islamabad,Hazara,AK
North-West Belt country--------Balochistan,NWFP,FATA,Gilgit Baltistan
North-East Belt country---------Arunachal,Nagaland,Manipur,Mizoram,part Tripura,Bodo,Meghalaya,Chittagong Hill tract and Port (cannot be landlocked)
Deccan Land--------------------South India but Goa stays in the North 
Sri-Lanka-----------------------Stays Sri Lanka
Maldives------------------------stays Maldives
Nepal---------------------------merges with Indo-Aryan Land


----------



## ashok mourya

war&peace said:


> Our similarities with Indians are shallow but our differences are deeper and these are bound to get deeper with time. If we accept this reality (especially Indians), we may be able to live like good neighbours who do not need to be similar. We are Pakistani, we are majority Muslim and we have a lot more common with middle-eastern and central asian cultures and races than India but it shouldn't stop us being good friends like most of the EU nations are today.
> 
> We Pakistanis share some similarities with a minority in India (some north-western Indian people). The majority of Indians (South-eastern Indians) have nothing common with us except we both are human beings are sharing the same planet. The tribes in Amazon might have more similarities with south-eastern Indians than we have with them.


Can you elaborate which similarities Pakistanis have with middle eastern countries in terms of race except religion.


----------



## ito

I am surprised by this debate so often discussed on PDF. How does it matter now? 1947, we choose to go different. Our destiny are different. Move on.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jetray

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Great to see more and more Indians admitting it. We are two different peoples, even though we share similarities in culture due to partition era migration and centuries of Mughal/British rule. Pakistanis are a distinct people, with a distinct heritage, culture, history, practices, beliefs and etc... different from Indians.



Some false flag posts and responds to his own comment.
then you concluded that Indians are admitting it !!!

Why 1600 years make it 5000 years , say indus valley ppl were wearing burqa and close the case once for all.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

ashok mourya said:


> Can you elaborate which similarities Pakistanis have with middle eastern countries in terms of race except religion.




Most of North India only got a single pulse of Indo-European admixture---the Indo-Aryans 
Most of Eastern Pakistan got admixture from Persians,Greeks,Scythians,Kushanas,Wusuns,Yuezhis,Alchon Huns,Nezak Huns,Kidarites, Hepthalites on top of the earliest Aryan admixture..This is discounting the later Islamic nomadic admixtures ..I am focussing on purely pre-Islamic times 


only some parts of Western India got the Scythian and Hunnic admixture....but even then not at the same level as Eastern Pakistan...

Western Pakistan is of course the Direct descendant of Nomadic tribes 


As you go from Bangladesh to Eastern Pakistan, there is gradual change in the median look in terms of sharpness of facial features, skin colour, acquiliníty of nose, shoulder width

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jetray

ito said:


> I am surprised by this debate so often discussed on PDF. How does it matter now? 1947, we choose to go different. Our destiny are different. Move on.


confused ppl who belong now where keep searching for who they are.
Its like eternal philosophical search for origin of universe and ones own existence.

I bet solution for universe will be available when we meet alien life after 1000 years but the pakistan conundrum will continue.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ito

ashok mourya said:


> Can you elaborate which similarities Pakistanis have with middle eastern countries in terms of race except religion.



Majority of Pakistanis claim that they have Arab ancestry who came from Arab world. And they ruled Hindus for 1000 years. Anyway does it matter now?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kaykay

ito said:


> I am surprised by this debate so often discussed on PDF. How does it matter now? 1947, we choose to go different. Our destiny are different. Move on.


Exactly. What happened in 1947 was probably the best thing for India.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## war&peace

ashok mourya said:


> Can you elaborate which similarities Pakistanis have with middle eastern countries in terms of race except religion.


Islam is not simply a religion but a way of living thus it affects everything...dress, food, manners, habits, heroes, etc. in addition to, a lot of Arab and other lineages are mixed.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

jetray said:


> Some false flag posts and responds to his own comment.
> then you concluded that Indians are admitting it !!!
> 
> Why 1600 years make it 5000 years , say indus valley ppl were wearing burqa and close the case once for all.




nope it was not 5,000 years as during that time the desert didnot form...Indus Valley and Western India formed a single coherent unit then......but as the desert and the salt flats started forming, the seperation between Indus Valley and Western India widened....in the Southern sector the seperation was geographical..in the Northern sector the seperation was political as Jalandhar-Sialkot belt formed the borders between Indic empires and Nomadic empires (or empires created by recently settled nomads). These are all pre-Islamic history I am pointing to


----------



## ito

jetray said:


> confused ppl who belong now where keep searching for who they are.
> Its like eternal philosophical search for origin of universe and ones own existence.



I too get amused that there are many in Pakistan who even now debate over their orgins. Just look at the first three posts, they don't even agree over their own orgins. Each of them have different theories about their orgins. Anyway, I find it odd when many Indians here try to convince Pakistanis that they are the people of this land.



kaykay said:


> Exactly. What happened in 1947 was probably the best thing for India.



The mods should ban this discussion. The same arguments and counter argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

ito said:


> The mods should ban this discussion. The same arguments and counter argument.



This post was not a frivolous exercise but a strictly academic one focussing on the pre-Islamic times..........

It was done in response to various posts of @Kaptaan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ito

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> This post was not a frivolous exercise but a strictly academic one focussing on the pre-Islamic times



History is not a forte of people here. You should take the discussion to some history forum. Not in Pakistan Defence Forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

ito said:


> History is not a forte of people here. You should take the discussion to some history forum. Not in Pakistan Defence Forum.




The discussion that has been happening here has been quite informative. and Pakistanis are as much stakeholders in this discussion as Indians. They are poorly represented in forums such as Historum


Moreover some discussions that other forums are loathe to undertake such as phenotype differences, can happen here..Phenotype discussions are not encouraged in History forums and are only tolerated in HBD forums

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

jetray said:


> Some false flag posts and responds to his own comment.
> then you concluded that Indians are admitting it !!!
> 
> Why 1600 years make it 5000 years , say indus valley ppl were wearing burqa and close the case once for all.


You must be frustrated right now.

You cannot even claim Indus Valley Civilization

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ito said:


> Majority of Pakistanis claim that they have Arab ancestry who came from Arab world. And they ruled Hindus for 1000 years. Anyway does it matter now?


Hey as&hole...
Can you tag 2 such arab wannabe members on this forum?

If not... shove your expert opinion up ur as&... u lik douche.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## ito

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Hey as&hole...
> Can you tag 2 such arab wannabe members on this forum?
> 
> If not... shove your expert opinion up ur as&... u lik douche.



Hey as&hole, can you stop quoting me. If not shove something in your as& and keep quite...you douche.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

ito said:


> Majority of Pakistanis claim that they have Arab ancestry who came from Arab world. And they ruled Hindus for 1000 years. Anyway does it matter now?


Haha, is that what they teach you there?


----------



## MultaniGuy

We Pakistanis have nothing to do with India.

We have completely different cultures, habits, foods, ethnicities, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ito

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Haha, is that what they teach you there?



That is what I learned from esteemed Pakistanis here. That they ruled Hindus for 1000 years.


----------



## wiseone2

Kaptaan said:


> Okay I think at best I would concede that the demography in Pakistan as a whole has significant overarching aspects with Indians living in westerly states. If India can *divide* herself like [below] this I think we can certainly sit down and talk "same".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or how about a Tibeto-Burman and Dravidian zones partitioned from India? Any takers? @wiseone2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see I find it hilarious how Indians take the *knife* out and start *dividing* our people along *ethnic* lines. But hey let's take the knife out of their hands and* turn* it on India and see how they* like* their Dravids, Austrolids, Tibeto-Burmans get *sliced *and diced from their Indo-Aryan speakers? Boot on *their* feet feel nice?



it is not arbitrary division. it is gradual sliding scale. The divisions are real. FYI there are no Australoids.

What would Pathans in KPK and Mohajhirs in urban Sind have in common beyond religion ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

wiseone2 said:


> it is not arbitrary division. it is gradual sliding scale. The divisions are real. FYI there are no Australoids.
> 
> What would Pathans in KPK and Mohajhirs in urban Sind have in common beyond religion ?


The Muhajirs have integrated into Pakistani society.

They are no longer Muhajirs but they are now Sindhis, Punjabis, Pathans, and Baloch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

war&peace said:


> Our similarities with Indians are shallow but our differences are deeper and these are bound to get deeper with time. If we accept this reality (especially Indians), we may be able to live like good neighbours who do not need to be similar. We are Pakistani, we are majority Muslim and we have a lot more common with middle-eastern and central asian cultures and races than India but it shouldn't stop us being good friends like most of the EU nations are today.
> 
> We Pakistanis share some similarities with a minority in India (some north-western Indian people). The majority of Indians (South-eastern Indians) have nothing common with us except we both are human beings are sharing the same planet. The tribes in Amazon might have more similarities with south-eastern Indians than we have with them.



It does not matter how much similarities you perceive with a Gulf Arab. If they are not going to accept you there lies in Pakistan's problem



Iqbal Ali said:


> The Muhajirs have integrated into Pakistani society.
> 
> They are no longer Muhajirs but they are now Sindhis, Punjabis, Pathans, and Baloch.


In Punjab they have been assimilated. I do not get that sense in Urban Sind. Why does the MQM even exist in Sind ?


----------



## MultaniGuy

wiseone2 said:


> It does not matter how much similarities you perceive with a Gulf Arab. If they are not going to accept you there lies in Pakistan's problem
> 
> 
> In Punjab they have been assimilated. I do not get that sense in Urban Sind. Why does the MQM even exist in Sind ?


MQM is justa political party. It should be banned.

All Muhajirs have been assimilated in Pakistan.

In Pakistan everyone speaks Urdu.


----------



## EndangeredSpecies

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._





> *The India Pakistan geographical divide is at least 1600 years old*



Let me try to understand what you are suggesting. Do you mean that India-Pak 'boundary' or divide is a geographical one? as in Physical Geography?

Or do you mean it is 'Political' one? As in those ones drawn between empires and communities?

Your title states the former while your 'main point' suggests it is later. Though I am more inclined to believe that you are suggesting it is a political one.


----------



## wiseone2

Iqbal Ali said:


> MQM is justa political party. It should be banned.
> 
> All Muhajirs have been assimilated in Pakistan.
> 
> In Pakistan everyone speaks Urdu.


if you say so


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

EndangeredSpecies said:


> Let me try to understand what you are suggesting. Do you mean that India-Pak 'boundary' or divide is a geographical one? as in Physical Geography?
> 
> Or do you mean it is 'Political' one? As in those ones drawn between empires and communities?
> 
> Your title states the former while your 'main point' suggests it is later.




The South there formed a physical boundary post-Indus Valley with the formation of Thar desert and the Salt Flats of Kutch..In the North ,various Indic empires were only able to extend to the Jalandhar-Sialkot belt, before being checked in by nomadic empires or empires of recently settled nomads....This happened even during the reign of the most powerful Indic empire in History--The Guptas....This situation repeated around 4-5 times in the Post-Mauryan Pre-Islamic times

The border between India and Pakistan reflects this ancient pre-Islamic border


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> it is not arbitrary division. it is gradual sliding scale. The divisions are real. FYI there are no Australoids.
> 
> What would Pathans in KPK and Mohajhirs in urban Sind have in common beyond religion ?


We Pakistanis all share the same genetic cluster and have cultural similarities.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## EndangeredSpecies

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The South there formed a physical boundary post-Indus Valley with the formation of Thar desert and the Salt Flats of Kutch.


Point #1.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> In the North ,various Indic empires were only able to extend to the Jalandhar-Sialkot belt, before being checked in by nomadic empires or empires of recently settled nomads....This happened even during the reign of the most powerful Indic empire in History--The Guptas....This situation repeated around 4-5 times in the Post-Mauryan Pre-Islamic times


Point #2.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The border between India and Pakistan reflects this ancient pre-Islamic border


So you mean the present India-Pakistan border is along the two lines.

The southern India - Pakistan border is defined by a physical divide / boundary along Thar and Salt Flats of Kutch which were formed after Indus Valley period (Point #1)

AND

The northern border is along the lines of multiple Post-Mauryan empires who never went beyond Sialkot and remained to the east of Indus river, checked by relatively recent settler in west of Indus who were nomadic folks. (Point #2)

By the way from your description it appears you are also taking the period of empires which is post Mauryan and Pre Islamic / Arabic Invasion for point #2. You are using this period and empires of that time to suggest the basis of modern day India - Pakistan border in the north. Is it correct?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Radio Mirchi

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-arrived Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan *
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. *
> 
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked


I wish you knew the difference between a geographical boundary and a political boundary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

EndangeredSpecies said:


> Point #1.
> 
> 
> Point #2.
> 
> 
> So you mean the present India-Pakistan border is along the two lines.
> 
> The southern India - Pakistan border is defined by a physical divide / boundary along Thar and Salt Flats of Kutch which were formed after Indus Valley period (Point #1)
> 
> AND
> 
> The northern border is along the lines of multiple Post-Mauryan empires who never went beyond Sialkot and remained to the east of Indus river, checked by relatively recent settler in west of Indus who were nomadic folks. (Point #2)



you have summarized it well but some major holes
They never went beyond Chenab...Big Difference compared to Indus....and the Post Mauryan Empires only extended as a small triangular incision beyond Jalandhar/Sutlej. This small triangular incision would include prsent day Lahore,Sialkot and in some cases Gujarat,Punjab. So post-Mauryan empires held to maxx 2-3% of Pakistani territory even in best of times


West of Indus------------------------Always Nomadic Folks or more correctly Horse-breeders
East of Indus but west of Sutlej-------waves of Nomadic Folks who would take up Agriculture
East of Sutlej------------------------Proper Indo-Aryan territory where Brahmanism held sway


Yes the history of the subcontinent after the Mauryas and before the invasions of the Islamic Turkic invaders give us enough hint, that the Indus Valley region was devolving to form its own geopolitical identity even without the added factor of Islam. (I am talking of a period of roughly 1200 years when the Indus Valley region seperated itself from rest of the subcontinent)

The fierce wars between the Durranis and Marathas in the 18th century in the wake of the Gurkani collapse was nothing but a reversion to this pre-Islamic delineation between Indus and rest of the subcontinent


The Marathas were driven away from Peshawar and rest of the Indus Area, but later in turn the Durranis had to retreat west of Sutlej.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.



There was no religion called Hinduism before the advent of Sankaracharya.

There was no religion called Brahmanism.

All Indo-Iranians worshiped Vedic gods like Indra, Agni, Varuna, Maruts, Mitra, Ashvins, Surya, Prithvi, Vinshnu, Rudra etc. at least from 1700 BCE or earlier . Note that Vedic gods were invoked in the the treaties between Hittites and Mittani indicating that the Vedic kingdoms' geographical boundaries extended all the way to current day Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

Last stages of Rig Veda led to prominence of Vaishnavism and Shaivism in the Indian subcontinent while Zoroastrianism picked up on the Iranian side around 1000 BCE.

Even though Buddha lived around 500 BCE, Buddhism as religion was not popularized and patronized until the Kalinga war around 250 BCE. Emperor Ashoka was solely responsible for the propagation of Buddhism both in the subcontinent as well as in Central Asia and South East Asia while Sankaracharya united Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Buddhism, Jainism in Indian subcontinent to confront Islam around 800 CE.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Brahmanism is any religious rite that reveres the Four Vedas. Indic rites that totally deny any authority to the Vedas are Naastika rites, chief among them being Buddhism,Jainism,Ajivika,Charvaka/Lokayata..The last can be likened to modern scientific materialism


----------



## Mian Babban

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India.


Its speculated that Abdalis might have some thing to do with Hepthalites/Ephthalites just because the names sound somewhat similar. But its *not established *that Abdalis are descendants of Hepthalites. The proved descendants of Hepthalites in Afghanistan were Khalj Turks who were allied with Afghans/Pashtuns (Note: Khalj Turks had nothing to do with Ghilzai Afghans). Abdalis on the other hand are lineage-wise purest Afghans and not assimilated ones. So Abdali invasion of India was not a replay of fights between Gupta empire and "Hunas" (note Hepthalites i.e White Huns were not your typical Huns but were Caucasoid Iranic people). Ahmad Shah Abdali's invasions of India were merely part of his master Nadir Shah's legacy. Ahmad Shah Abdali claimed Punjab and Sindh as successor of Nadir Shah.




> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire



Nope, Pakistan is not successor of Durrani empire. Durrani empire was "Kandahar Shahi" government during the reign of Ahmad Shah Abdali and then it was "Kabul Shahi" government during the reign of all other Saddozai and Barakzai kings. Sure modern Pakistan was part of Durani empire but keep in mind that big chunks of Iran (Khorasan , Seistan and Kirman) were also parts of Durrani empire , so was Tajikistan. Neither Pakistan nor Iran is successor of Durrani empire. Pakistan is successor of Sikh empire of Ranjeet Singh as their seat was Lahore of present-day Pakistan and their government was "Lahore Shahi"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## StraightShooter

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Brahmanism is any religious rite that reveres the Four Vedas. Indic rites that totally deny any authority to the Vedas are Naastika rites, chief among them being Buddhism,Jainism,Ajivika,Charvaka/Lokayata..The last can be likened to modern scientific materialism



True but philosophically Buddhism & Jainism are very close to Upanishads (decedents of Vedas) though atheistic in thought. Also, Buddhism was simplified like doing away with varnas or rituals to suit the propagation across various lands which did not have the same history of Indo-Iranians.


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Lol. A big lol. I couldnt even comprehend what this try to tell. Probably false flags and Pakistanis are jumping "Indians" have accepted. 

Accepted what? 

You have moved on the basis of religion, while teaching lies to ur kids in Pakistan reg ur history. We do not know who lived in IVC. What language they spoke. What we ever know was Pak- Af region had Hindu- Buddhist population which was converted (forced as well as by own will). So what we had is perhaps common ancestors. And that "we" may include NW India with Pak-AF region on the basis of race etc. 

So what holds the rest of India together which you guys refuse to acknowledge? The whole region was called Bharat/Bharata under King Bharat. That's one story. He may or may not have lived. But that's how "we" used to call ourselves. From North to South even though divided to different kingdoms. 
Now some people after changing religions, and after few centuries. I am different cos I follow Islam. That's one of the stupidiest arguement one can make. 

And I thank Jinnah for creating Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Mian Babban said:


> Its speculated that Abdalis might have some thing to do with Hepthalites/Ephthalites just because the names sound somewhat similar. But its *not established *that Abdalis are descendants of Hepthalites. The proved descendants of Hepthalites in Afghanistan were Khalj Turks who were allied with Afghans/Pashtuns (Note: Khalj Turks had nothing to do with Ghilzai Afghans). Abdalis on the other hand are lineage-wise purest Afghans and not assimilated ones. So Abdali invasion of India was not a replay of fights between Gupta empire and "Hunas" (note Hepthalites i.e White Huns were not your typical Huns but were Caucasoid Iranic people). Ahmad Shah Abdali's invasions of India were merely part of his master Nadir Shah's legacy. Ahmad Shah Abdali claimed Punjab and Sindh as successor of Nadir Shah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Pakistan is not successor of Durrani empire. Durrani empire was "Kandahar Shahi" government during the reign of Ahmad Shah Abdali and then it was "Kabul Shahi" government during the reign of all other Saddozai and Barakzai kings. Sure modern Pakistan was part of Durani empire but keep in mind that big chunks of Iran (Khorasan , Seistan and Kirman) were also parts of Durrani empire , so was Tajikistan. Neither Pakistan nor Iran is successor of Durrani empire. Pakistan is successor of Sikh empire of Ranjeet Singh as their seat was Lahore of present-day Pakistan and their government was "Lahore Shahi"




Is there anyway to characterize Pakistan as the major remnant state of the Mughals/Gurkanis? Is not the Republic of India as deserving of the legacy of the Sikh Empire as Pakistan? Thank you for a fresh perspective

Yes the Hunas that invaded the subcontinent were different in look compared to the ones who attacked the West..Indians call them Shveta Hunas because of their whte skin and Byzantine historians noted that they were quite good looking with white bodies...


I am hazarding a guess that though the White Hun confederates were fair skinned caucasoids, they spoke a proto-Turkic language? I mean all of them sported Tamga sigils and Tamga flags


@Rajaraja Chola King Bharata is enitrely mythical. Please give examples of Akhand Bharat under Indic Kings in the historical era....(except the single example of the Mauryas already mentioned countless times in this thread)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. *



It is not so simple. How do explain the Buddhist temples in the subcontinent like ellora and Hindus temples in south east asia like angkor wat?

You also need to consider that vedic idols have been found in Russia's Volga region, invoking of Vedic gods in treaties of kings and horse training manuals in Mesopotamian region and closeness of Sanskrit & Russian/Slavic languages.

http://vedic.su/Vedic/tur/IndiaRussia_Rishi_OCR.pdf


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Buddhism spread everyhere independent of Indo-Aryan expansion..though there were some exapansion of Hindus from Southern India to South East Asia. e.g. Satavahanas


The Mitanni treaty were Indo-Aryans who migrated to modern Iraq from Afghanistan

the Indo-Iranian split (pre 2000 BC) happened way before the composition of the Vedas..The Asuras of Vedas are venerated in Zoroastrianism...there was an inversion of the Vedic religion in the Iranian branch



You have to show me that there is a consensus of among Historians that the Vedic religion as defined by the Vedas, was followed in Russia. A single Indian linguist doesnot pass the muster..where is the corresponding wikipedia article..



And a distinction should be made between the wider Indo-European trunk and the very distinct Indo-Aryan branch and the corresponding Vedic religion..Vedic religion was formed post 1500 BC ....The Rig Veda was composed in modern-day Punjab and NWFP region .----they may have had some sort of link to the BMAC complex though...But then again that's not Russia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> We Pakistanis all share the same genetic cluster and have cultural similarities.



how come Mohajhirs are not a separate group ?



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> you have summarized it well but some major holes
> They never went beyond Chenab...Big Difference compared to Indus....and the Post Mauryan Empires only extended as a small triangular incision beyond Jalandhar/Sutlej. This small triangular incision would include prsent day Lahore,Sialkot and in some cases Gujarat,Punjab. So post-Mauryan empires held to maxx 2-3% of Pakistani territory even in best of times



The Gupta empire ruled the Indus valley. Most of the Muslim kings from Delhi ruled Punjab. A few had Sind, Peshwar and Baluchistan under their rule.

One can argue the ruler of Punjab never ruled Baluchistan for most of history.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The fierce wars between the Durranis and Marathas in the 18th century in the wake of the Gurkani collapse was nothing but a reversion to this pre-Islamic delineation between Indus and rest of the subcontinent
> 
> The Marathas were driven away from Peshawar and rest of the Indus Area, but later in turn the Durranis had to retreat west of Sutlej.



The fact Marathas did not cross the Sutlej had nothing to do with Hindu-Muslim divide. Ranjit Singh the Sikh ruler went all the way upto Peshwar. Without Ranjit Singh there is a good chance Peshwar is under Afghan rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mian Babban

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The Marathas were driven away from Peshawar and rest of the Indus Area, but later in turn the Durranis had to retreat west of Sutlej.


Marathas did not cross river Indus and did not enter Peshawar valley. In fact they did not establish any authority in Sind-Sagar doab (tract of land between river Indus and river Jehlum) and their penetration into Sind-Sagar doab was nothing more than a raid.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ashok mourya

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Most of North India only got a single pulse of Indo-European admixture---the Indo-Aryans
> Most of Eastern Pakistan got admixture from Persians,Greeks,Scythians,Kushanas,Wusuns,Yuezhis,Alchon Huns,Nezak Huns,Kidarites, Hepthalites on top of the earliest Aryan admixture..This is discounting the later Islamic nomadic admixtures ..I am focussing on purely pre-Islamic times
> 
> 
> only some parts of Western India got the Scythian and Hunnic admixture....but even then not at the same level as Eastern Pakistan...
> 
> Western Pakistan is of course the Direct descendant of Nomadic tribes
> 
> 
> As you go from Bangladesh to Eastern Pakistan, there is gradual change in the median look in terms of sharpness of facial features, skin colour, acquiliníty of nose, shoulder width


I am asking about race similarity between Pakistanis and Arabs..???


----------



## jetray

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> You must be frustrated right now.
> 
> You cannot even claim Indus Valley Civilization


world knows who is who and we dont need any certificates. Barbaric invaders looted our lands but they cannot claim to own our rich culture and legacy. Any one who does it only becomes the laughing stock of the world. Delusional self serving discussions on PDF are only for trolls not for serious consumption. 
Even your arab brothers wont associate indus valley with pakistan.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ito said:


> Hey as&hole, can you stop quoting me. If not shove something in your as& and keep quite...you douche.


Why shyt face? Has ur arseholiness stopped making claims outta ur Vedic choot ka surakh.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Mian Babban said:


> Marathas did not cross river Indus and did not enter Peshawar valley. In fact they did not establish any authority in Sind-Sagar doab (tract of land between river Indus and river Jehlum) and their penetration into Sind-Sagar doab was nothing more than a raid.




The wikipedia has two battles ..One listed as Battle of Peshawar 8th May,1758..another as Battle of Attock, 28th April , 1758....But all reputable maps from the British show their administration extending only till east Bank of Sutlej in 1760


----------



## Kabira

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> If Gurjaras and Gurjara-Pratiharas are two completely distinct entities, then you are right.



Yes I believe Gurjara-Pratiharas and nomadic gujjars of northen Pakistan and punjab are two different entities. Gurjara-pratiharas were rajputs, brahmins ruling class of present day Indian Gujarat/Rajasthan. While nomadic gujjars in north Pakistan and punjab are cattle herders and Gujrat and Gujranwala in punjab are named after them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Why you guys give a shit about this? India can go to hell.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

ashok mourya said:


> I am asking about race similarity between Pakistanis and Arabs..???



Some parts of the erstwhile ruling nobility of Sindh and Bahawalpur bound to have heavy Arab blood. To be fair, Pakistanis never play up Arab ancestry, but rather point out to their much heavier Indo-European ancestry compared to Indians. It is Indians who mistake these Central Asian races listed as Arabs. Many Indians are under the false impression that Ghaznis,Ghoris,Lodhis and Mughals are Arabs. The level of historical literacy among modern day Indians has gone down the drain, failing to distinguish between pseudo-history, fantasy of the epics and real life events...Although the generation of Indians who hit their teenage years before 1947 were historically much more literate. Part of this has to do with the fact that the British were very exacting when it came to wielding the Historical Method and part of it also has to do with the erstwhile presence of the Central Asian races in the big cities of British India.


You donot see somebody bringing in the same Historical perspective for India as say somebody like @Mian Babban or @Kaptaan brings for the North West. This is a reflection of the terrible lack of enthusiasm for history among the Indian populace, which is also evidenced in real life


----------



## XDescendantX

These are the countries we are descended from and mixed with. Therefore we should unite as one country. Automatic super power!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

This has been discussed to death. Point is that the differences between Pakistanis and indians is far greater than any similarities. Proving anything else is neither here nor there. The gulf of difference between Pakistanis and indians is already unbridgeable and is only going to get bigger. india is moving in a completely different direction to us wheras Pakistan's destiny and future lie with China, Turkey and to a lesser extent the Muslims nations to the West of us. As the older generation die out, so dies indian influence in Pakistan. That is the reality. Proving or disproving history is irrelevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Tesky said:


> Yes I believe Gurjara-Pratiharas and nomadic gujjars of northen Pakistan and punjab are two different entities. Gurjara-pratiharas were rajputs, brahmins ruling class of present day Indian Gujarat/Rajasthan. While nomadic gujjars in north Pakistan and punjab are cattle herders and Gujrat and Gujranwala in punjab are named after them.




take a look at this map...replace the dots with the symbols and tell me what you think...This is as granular as my Knowledge is going to get regarding the Gurjara vs Gurjara Pratihara confusion..the time period is between 700-975 AD...before the invasions of Ghazni...

dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=068


I recommended the University of Chicago map vault to @Kaptaan too, and he promised to provide his own take after going through everything

dsal dot uchicago dot edu/maps/

dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/





Pakistanis should have the patience to explain to Indians that Central Asian nomadic races which settled down in the Indus Valley both in pre and post-Islamic times are NOT Arabs...Vigorous education will reduce the wilful ignorance and trolling.. I am frustrated myself with the ignorance of history by modern Indians ..(was not the case with my Grandfather's generation)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I recommended the University of Chicago map vault


Thanks. It's a *treasure* trove of info. I am slowly going through it. Lot of it is from 1970s and that is very important. The reason is that before 1980s most academic sources in English were written or prepared by *non* South Asians. I am not suggesting non South Asian are better but they don't bring bias into the subject unlike Pak/Indians. No doubt there is always going to be some bias but Paks/Indians just take it to another level. That is why Wiki sources are waste of time. Whereas most of pre 1990s work is free from armies of internet Hindutva warriors.

Here is the link > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/pager.html?object=058

@Juggernaut_is_here Why do I get a feeling you are a alter-ego of a established PDF Indian member?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xyxmt

wiseone2 said:


> Our history is too complicated to be broken down in a simple sense. The main thing to understand is that India is a composite culture. At the current time there is little in Pakistani culture that is not there in Indian culture in some variant or form. Maybe Pusthuns and Baluchis have cultural things India does not have. But they are less than 15% of Pakistan's population.
> 
> I see Pakistan developing its unique identity in the next 50-100 years. I could not say if it is for the better or the worse.




if only cultural similarities defined borders then the whole of Europe should be one country.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

xyxmt said:


> if only cultural similarities defined borders then the whole of Europe should be one country.


Forget about Europe. The entire Western world including USA, Canada, Australia etc

Oh can somebody tell me what exactly differance there is between American/Canadian. Irish/British etc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> take a look at this map...replace the dots with the symbols and tell me what you think...This is as granular as my Knowledge is going to get regarding the Gurjara vs Gurjara Pratihara confusion..the time period is between 700-975 AD...before the invasions of Ghazni...
> 
> dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=068
> 
> 
> I recommended the University of Chicago map vault to @Kaptaan too, and he promised to provide his own take after going through everything
> 
> dsal dot uchicago dot edu/maps/
> 
> dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistanis should have the patience to explain to Indians that Central Asian nomadic races which settled down in the Indus Valley both in pre and post-Islamic times are NOT Arabs...Vigorous education will reduce the wilful ignorance and trolling.. I am frustrated myself with the ignorance of history by modern Indians ..(was not the case with my Grandfather's generation)



That map doesn't look right. Gujrat or Gurjaratra as its named in map isn't historical city unlike Sakala/Sialkot. Gujrat and Gujranwala both are named after nomadic gujjars in Mughal era. Where Gujrat is located was likely called something else before Mughals. Mughals settled nomadic gujjars in current day Gujrat.

That map also confuses Kandahar city of south east Afghanistan with Gandhara.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xyxmt

Kaptaan said:


> Forget about Europe. The entire Western world including USA, Canada, Australia etc
> 
> *Oh can somebody tell me what exactly differance there is between American/Canadian. Irish/British* etc



People..the land they live on makes them different
why are Italians famous for mafia and crimes, Spanish who live next door are not

** Loved you signature, 10 likes for that


----------



## Tea addict

Tesky said:


> Yes I believe Gurjara-Pratiharas and nomadic gujjars of northen Pakistan and punjab are two different entities. Gurjara-pratiharas were rajputs, brahmins ruling class of present day Indian Gujarat/Rajasthan. While nomadic gujjars in north Pakistan and punjab are cattle herders and Gujrat and Gujranwala in punjab are named after them.


Right, The pratiharas are not related to current day pakistanis in any way. Their sphere of influence includes current day Rajasthan, South Haryana, West Gujarat, West MP and West UP.. the people who are neither bhaiyyas nor punjabis.
And coming to geography, the Pratiharas are the one who formed somewhat similar to current day geography 1600 years ago by stopping Bin Qasim in battle of Rajasthan.
And not only Rajputs and brahmins were pratihars.. It had many ethnicities like gurjars, ahirs, jaats, raykas, etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Kaptaan said:


> Thanks. It's a *treasure* trove of info. I am slowly going through it. Lot of it is from 1970s and that is very important. The reason is that before 1980s most academic sources in English were written or prepared by *non* South Asians. I am not suggesting non South Asian are better but they don't bring bias into the subject unlike Pak/Indians. No doubt there is always going to be some bias but Paks/Indians just take it to another level. That is why Wiki sources are waste of time. Whereas most of pre 1990s work is free from armies of internet Hindutva warriors.
> 
> 
> @Juggernaut_is_here Why do I get a feeling you are a alter-ego of a established PDF Indian member?




The Historical Method is as exacting and laborious as the Scientific Method. And as much as it pains me, the formation of both Modern Scientific Method and Historical Method took place among the whites. Eventhough many other periods and races may have contributed heavily to the incipient/proto Scientific Method, we are really stretching the thread very thin then.

The Scientific Method was mostly formed in the century between Galileo's On Motion and Newton's Principia 1589-1687 AD


In the same way, Historiography/Historical Method was formed just before and during the composition of Edward Gibbon's "_*The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
*_
And as you mentioned I think, around a couple of years back,(longtime lurker), only one race outside of the West managed to completely pulverize their old traditions and completely embrace the Scientific Method and Modern Rationality. We know that country as the Land of the Rising Sun,Japan. 

Now India,Pakistan,China,Turkey,Iran are locked in a frantic race to make their societies and populace fully rational, scientific in order to join the club of cognitively elite countries... Trouble is the threat of automation, robotics and AI is looming large, and I doubt any of these countries will be able to complete their goal of modernization before AI is implemented.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Tea addict said:


> Their sphere of influence includes current day Rajasthan, South Haryana, West Gujarat, West MP and West UP.. the people who are neither bhaiyyas nor punjabis.
> s, etc



Cow/hindi belt=bhaiya land


----------



## Tea addict

Tesky said:


> Cow/hindi belt=bhaiya land


So?


----------



## ito

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Why shyt face? Has ur arseholiness stopped making claims outta ur Vedic choot ka surakh.



Hey foul mouth first learn how to ask a question...nobody will respond to you if you ask they way you ask...people who have inferiority complex resort to foul words because they know they are inferior. 

I have seen scores of your type of internet hulks, who are sissies in real life. Anyway...I am responding to you this time...and will not respond if you don't know how to be civil on internet. 

Have you heard of Al-Bakistan? Read...

http://dailytimes.com.pk/pakistan/04-Jul-16/welcome-to-al-bakistan
https://tribune.com.pk/story/681106/al-bakistan/
https://tribune.com.pk/story/664115/al-bakistan-dreamland/

There 1000's of more post on Arabization of Pakistanis on net from Pakistanis themselves ...google yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Suriya

Stopped reading after this paragraph ! LOL


> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. *Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas* . A repeat of the interplay of the same


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Tesky said:


> That map doesn't look right. Gujrat or Gurjaratra as its named in map isn't historical city unlike Sakala/Sialkot. Gujrat and Gujranwala both are named after nomadic gujjars in Mughal era. Where Gujrat is located was likely called something else before Mughals. Mughals settled nomadic gujjars in current day Gujrat.
> 
> That map also confuses Kandahar city of south east Afghanistan with Gandhara.




But it does point out to the legitimate Gandhara (the stretch between Taxila and Kabul), and it also offers an alternative spelling Qandhar.

I am afraid that is as good as we are going to get when it comes to primary academic sources. There is another section in the same website , called A Geopolitical Synopsis, which lists the borders of around 100 empires/states in the history of the subcontinent..exercise caution though there, as the borders there are sometimes a bit more exaggerated than in the primary plates......I think we can be sure that the place was under Hindu Shahis between 888 and 1001 AD (which would be a Indus Valley empire rather than a North Central One)....now if somebody can dig up its history between the Hunnic invasions and 888 AD, I will be much obliged

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ito said:


> Hey foul mouth first learn how to ask a question...nobody will respond to you if you ask they way you ask...people who have inferiority complex resort to foul words because they know they are inferior.
> 
> I have seen scores of your type of internet hulks, who are sissies in real life. Anyway...I am responding to you this time...and will not respond if you don't know how to be civil on internet.
> 
> Have you heard of Al-Bakistan? Read...
> 
> http://dailytimes.com.pk/pakistan/04-Jul-16/welcome-to-al-bakistan
> https://tribune.com.pk/story/681106/al-bakistan/
> https://tribune.com.pk/story/664115/al-bakistan-dreamland/
> 
> There 1000's of more post on Arabization of Pakistanis on net from Pakistanis themselves ...google yourself.


Hey scumbag a useless article is all you have? 

I can post more from your country... As how your people love to be like us or how u are our ugly neighbors and so on. 

And you could pleasure yourself while reading em!

Now back to the topic.. Find me 2 Arab wannabes on the forum and I will give a flying Fk about u. 


And oh as for sissies... Thats fkin tough coming from a douche .... Who bitxh about Pakistanis not befriending him...


----------



## PakistaniNawab

Why are you lot begging to be different from indians. North indians and punjabis and Sindhis are genetically from the same racial background only pashtuns and baloch are iranic btw I did a ancestry dna kit and my family are mirpur ajk and i got 87% south asian and 7% central asian and 3% melanesian.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Kaptaan said:


> @Juggernaut_is_here Why do I get a feeling you are a alter-ego of a established PDF Indian member?




I am not...I am a new member, but have appreciated yours and @Mian Babban's and @SarthakGanguly 's posts for a long time....


I am much like you in terms of interests.I am interested in 

1) Evolution of Civilizations 
2) Evolution of Empires 
3) Race,Phenotypes 
4) History of Science and the Scientific Method 
5) Race and IQ and general Human Bio Diversity 
6) How the above 5 Factors impact the subcontinent 


I am much appalled by the historical illiteracy of modern Indians compared to my grandfather's generation...Time and again they identify the Central Asian races which settled in the Indus Valley both in pre and post-Islamic times as Arabs...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## StraightShooter

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Buddhism spread everyhere independent of Indo-Aryan expansion..though there were some exapansion of Hindus from Southern India to South East Asia. e.g. Satavahanas



Spread of Buddhism across the world was fully credited to Emperor Ashoka. It spread neither before or after him. In fact the 300 years gap between when Buddha lived and Buddism as religion was propagated has similarities how declining Roman emperors who started the spreading Christianity 300 years after the Jesus. The Kushan empire (30-300 CE) that followed Ashoka/Mauryan empire (350-100 BCE) and the Gupta Empire (300-600 CE) that followed Kushan empire followed a mix of Vedic religions, Buddhism and Jainism. Note that Ellora temples have Shiva, Buddha and Mahavira temples all next to each other in a single compound as people never felt any major differences between them. Also, Vedic religions were never meant to be propagated and were primarily supported in the sub continent (Note vedas were not supposed to written and were passed generation to generation vocally) while Buddhism was simplified form where one did not have understand Vedas, perform any rituals or worry about varna in far away foreign lands. Hence it was used as a vehicle for propagation of thoughts due to its simplicity. 



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The Mitanni treaty were Indo-Aryans who migrated to modern Iraq from Afghanistan



There is no proof for this statement. All we know is Hinduism was followed by the kingdoms of west Asia, Arab lands, Slavic countries and Steppes of Central Asia. Genetic scientists and Historians are still debating and everyone has their own theory.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> the Indo-Iranian split (pre 2000 BC) happened way before the composition of the Vedas..The Asuras of Vedas are venerated in Zoroastrianism...there was an inversion of the Vedic religion in the Iranian branch





Juggernaut_is_here said:


> You have to show me that there is a consensus of among Historians that the Vedic religion as defined by the Vedas, was followed in Russia. A single Indian linguist doesnot pass the muster..where is the corresponding wikipedia article..





Juggernaut_is_here said:


> And a distinction should be made between the wider Indo-European trunk and the very distinct Indo-Aryan branch and the corresponding Vedic religion..Vedic religion was formed post 1500 BC ....The Rig Veda was composed in modern-day Punjab and NWFP region .----they may have had some sort of link to the BMAC complex though...But then again that's not Russia



Firstly Rig Veda was not composed in 1700 BCE. Vedas predate Ramayana (around 10000 BCE) and Mahabharata (8000 BCE). The last ice age was 12000 BCE. The melting waters first widened the palk strait after Ramarana and later submerged the city of Dwaraka after Mahabharata. The idols and references to Vedic gods in Russia & West Asia are all between 4000 - 2000 BCE. So Vedic religions may have expanded and then contracted like they did in South East Asia. The spilt between Avestan/Asuras and Sanskrit/Vedic/Suras has happened prior to 10000 BCE.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jaanbaz

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Its called assimilation.
> 
> In southern Panjab.. entire baloch tribes reside like the Mazaris,Lasharis,Buzdar and so on.. and although they follow the baloch culture.. they speak seriki.
> (Although the Baloch population living in areas bordering balochistan are also bilingual)
> The Pashtun Sadozais,Khakwanis,Babars etc of southern Panjab again speak seriki.
> 
> The Baloch of Sindh are also bilingual or assimilated into sindhi culture.
> The Talpur dynasties and others who once ruled now speak Sindhi.. and so do other baloch tribes.
> 
> So Pakistan .. specifically panjab and sindh are melting pots of different races and cultures.



I don't think Indians understand the kind of cultural diversity and ethnic relations in Pakistan, although an average Indian claims to be a expert on Pakistan and Vedic era flying saucers but in real life scenario he/she is nothing but a retard with delusions of grandeur.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## django

Lion786 said:


> Why are you lot begging to be different from indians. North indians and punjabis and Sindhis are genetically from the same racial background only pashtuns and baloch are iranic btw I did a ancestry dna kit and my family are mirpur ajk and i got 87% south asian and 7% central asian and 3% melanesian.


You are missing the point, in todays world India is synonymous to Ganga/Dravid regions, i assure you they are noticeably different than folks from AJK/Potohar/Hazara, the folks from Indus region on both sides of Radcliffe line will have similarities, no question about it yet these folks only represent a tiny minority of India.


----------



## Jaanbaz

StraightShooter said:


> There is no proof for this statement. All we know is Hinduism was followed by the kingdoms of west Asia, Arab lands, Slavic countries and Steppes of Central Asia. Genetic scientists and Historians are still debating and everyone has their own theory.



@DESERT FIGHTER @Kaptaan See these kind of gems are in unlimited supply in Gangadesh.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

@StraightShooter you are confused between real history and supernatural mythology as handed down by religious tradition. I am tired of debating that..from now on , none of your posts will be entertained with a reply unless you specifically focus on the history of the Northwest of the subcontinent in the period post Mauryas and Pre-Ghazni (185 BC to 1001 AD)



To my Indian Friends: Religious tradition and the stories there in DO NOT constitute proper history as taught in Universities

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## django

StraightShooter said:


> Spread of Buddhism across the world was fully credited to Emperor Ashoka. It spread neither before or after him. In fact the 300 years gap between when Buddha lived and Buddism as religion was propagated has similarities how declining Roman emperors who started the spreading Christianity 300 years after the Jesus. The Kushan empire (30-300 CE) that followed Ashoka/Mauryan empire (350-100 BCE) and the Gupta Empire (300-600 CE) that followed Kushan empire followed a mix of Vedic religions, Buddhism and Jainism. Note that Ellora temples have Shiva, Buddha and Mahavira temples all next to each other in a single compound as people never felt any major differences between them. Also, Vedic religions were never meant to be propagated and were primarily supported in the sub continent (Note vedas were not supposed to written and were passed generation to generation vocally) while Buddhism was simplified form where one did not have understand Vedas, perform any rituals or worry about varna in far away foreign lands. Hence it was used as a vehicle for propagation of thoughts due to its simplicity.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof for this statement. All we know is Hinduism was followed by the kingdoms of west Asia, Arab lands, Slavic countries and Steppes of Central Asia. Genetic scientists and Historians are still debating and everyone has their own theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly Rig Veda was not composed in 1700 BCE. Vedas predate Ramayana (around 10000 BCE) and Mahabharata (8000 BCE). The last ice age was 12000 BCE. The melting waters first widened the palk strait after Ramarana and later submerged the city of Dwaraka after Mahabharata. The idols and references to Vedic gods in Russia & West Asia are all between 4000 - 2000 BCE. So Vedic religions may have expanded and then contracted like they did in South East Asia. The spilt between Avestan/Asuras and Sanskrit/Vedic/Suras has happened prior to 10000 BCE.


And Mr fruitcake, Ganga dwellers are responsible for Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians, Indo-European cultures and even Atlantis possibly, all this according to well known charlatan Michel Danino, I kid you not
@Kaptaan @xairhossi

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

django said:


> And Mr fruitcake, Ganga dwellers are responsible for Aztecs, Mayans, Sumerians, Indo-European cultures and even Atlantis possibly, all this according to well known charlatan Michel Danino, I kid you not
> @Kaptaan @xairhossi




Donot reply to him please...He is confused between History and mythologies recounted in Religious traditions..I am trying to form a collective of historically literate Indians of the same calibre as @Mian Babban and @Kaptaan so that both sides can retain their sanity...May be a few from Historum should come over .for the present thread though if we can narrow down between 185 BC to 1001 AD, it would be fantastic


and somebody should post the video- "History of South Asia--Every Year" here as I cannot for being a new member...That video is great for a rough guideline, though should not be taken as canon

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Jaanbaz said:


> @DESERT FIGHTER @Kaptaan See these kind of gems are in unlimited supply in Gangadesh.


Aliens are also hindu and originated from tamil nadu and bihar.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Aliens are also hindu and originated from tamil nadu and bihar.





Nice one.........lol........ lol............

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Donot reply to him please...He is confused between History and mythologies recounted in Religious traditions..I am trying to form a collective of historically literate Indians of the same calibre as @Mian Babban and @Kaptaan so that both sides can retain their sanity...May be a few from Historum should come over .for the present thread though if we can narrow down between 185 BC to 1001 AD, it would be fantastic
> 
> 
> and somebody should post the video- "History of South Asia--Every Year" here as I cannot for being a new member...That video is great for a rough guideline, though should not be taken as canon

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RealNapster

wiseone2 said:


> Pashtun 15%



25 million in KP
7 million in Karachi alone
3-4 million in Baluchistan
and 4-5 million in Punjab
Fata = 5.5 million

Around 40-41 million Pashtoon Population. which make it (Pashtoon alone) around 20%. Add Baluch to this and you are talking about 25% atleast.

But population of KP (Pashtoon dominant province) almost doubled since 1998 census. so you can "assume" that in next 5 year's we (Pashtoon alone) will be atleast 23% .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

We have nothing to do with India. We are completely different from India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Slav Defence

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-arrived Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan *
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. *
> 
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked


Thread moved to senior's cafe because it is well researched and deserves positive rating.

regards

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

xyxmt said:


> if only cultural similarities defined borders then the whole of Europe should be one country.



They are trying to do that with EU
Eastern Europe is quite different from Western Europe



RealNapster said:


> 25 million in KP
> 7 million in Karachi alone
> 3-4 million in Baluchistan
> and 4-5 million in Punjab
> 
> Around 40-41 million Pashtoon Population. which make it (Pashtoon alone) around 20%. Add Baluch to this and you are talking about 25% atleast.
> 
> But population of KP (Pashtoon dominant province) almost doubled since 1998 census. so you can "assume" that in next 5 year's we (Pashtoon alone) will be atleast 23% .



wikipedia numbers are 15% for Pasthun and 3.5% for Baluchi. Pakistan population is 200 million.
There is an other category with 6.5%

Is everyone in KPK a Pashtoon ? KPK population is around 28 million.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RealNapster

wiseone2 said:


> They are trying to do that with EU
> Eastern Europe is quite different from Western Europe
> 
> 
> 
> wikipedia numbers are 15% for Pasthun and 3.5% for Baluchi. Pakistan population is 200 million.
> There is an other category with 6.5%
> 
> Is everyone in KPK a Pashtoon ? KPK population is around 28 million.



View latest census figures. Wikipedia figures are "old and based on speculations".
and no. not all in KP are pashtoons. 31 million population as per latest census report. 25 million Pashtoon. Visit this thread..

I forgot Fata = 5.5 million. which is 100% Pashtoon Population. which makes current Pashtoon Population in Pakistan around 45 million. So 21.5% Pashtoon in Pakistan currently.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/initial-census-results-have-arrived.511806/


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@Juggernaut_is_here That source you provided is a veritable mine of info., it's going take me some time to get back to you with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakistaniNawab

RealNapster said:


> View latest census figures. Wikipedia figures are "old and based on speculations".
> and no. not all in KP are pashtoons. 31 million population as per latest census report. 25 million Pashtoon. Visit this thread..
> 
> I forgot Fata = 5.5 million. which is 100% Pashtoon Population. which makes current Pashtoon Population in Pakistan around 45 million. So 21.5% Pashtoon in Pakistan currently.
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/initial-census-results-have-arrived.511806/


Those results are also speculations

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RealNapster

Lion786 said:


> Those results are also speculations



speculations based on current census. still good then "let's assume we are 200 million now".

In any case, Population of Pashtoon in Pakistan is not less then 21%.


----------



## Joe Shearer

StraightShooter said:


> Spread of Buddhism across the world was fully credited to Emperor Ashoka. It spread neither before or after him. In fact the 300 years gap between when Buddha lived and Buddism as religion was propagated has similarities how declining Roman emperors who started the spreading Christianity 300 years after the Jesus. The Kushan empire (30-300 CE) that followed Ashoka/Mauryan empire (350-100 BCE) and the Gupta Empire (300-600 CE) that followed Kushan empire followed a mix of Vedic religions, Buddhism and Jainism. Note that Ellora temples have Shiva, Buddha and Mahavira temples all next to each other in a single compound as people never felt any major differences between them. Also, Vedic religions were never meant to be propagated and were primarily supported in the sub continent (Note vedas were not supposed to written and were passed generation to generation vocally) while Buddhism was simplified form where one did not have understand Vedas, perform any rituals or worry about varna in far away foreign lands. Hence it was used as a vehicle for propagation of thoughts due to its simplicity.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof for this statement. All we know is Hinduism was followed by the kingdoms of west Asia, Arab lands, Slavic countries and Steppes of Central Asia. Genetic scientists and Historians are still debating and everyone has their own theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly Rig Veda was not composed in 1700 BCE. Vedas predate Ramayana (around 10000 BCE) and Mahabharata (8000 BCE). The last ice age was 12000 BCE. The melting waters first widened the palk strait after Ramarana and later submerged the city of Dwaraka after Mahabharata. The idols and references to Vedic gods in Russia & West Asia are all between 4000 - 2000 BCE. So Vedic religions may have expanded and then contracted like they did in South East Asia. The spilt between Avestan/Asuras and Sanskrit/Vedic/Suras has happened prior to 10000 BCE.



@SarthakGanguly 

Were you kidding? You liked this?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## niaz

In addition to the Himalayas in the north and sea to the south; during the 5000 year history of the subcontinent, numerous independent kingdoms have come up and disappeared where a large river and or a desert formed the natural boundary. A few regions, namely Baluchistan, Assam & Chittagong Hill tracts; though currently part of the subcontinent countries; have not historically been part of the region called India. For example:

Baluchistan has traditionally been part of Iranian / Afghan empires and was never mentioned in any old text as being part of any kingdom originating East of the Suleiman mountain range.

Even though Khyber Pass is the historical gateway to India, Herodotus considers India as east of river Indus. IMO this so because Greek information was taken from the Persian texts where limits of the old Persian Empire was the Indus valley and land east of the Persian empire was India.

River Indus was often taken as north-western boundary of India, even river Sutlej has been sometimes considered as beginning of India. For example, the name Sirhind literally means Head (top part) of India in Persian. Sirhand is about 45 Km West of Chandigarh.

Assam was also a totally independent country ruled by what Hindu historians call Mlecccha dynasty until it was annexed by Barahmapala, Pala king of Bengal around 900 AD. Korpos Mohol (Chittagong Hill tracts) was part of Burma and only annexed by the British in1860.

Conversely there were long periods of history when KPK, Punjab & Sind were part of the Indian empires.

Vindhyachal mountain range virtually divides India in two parts. Southern part known by the northerners simply as ‘Deccan’ or South. Except for brief periods, the Southern regions have been independent of the north Indian Kingdoms. Therefore South Indians have a rich culture, history and language quite different from their northern compatriots. Many a South Indians I came across in the UAE did not understand Urdu/Hindi forcing me to communicate in English, whereas majority of north Indians & Pakistanis can converse with each other without a problem.

The point I am trying to make is that the subcontinent is a vast, linguistically and culturally diverse region where empires and their boundaries regularly change. India of today, despite it is much truncated form, could easily break into 3 or 4 powerful countries (say) 100 years from now. Simultaneously the possibility of Pakistan, India & Bangla Desh re-joining to create a Confederation of South East states cannot be completely ruled out either.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

niaz said:


> In addition to the Himalayas in the north and sea to the south; during the 5000 year history of the subcontinent, numerous independent kingdoms have come up and disappeared where a large river and or a desert formed the natural boundary. A few regions, namely Baluchistan, Assam & Chittagong Hill tracts; though currently part of the subcontinent countries; have not historically been part of the region called India. For example:
> 
> Baluchistan has traditionally been part of Iranian / Afghan empires and was never mentioned in any old text as being part of any kingdom originating East of the Suleiman mountain range.
> 
> Even though Khyber Pass is the historical gateway to India, Herodotus considers India as east of river Indus. IMO this so because Greek information was taken from the Persian texts where limits of the old Persian Empire was the Indus valley and land east of the Persian empire was India.
> 
> River Indus was often taken as north-western boundary of India, even river Sutlej has been sometimes considered as beginning of India. For example, the name Sirhind literally means Head (top part) of India in Persian. Sirhand is about 45 Km West of Chandigarh.
> 
> Assam was also a totally independent country ruled by what Hindu historians call Mlecccha dynasty until it was annexed by Barahmapala, Pala king of Bengal around 900 AD. Korpos Mohol (Chittagong Hill tracts) was part of Burma and only annexed by the British in1860.
> 
> Conversely there were long periods of history when KPK, Punjab & Sind were part of the Indian empires.
> 
> Vindhyachal mountain range virtually divides India in two parts. Southern part known by the northerners simply as ‘Deccan’ or South. Except for brief periods, the Southern regions have been independent of the north Indian Kingdoms. Therefore South Indians have a rich culture, history and language quite different from their northern compatriots. Many a South Indians I came across in the UAE did not understand Urdu/Hindi forcing me to communicate in English, whereas majority of north Indians & Pakistanis can converse with each other without a problem.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that the subcontinent is a vast, linguistically and culturally diverse region where empires and their boundaries regularly change. India of today, despite it is much truncated form, could easily break into 3 or 4 powerful countries (say) 100 years from now. Simultaneously the possibility of Pakistan, India & Bangla Desh re-joining to create a Confederation of South East states cannot be completely ruled out either.





The South was on a trajectory to form multiple independent ethno-kingdoms, proto-Nation states until the campaigns of Malik Kafur/Khilji dynasty wrecked that evolution in early 14th century. After that time, the polities of the Deccan were compelled to embrace a much more "Hindu"/religious identity in order to organise their states , rather than ethno-regional identities. This eventually led to the rise of the Vijaynagara Empire...It is the South's experience with Vijaynagara Empire in the past that led to its easy assimilation into the Indian Union in 1947. If the expeditions of the Delhi Sultanates had not happened, Southern states would have remained defiantly independent and distinct polities even post 1947, as they would have shared little of the Northern tussle between Nomadic and Indo-Aryan empires

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

niaz said:


> Baluchistan has traditionally been part of Iranian


The Balochistan highlands that drain into Indus basin have been integral to Indus region from very early history. For example Mehr garh [even Mundigak in Afgh] and other proto-IVC sites have direct linkage with Indus. And your assertion about Balochistan/Iran is true but that is also applicable to the Indus River [western bank] as having been part of the Iran based empires.



niaz said:


> Afghan empires


Afghan empire is of very recent vintage and it extended to present day Pakistan.

What is so exciting about looking at dawn of history is how the region that is coterminous to Pakistan is fulcrum of tectonic events in history. Indus really does stand out as the cradle of civilization. Furthermore there is direct connection between Indus and the regions to west of us as is obvious in the map below.








And this map below really does bring home how coterminous Pakistan is the cradle of the ancient world. Anything and everything has a *axis* in coterminous Pakistan. Ganga is not even in the "picture".








If I had a choice all this would be compulsory education in Pakistan. In 20 years our young would be walking with such swagger they would make Iranians or Egyptians look like feeble identity afflicted people. Our young would be confident and proud of their ancestry and not suffering from issue of self worth and craving for other peoples causes. I can't think of any other land with such rich history as ours and yet we suffer from confidence and identity issues. It's tragic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Post Colonnial

Always interesting to see somebody (@Juggernaut_is_here) take pains to provide a decent rationale for conclusions, which is mostly absent in defence.pk otherwise.

Question though is, why the assumption that Indians want a merger with Pakistan? For the Hindu majority wouldn't it be a relief that a large proportion of muslims are thus pushed off their country? I have seen a number of references to ancestors of Pakistanis were all Hindus, converted at the point of a bloody inavding sword - this I think Indians say it to get under the Pakistani's skin, more than anything else. Actually your geo-political view over time will add weight to that argument - that the areas where the invading sword was strongest became most concentrated with muslims (ofcourse this does not explain all of it).

Geographic relief drives everything. There was a reason civilizations formed around river banks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Here is a map from a study which concludes that Harappa/Indus was a continuum of the Mesopotamian civilizations. Modern Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan were linked with Pakistan in the past.








Notice how the above map fits in with the one below.







http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095714

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Post Colonnial said:


> Always interesting to see somebody (@Juggernaut_is_here) take pains to provide a decent rationale for conclusions, which is mostly absent in defence.pk otherwise.
> 
> Question though is, why the assumption that Indians want a merger with Pakistan? For the Hindu majority wouldn't it be a relief that a large proportion of muslims are thus pushed off their country? I have seen a number of references to ancestors of Pakistanis were all Hindus, converted at the point of a bloody inavding sword - this I think Indians say it to get under the Pakistani's skin, more than anything else. Actually your geo-political view over time will add weight to that argument - that the areas where the invading sword was strongest became most concentrated with muslims (ofcourse this does not explain all of it).
> 
> Geographic relief drives everything. There was a reason civilizations formed around river banks




Pakistan was more under the influence of nomadic Buddhist Kingdoms than Hindu Kingdoms..Even when they were under nomadic Kingdoms which were Hindu (conversion by rulers from Central Asian Iranic/Shamanic rites,in order to gain Legitimacy), the hand of religion was not heavy upon them

The Mahabharata specifically mentions (written between 400 BCE and 400 AD), that the lands of the Indus became unfit for Vedic sacrifice after intrusion of more and more fierce Mlecchas from the North-West



Okay I am going to be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR among everybody here, but I will give you the reason why Indians want merger with Pakistan. After having interacted with Indians from a variety of regions, mindsets, piety level, religiosity level, socio-economic status , here is my conclusion....I am here implying Hindu Indians, as it is very very offensive to pose the question of merger to Muslim Indians:

Indians from certain regions want merger with Pakistan. They would be ones from Jammu and Kashmir,Punjab,Himachal,Uttarkhand,Haryana,Western UP,Delhi,Western MP,Gujarat,Rajasthan.

But not ALL Indians from those regions want merger..Brahmins from those regions will shake in disbelief at the prospect of merger.

It is the Higher caste Kshatriyas from those regions that want merger, and that too those who donot tend be very religious.

Why?

Simple Reason: Loss of Looks. They feel Partition left India with a severe loss in good looking people. Good looking as per their consensus being relatively Fairer skin and Sharper Facial Features.....

Indians from other parts donot share this opinion, such as me being Bengali


You asked for it..Now don't flame me

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imad.Khan

All nations share similarities with their neigbouring countries. Pakistan and India have been separate countries for over 70 years now. So not sure what this discussion will achieve.


----------



## Kabira

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*



Any link? Would like to read more on it. Huns were turkic like and quite possibly looked part mongloid?


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

jetray said:


> Barbaric invaders looted our lands but they cannot claim to own our rich culture and legacy.


Can you please give me evidence that we were barbaric invaders that looted your lands and that the IVC belongs to your heritage?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Tesky said:


> Any link? Would like to read more on it. Huns were turkic like and quite possibly looked part mongloid?



Study this plate..replace the dots with symbols and take out the spaces. The Kushan Shah (also known as Indo-Sassanids) and Gupta alliance defeated the Sassanids and the Hunas in 368 AD and 370 AD respectively.

dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=062



If you want to study more on the Huns and pre-Islamic Turks that invaded the subcontinent,the Hindu Turki Shahis,The Brahmana/Brahmin Hindu Shahis as well as the Arab conquest of Afghanistan, go through the extensive resources of the University of Vienna.

pro dot geo dot univie dot ac dot at/projects/khm/showcases?language=en




Huns that invaded India were more caucasoid and white skin, rather than Mongoloid ...But I suspect that their soldiers were drawn from both nomadic Caucasoid races and nomadic Mongoloid races, with some being mixed of the two..I suspect they spoke proto-Turkic, inspite of being fair complexioned Caucasoids..They practiced Skull Deformation though

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## livingdead

Its a good read, thanks for the post @Juggernaut_is_here ... especially for keeping the tone more or less neutral

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bananarepublic

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Study this plate..replace the dots with symbols and take out the spaces. The Kushan Shah (also known as Indo-Sassanids) and Gupta alliance defeated the Sassanids and the Hunas in 368 AD and 370 AD respectively.
> 
> dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=062
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to study more on the Huns and pre-Islamic Turks that invaded the subcontinent,the Hindu Turki Shahis,The Brahmana/Brahmin Hindu Shahis as well as the Arab conquest of Afghanistan, go through the extensive resources of the University of Vienna.
> 
> pro dot geo dot univie dot ac dot at/projects/khm/showcases?language=en
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huns that invaded India were more caucasoid and white skin, rather than Mongoloid ...But I suspect that their soldiers were drawn from both nomadic Caucasoid races and nomadic Mongoloid races, with some being mixed of the two..I suspect they spoke proto-Turkic, inspite of being fair complexioned Caucasoids..They practiced Skull Deformation though



there is a race of people here called the hunzakutz which some historian say are decedents of the huns also their language is unique and very scarce and the only similar language found has been in the salvic region. historians also say that the huns crossed the karakuram mountain to reach the IVC and other parts of india. but some people also say that hunzakutz are also descendant of Alexander army when they crossed this region

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

bananarepublic said:


> there is a race of people here called the hunzakutz which some historian say are decedents of the huns also their language is unique and very scarce and the only similar language found has been in the salvic region. historians also say that the huns crossed the karakuram mountain to reach the IVC and other parts of india. but some people also say that hunzakutz are also descendant of Alexander army when they crossed this region




You mean Indus Valley rather than Indus Valley Civilization right? I doubt the Historians were suggesting that Huns were present in pre-2000 BC


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Pakistan was more under the influence of nomadic Buddhist Kingdoms than Hindu Kingdoms..Even when they were under nomadic Kingdoms which were Hindu (conversion by rulers from Central Asian Iranic/Shamanic rites,in order to gain Legitimacy), the hand of religion was not heavy upon them
> 
> The Mahabharata specifically mentions (written between 400 BCE and 400 AD), that the lands of the Indus became unfit for Vedic sacrifice after intrusion of more and more fierce Mlecchas from the North-West
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I am going to be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR among everybody here, but I will give you the reason why Indians want merger with Pakistan. After having interacted with Indians from a variety of regions, mindsets, piety level, religiosity level, socio-economic status , here is my conclusion....I am here implying Hindu Indians, as it is very very offensive to pose the question of merger to Muslim Indians:
> 
> Indians from certain regions want merger with Pakistan. They would be ones from Jammu and Kashmir,Punjab,Himachal,Uttarkhand,Haryana,Western UP,Delhi,Western MP,Gujarat,Rajasthan.
> 
> But not ALL Indians from those regions want merger..Brahmins from those regions will shake in disbelief at the prospect of merger.
> 
> It is the Higher caste Kshatriyas from those regions that want merger, and that too those who donot tend be very religious.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Simple Reason: Loss of Looks. They feel Partition left India with a severe loss in good looking people. Good looking as per their consensus being relatively Fairer skin and Sharper Facial Features.....
> 
> Indians from other parts donot share this opinion, such as me being Bengali
> 
> 
> You asked for it..Now don't flame me


ROFL...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bananarepublic

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> You mean Indus Valley rather than Indus Valley Civilization right? I doubt the Historians were suggesting that Huns were present in pre-2000 BC



not exactly huns but their original ancestors dont remember the name exactly but they were the ones originally settling in the stretch of central asia to the east of turkey and west of china


----------



## padamchen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Pakistan was more under the influence of nomadic Buddhist Kingdoms than Hindu Kingdoms..Even when they were under nomadic Kingdoms which were Hindu (conversion by rulers from Central Asian Iranic/Shamanic rites,in order to gain Legitimacy), the hand of religion was not heavy upon them
> 
> The Mahabharata specifically mentions (written between 400 BCE and 400 AD), that the lands of the Indus became unfit for Vedic sacrifice after intrusion of more and more fierce Mlecchas from the North-West
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I am going to be EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR among everybody here, but I will give you the reason why Indians want merger with Pakistan. After having interacted with Indians from a variety of regions, mindsets, piety level, religiosity level, socio-economic status , here is my conclusion....I am here implying Hindu Indians, as it is very very offensive to pose the question of merger to Muslim Indians:
> 
> Indians from certain regions want merger with Pakistan. They would be ones from Jammu and Kashmir,Punjab,Himachal,Uttarkhand,Haryana,Western UP,Delhi,Western MP,Gujarat,Rajasthan.
> 
> But not ALL Indians from those regions want merger..Brahmins from those regions will shake in disbelief at the prospect of merger.
> 
> It is the Higher caste Kshatriyas from those regions that want merger, and that too those who donot tend be very religious.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Simple Reason: Loss of Looks. They feel Partition left India with a severe loss in good looking people. Good looking as per their consensus being relatively Fairer skin and Sharper Facial Features.....
> 
> Indians from other parts donot share this opinion, such as me being Bengali
> 
> 
> You asked for it..Now don't flame me



Looks are overrated in men (speaking as a man here).

Give me a vicious fighter any day.

Probably only the Jats have both.

Then look at the Kashmiris ...

Do you really think we would mourn their going?

Coming back to your hypothesis, what we lost in genetic fighting stock was not very great to begin with.

And the good fighting stock they have, was never really ours to begin with.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## bananarepublic

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> You mean Indus Valley rather than Indus Valley Civilization right? I doubt the Historians were suggesting that Huns were present in pre-2000 BC



not exactly huns but their original ancestors dont remember the name exactly but they were the ones originally settling in the stretch of central asia to the east of turkey and west of china


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

padamchen said:


> Looks are overrated in men (speaking as a man here).
> 
> Give me a vicious fighter any day.
> 
> Probably only the Jats have both.
> 
> Then look at the Kashmiris ...
> 
> Do you really think we would mourn their going?
> 
> Coming back to your hypothesis, what we lost in genetic fighting stock was not very great to begin with.
> 
> And the good fighting stock they have, was never really ours to begin with.
> 
> Cheers, Doc




Loss of good-looking women I meant mainly..Loss of good-looking men also meant loss of sperm to create the good-looking women of next generation..That's how people think


@bananarepublic ...You should perhaps re-consult your sources..From what I have seen the Huns, Turks,Mongols cannot trace their origins beyond the Xiongnu Confederacy and that was in the 3rd century BC

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Loss of good-looking women I meant mainly..Loss of good-looking men also meant loss of sperm to create the good-looking women of next generation..That's how people think.
> 
> 
> 
> @bananarepublic ...You should perhaps re-consult your sources..From what I have seen the Huns, Turks,Mongols cannot trace their origins beyond the Xiongnu Confederacy and that was in the 3rd century BC



I agree on the women.

But I find beauty in most womanly gene pools. Some are of course denser than others.

But there is no doubt that the loss of Pakistan meant we lost a lot of future potential of diluting our not very good looking more melanized gene pools.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bananarepublic

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Loss of good-looking women I meant mainly..Loss of good-looking men also meant loss of sperm to create the good-looking women of next generation..That's how people think
> 
> 
> @bananarepublic ...You should perhaps re-consult your sources..From what I have seen the Huns, Turks,Mongols cannot trace their origins beyond the Xiongnu Confederacy and that was in the 3rd century BC



I will skim over some books and get to you on this subject..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

padamchen said:


> I agree on the women.
> 
> But I find beauty in most womanly gene pools. Some are of course denser than others.
> 
> But there is no doubt that the loss of Pakistan meant we lost a lot of future potential of diluting our not very good looking more melanized gene pools.
> 
> Cheers, Doc




Didnot get your last sentence..Could you please elaborate it or reframe it?


----------



## padamchen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Didnot get your last sentence..Could you please elaborate it or reframe it?



We lost the genetic fair and lovely needed.

I could actually wax lyrical about Pakistanis and Indian Muslims here. In terms of genetics and looks.

To be honest, Indians really aren't a very good looking people.

Some Indians are. But if you see the percentage split, the general impression people have abroad as well as one living here internally is being surrounded by not very good looking people.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

padamchen said:


> We lost the genetic fair and lovely needed.
> 
> I could actually wax lyrical about Pakistanis and Indian Muslims here. In terms of genetics and looks.
> 
> To be honest, Indians really aren't a very good looking people.
> 
> Some Indians are. But if you see the percentage split, the general impression people have abroad as well as one living here internally is being surrounded by not very good looking people.
> 
> Cheers, Doc




Parasitic Disease Load, lack of Iodized Salt, Malnutrition,adamant Vegterianism, Pollution to blame...But the greatest loss to Indian looks has been the persistent female foeticide by the fairest of Indians for the last 30 years...Those striking Facial phenotypes from the Northwest are vanishing by the year...I donot see those Iranic looking Sikhs anymore in the more youthful cohorts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Parasitic Disease Load, lack of Iodized Salt, Malnutrition,adamant Vegterianism, Pollution to blame...But the greatest loss to Indian looks has been the persistent female foeticide by the fairest of Indians for the last 30 years...Those striking Facial phenotypes from the Northwest are vanishing by the year...I donot see those Iranic looking Sikhs anymore in the more youthful cohorts



You look at a Jatt Sikh in Punjab and then you see some of the specimens we have here in Pune ... Nanded Sikhs they are called.

Good point on the Rajasthanis and Jats.

@ranjeet @Sam. @paritosh 

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Parasitic Disease Load, lack of Iodized Salt, Malnutrition,adamant Vegterianism, Pollution to blame...But the greatest loss to Indian looks has been the persistent female foeticide by the fairest of Indians for the last 30 years...Those striking Facial phenotypes from the Northwest are vanishing by the year...I donot see those Iranic looking Sikhs anymore in the more youthful cohorts



I was in UK last week and Sikh girls are over rated and relatively bad looking in comparision to average punjabi muslim girls. Indian punjab lost all the good looking people when Arains moved to Pakistan as they tend to be purest indo-aryans. But it also gained pretty hindu khatri girls but as it stand now they too have slowly lost their looks with time and mixing.

At the end it wouldn’t matter as pretty girls are like small % and eventually they will be lost in sea of subcontinent billions if mixing was rampant in hypothetical united Bharat.

I will also explain later how so called Iranic is original phenotype of IVC people and have less to do with aryan ancestry as its believed by many.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Nope mixing doesnot really happen like that...How a mixed society looks..one should look to South America......The hardest working,most enterprising and the most adventurous of men would end up with the Fairest looking maidens.....and their sons in turn will marry the fairest of maidens...The poorest are roughly comprised of the darkest skin underclass...No matter how you cut and slice a society and organize it (Hindu ,Islamic Sharia,Communism,Hardcore Capitalism,Social Welfare mixed with Capitalism), Human Biological tendencies and forces will always come to the forefront......The Biggest currencies of a man in Society is his IQ and his testosterone...The Biggest currencies of a woman in Society are her looks and number of her fertile years still remaining.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

In my opinion beauty has nothing whatsoever to do with the skin colour; it is a combination of the proportionate features and body (not too skinny but leaning towards the voluptuous side) and the charm /coquettishness which in Urdu is called ‘Adaa’. Akbar Allahabadi in the poem addressed to his son ‘Ishratee’ writes:

"mom kee putliyon par aisee tabeea't pighlee
chaman-e-Hind kee pariyon kee adaa bhool gaye"

(You have such a crush on the wax dolls of Europe that you have forgotten coquetry of the fairies of the garden of India).

Growing up in Sargodha we used to hear a lot about beauty of the girls of Lahore. Government College Lahore in 1958 had co-education, Kashmiri girls had lighter skin, but overall I did not find Lahori girls physically any prettier than those from Sargodha & Lyallpur (Faisalabd), the two cities I knew intimately. Lahori girls were however more charming, mainly because of access to better education and having a better dress sense.

Now as an old man of 74, please take it from me; beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Personally I like women who are bit heavily built but still tall (5"7+), that is tall women who eat heavily but still do a lot of lifts and squats...That gives them much bigger gluts and an arching muscular back....I still remember seeing a much darker Egyptian girl (like a darker Sindhi/Von Luschan 20) like that who would out-babe the daintier and shorter of the Germans...anyways talking like that about female beauty is not good on an open forum, especially for married men..that's why people tend to limit female beauty discussion to skin colour and facial features


----------



## padamchen

ranjeet said:


> Not sure what exactly he is trying to say here man. Help me out a little. Is he trying to say that Jats want a merger with Pakistan to replenish the female population from across the border to make up for the lack of numbers in states like Haryana/Rajasthan?



Sorry bro. Read your post over lunch and completely forgot about it (was it kadak rotis with a dab of oil with hands today, so no spoon).

What he meant was that few pockets of fair good looking people we have, are systematically skewing their male-female ratio. To the point where I've heard Jat guys are increasingly "importing" brides from other states, even the north-east? Simply because too few Jat girls to marry.

Now in a way that will spread the good looks around. But it would be short lived and pale within a few generations. The darker not so good looking gene pool being MUCH larger.

The ideal way to go about it would be for the Jats to keep producing fair good looking kids, both boys and girls, and those in turn to keep procreating as well, to increase the fair good looking gene pool, and SOME Jat boys and girls from each generation to marry into the larger gene pool.

That way you don't dilute the good looks within a few generations, and theoretically have a never ending supply to slowly beautify the rest. Albeit VERY slowly, if at all.

Dont know about girls, but some of your guys look Parsi. Fair, red. Light brown/reddish hair. Built the same. One of my best buddies in college, a batch junior, was a Jat, and looked a near copy of me. Could easily pass off among Parsis as a Parsi (as long as he kept his Haryanvi mouth shut).

When my son was born, barely a few months old, he and his girlfriend came over home to meet us and do sagan to our boy for the first time. 

He was holding him in his arms and to this day my wife and I laugh when we remember the look of confusion on our baby's face, wide eyes, smiles, go goo sounds, and with both tiny hands touching Jat's face all over. Have a photo of that scene as well. 

@Juggernaut_is_here 

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

I would not complain about Indian female beauty if Indian women chose to go for heavier dairy-cum-meat addled diet and coupled that with Lifting and squats...the skinny ,dainty look really only works for fair skinned, sharp featured girls..and I am not sure I even like that


----------



## padamchen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I would not complain about Indian female beauty if Indian women chose to go for heavier dairy-cum-meat addled diet and coupled that with Lifting and squats...the skinny ,dainty look really only works for fair skinned, sharp featured girls..and I am not sure I even like that



Our girls are never going to be built like Germanic frauleins if that's the look you're going for ...

Cheers, Doc


----------



## ranjeet

padamchen said:


> Sorry bro. Read your post over lunch and completely forgot about it (was it kadak rotis with a dab of oil with hands today, so no spoon).
> 
> What he meant was that few pockets of fair good looking people we have, are systematically skewing their male-female ratio. To the point where I've heard Jat guys are increasingly "importing" brides from other states, even the north-east? Simply because too few Jat girls to marry.
> 
> Now in a way that will spread the good looks around. But it would be short lived and pale within a few generations. The darker not so good looking gene pool being MUCH larger.
> 
> The ideal way to go about it would be for the Jats to keep producing fair good looking kids, both boys and girls, and those in turn to keep procreating as well, to increase the fair good looking gene pool, and SOME Jat boys and girls from each generation to marry into the larger gene pool.
> 
> That way you don't dilute the good looks within a few generations, and theoretically have a never ending supply to slowly beautify the rest. Albeit VERY slowly, if at all.
> 
> Dont know about girls, but some of your guys look Parsi. Fair, red. Light brown/reddish hair. Built the same. One of my best buddies in college, a batch junior, was a Jat, and looked a near copy of me. Could easily pass off among Parsis as a Parsi (as long as he kept his Haryanvi mouth shut).
> 
> When my son was born, barely a few months old, he and his girlfriend came over home to meet us and do sagan to our boy for the first time.
> 
> He was holding him in his arms and to this day my wife and I laugh when we remember the look of confusion on our baby's face, wide eyes, smiles, go goo sounds, and with both tiny hands touching Jat's face all over. Have a photo of that scene as well.
> 
> @Juggernaut_is_here
> 
> Cheers, Doc



Yes, some people have been importing brides but it's more due to strict restrictions on marriages than skewed sex ratio. I mean we avoid a rishta from our own gotra, mother's and grandmother's plus we avoid neighbouring villages "Gawand". Some restrictions are being relaxed regarding to neighbouring villages though. 

Haryana has seen skewed sex ratio for the last one century if not more but still we are here procreating and now with more awareness and strict laws the sex ratio is going to only get better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Nope mixing doesnot really happen like that...How a mixed society looks..one should look to South America......The hardest working,most enterprising and the most adventurous of men would end up with the Fairest looking maidens.....and their sons in turn will marry the fairest of maidens...The poorest are roughly comprised of the darkest skin underclass...No matter how you cut and slice a society and organize it (Hindu ,Islamic Sharia,Communism,Hardcore Capitalism,Social Welfare mixed with Capitalism), Human Biological tendencies and forces will always come to the forefront......The Biggest currencies of a man in Society is his IQ and his testosterone...The Biggest currencies of a woman in Society are her looks and number of her fertile years still remaining.



I don't know. I mean look at parsis, despite the fact that women no longer remain parsi once she marry outside. Despite that pure parsis now look like perhaps shade lighter gujaratis at best racially. Same thing with Kashmiri pandits, they don't look like ethnic Kashmiris from valley at all. Same happened to khatri hindus in Delhi, if they had moved to Amristar instead of Delhi then they would have remained same. South asian male isn't as racist like south americans, its not like they have much options to begin with unlike in south america which is pred white with others being minorty. Even mulatos have at least 50% or more european ancestry. In south asia high caste looks depend more on geographic location and low castes look same irrespective of location most times.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Can somebody give me exact definition of and background to "Mussalis/Churas" that a member mentioned please. I already have a feint idea but precise definition would be appreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

Kaptaan said:


> Can somebody give me exact definition of and background to "Mussalis/Churas" that a member mentioned please. I already have a feint idea but precise definition would be appreciated.


I once heard that they are descendants of forest aboriginals from the south who have similar genetics to Australoids. They clearly look South Indian and are conscious of their looks, a mussali from a nearby village (he was darker than an African) who had a UK passport decided to improve his genetics by procuring a Greek looking Chitrali lass, needless to say his kids were still dark as hell.Kudos


----------



## MultaniGuy

django said:


> I once heard that they are descendants of forest aboriginals from the south who have similar genetics to Australoids. They clearly look South Indian and are conscious of their looks, a mussali from a nearby village (he was darker than an African) who had a UK passport decided to improve his genetics by procuring a Greek looking Chitrali lass, needless to say his kids were still dark as hell.Kudos


LOL 

A good one indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

django said:


> I once heard that they are descendants of forest aboriginals from the south who have similar genetics to Australoids. They clearly look South Indian and are conscious of their looks, a mussali from a nearby village (he was darker than an African) who had a UK passport decided to improve his genetics by procuring a Greek looking Chitrali lass, needless to say his kids were still dark as hell.Kudos






One needs to be very careful of their gene pool being infected with hyper-ugly deformed savages. Nobody wants their offspring to lool like the missing link between apes and humans.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## django

Iqbal Ali said:


> LOL
> 
> A good one indeed.





PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> One needs to be very careful of their gene pool of being infected with hyper-ugly deformed savages. Nobody wants their offspring to lool like the missing link between apes and humans.


The thing is she actually ended up eloping with an Afghan refugee, must say cannot blame her.Kudos gents


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> One needs to be very careful of their gene pool of being infected with hyper-ugly deformed savages. Nobody wants their offspring to lool like the missing link between apes and humans.


lol halarious. 

Indeed Indians are dark skinned.


----------



## Kabira

Kaptaan said:


> Can somebody give me exact definition of and background to "Mussalis/Churas" that a member mentioned please. I already have a feint idea but precise definition would be appreciated.



I'm 90% sure they came from low caste Rajasthan nomadic tribes. In rajasthan low castes have similar caste names as one found in Pakistan. Mussali is just generic term used for such castes once they converted to Islam and were settled in villages. There is still population of them having nomadic life style and collect garbaje to sell, one can find them in outskirts of cities now days and are usually called changhars.


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

django said:


> The thing is she actually ended up eloping with an Afghan refugee, must say cannot blame her.Kudos gents




At least with the Afghan the kids will look healthy and good looking. They won't look worst than sub-human apes.


----------



## django

Tesky said:


> I'm 90% sure they came from low caste Rajasthan nomadic tribes. In rajasthan low castes have similar caste names as one found in Pakistan. Mussali is just generic term used for such castes once they converted to Islam and were settled in villages. There is still population of them having nomadic life style and collect garbaje to sell, one can find them in outskirts of cities now days and are usually called changhars.


Their women also sell bangles, I heard they were related to Australian aboriginals.


----------



## Kabira

django said:


> I once heard that they are descendants of forest aboriginals from the south who have similar genetics to Australoids. They clearly look South Indian and are conscious of their looks, a mussali from a nearby village (he was darker than an African) who had a UK passport decided to improve his genetics by procuring a Greek looking Chitrali lass, needless to say his kids were still dark as hell.Kudos



I wouldn't say they came from south India as both look different. They came from north India, Rajasthan and even UP. The ones in village now days if they become rich after getting money from abroad or getting some gov job move to Islamabad, buy some house there and change their name. Know one case that did just that and adopted Mian title lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Iqbal Ali said:


> lol halarious.
> 
> Indeed Indians are dark skinned.




It's not just the dark skin. It's the other things. Some Pakistanis & Arabs are dark skinned but are very good looking and attractive.

It's when you have features similar to that of apes, skinny legs, unhealthy bodies and physique that the problem starts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

Tesky said:


> I wouldn't say they came from south India as both look different. They came from north India, Rajasthan and even UP. The ones in village now days if they become rich after getting money from abroad or getting some gov job move to Islamabad, buy some house there and change their name. Know one case that did just that and adopted Mian title lol


I know of Mussalis claiming to be Syeds and Rajputs/Jatts/Maliks etc lol......The reason some mussali look less like south Indian is because they have input from other races, we all know what happens in some villages against these folks by some high caste idiot wanting to lose his virginity.Kudos


----------



## django

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> At least with the Afghan the kids will look healthy and good looking. They won't look worst than sub-human apes.


I guess the kids will look Afghan as Chitrali and Afghan are indistinguishable. Kudos

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

django said:


> I know of Mussalis claiming to be Syeds and Rajputs/Jatts/Maliks etc lol......The reason some mussali look less like south Indian is because they have input for other races, we all know what happens in some villages against these folks by some high caste idiot wanting to lose his virginity.Kudos



Yes its quite possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

diplomat7 said:


> Exactly true actually. Its better to be with the gene pool known to have a habit of exploding themselves, *have pea sized brain *who cannot even figure out the form of governance they want in 70 years. The mighty gene pool which has lost all the wars. The greatest humility lies in the gene pool that they even make hero out the rapist of their ancestors.
> 
> Yes exactly you should not mix the filth.


I have seen plenty of men from the Ganga, one thing I noticed about them is that they have extremely small craniums as compared to Pakistanis or Northern Jatt Sikhs/Gujjars/Khatri Aroras etc,,,make no mistake about it, mussali and churay are related to the southerners.Kudos


----------



## diplomat7

django said:


> I have seen plenty of men form the Ganga, one thing I noticed about them is that they have extremely small craniums as compared to Pakistanis or Northern Jatt Sikhs/Gujjars/Khatri Aroras etc,,,make no mistake about it, mussali and churay are related to the southerners.Kudos


Yup and still the gangadesh people have flag on the moon and you have moon on the flag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

diplomat7 said:


> Yup and still the gangadesh people have flag on the moon and you have moon on the flag.


Might have been the work of northerners lol,,,,,with a population of the magnitude of Gangadesh and their focus on education (which has to be admired) of course their are going to be some bright people yet on average i strongly suspect they are lacking, very much lacking.Kudos young diplomat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> It's not just the dark skin. It's the other things. Some Pakistanis & Arabs are dark skinned but are very good looking and attractive.
> 
> It's when you have features similar to that of apes, skinny legs, unhealthy bodies and physique that the problem starts.


Good point indeed brother.

Those Indian people are indeed short and dark skinned.


----------



## diplomat7

django said:


> Might have been the work of northerners lol,,,,,with a population of the magnitude of Gangadesh and their focus on education (which has to be admired) of course their are going to be some bright people yet on average i strongly suspect they are lacking, very much lacking.Kudos young diplomat.


Majority of ISRO is south Indians. And your so called marital race is still trying to figure out the form of government they want to live in after 70 years of independence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

django said:


> The thing is she actually ended up eloping with an Afghan refugee, must say cannot blame her.Kudos gents




Something like this happened to somebody I know. A forever alone, pudgy thick featured dark guy makes it to the best colleges and then the West. Comes back home to marry the fairest, prettiest looking girl possible. Is over the moon, relocates to the West with the girl. Girl elopes with a white man. The guy becomes heart broken and dejected , quits his job, returns back and settles down in a village back home

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

diplomat7 said:


> Exactly true actually. Its better to be with the gene pool known to have a habit of exploding themselves, have pea sized brain who cannot even figure out the form of governance they want in 70 years. The mighty gene pool which has lost all the wars. The greatest humility lies in the gene pool that they even make hero out the rapist of their ancestors.
> 
> Yes exactly you should not mix the filth.





So says the same person from the gene pool who have been conquered, raped, humiliated and enslaved for over a 1000 years by various empires......

Who'd want their kids to look like this?:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/05fa1d82aaebee915fc0f05d4f498536/tumblr_inline_o4c0qbEIEC1trd1i3_500.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-soywmvP4...S-hZZZz8m-b3FFatBg/s1600/Karthy+and+Marie.JPG


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

India's nuclear program,prowess in space missions and relative prowess in IT has nothing to do with the North, nor with the South....But with a specific community of people alone.. Tamil Brahmins...even Indian Nobel Prize winners in the Sciences are mostly Southern Brahmins....The Brahmin Brain Drain (Google CEO) has hit India majorly

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

diplomat7 said:


> Majority of ISRO is south Indians. And your so called marital race is still trying to figure out the form of government they want to live in after 70 years of independence.




And this is only possible thanks to the technology, science, inventions and expertise of the White race which makes it possible for these indians.

The actual racial IQ of indians is 82. Less than that of Pakistan and Afghsnistan:

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#


On top of having a low IQ, indians also have the smallest weiners in the world:

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

http://m.mensxp.com/special-feature...e-the-second-smallest-penis-in-the-world.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

Kaptaan said:


> Can somebody give me exact definition of and background to "Mussalis/Churas" that a member mentioned please. I already have a feint idea but precise definition would be appreciated.



I can only say about what I know happened in Punjab. 

At the time of partition nearly all of the high caste & rich Hindus & Sikhs migrated to India. Low caste Hindus & Sikhs, otherwise known as ‘Kammies’ had no incentive to move because they would still be at the bottom of the heap. 

To avoid being killed during the riots these people changed their religion. Those who converted to Islam were later called ‘Musalli’ from ‘Musla’; what a Punjabi Muslim was called by the Punjabi non- Muslims prior to the partition. Many however became Christians. Sweeper class among the converted Christians are called ‘Chura’ which is the same as Bhangi in Urdu.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

diplomat7 said:


> Yes and still we continued to be hindus. we were not the ones who converted to get some perks or to get a high seat or save ourself. we fought back. We do not lick the boots of those with our tongues today who actually invaded.
> 
> Irony is the same very people treat the so called marital race like $hit when they visit their country. Even hindus get the better treatment than them. Yup keep the marital race. LOL



We are not hindus that coverted. That is a bollywood myth that has been refuted by scientific and anthropological evidence:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...cal-divide-is-at-least-1600-years-old.513143/

The fact that Pakistanis look nothing like modern day indians is evidence of this.

Think you are suffering from "lesser man syndrome" which is affects men of the indian biology and persuassion due to their inherent physical deformities:

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

http://m.mensxp.com/special-feature...e-the-second-smallest-penis-in-the-world.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

India is on par in technical advancement with almost all countries that have IQ in the 80-90 range. The one country with IQ in the 80s but still technically far advanced than others in the same band in Brazil.

Please Note: Technical advancement doesnot automatically translate to suitable GDP per capita..I am aware India is on the bottom rung when it comes to GDP per capita and HDI index

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> Looks are overrated in men (speaking as a man here).
> 
> Give me a vicious fighter any day.
> 
> Probably only the Jats have both.
> 
> Then look at the Kashmiris ...
> 
> Do you really think we would mourn their going?
> 
> Coming back to your hypothesis, what we lost in genetic fighting stock was not very great to begin with.
> 
> And the good fighting stock they have, was never really ours to begin with.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



In all honesty so called haryanvis jatts n rajputs in Pak arent really considered some sort of greek gods, lol..and are a bit darker than souther panjabis/serikis...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> And this is only possible thanks to the technology, science, inventions and expertise of the White race which makes it possible for these indians.
> 
> The actual racial IQ of indians is 82. Less than that of Pakistan and Afghsnistan:
> 
> https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#
> 
> 
> On top of having a low IQ, indisns also have the smallest weiners in the world:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6161691.stm
> 
> http://m.mensxp.com/special-feature...e-the-second-smallest-penis-in-the-world.html


You are right brother.

I agree with you 100%.

These Indians have a lower IQ than Pakistanis!


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Iqbal Ali said:


> You are right brother.
> 
> I agree with you 100%.
> 
> These Indians have a lower IQ than Pakistanis!





indians have a lower racial IQ than both Pakistanis and Afghans. Here is the scientific evidence:

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> indians have a lower racial IQ than both Pakistanis and Afghans. Here is the scientific evidence:
> 
> https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#


Thank you for your evidence. This will convince Indian who is the master race now!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> I agree on the women.
> 
> But I find beauty in most womanly gene pools. Some are of course denser than others.
> 
> But there is no doubt that the loss of Pakistan meant we lost a lot of future potential of diluting our not very good looking more melanized gene pools.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


U should also thank God... ur women are already not into parsi men... us Pak would have been their first choice.. 



bananarepublic said:


> there is a race of people here called the hunzakutz which some historian say are decedents of the huns also their language is unique and very scarce and the only similar language found has been in the salvic region. historians also say that the huns crossed the karakuram mountain to reach the IVC and other parts of india. but some people also say that hunzakutz are also descendant of Alexander army when they crossed this region


brushaski? remains an isolated/non related lingo... amazing .

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## wiseone2

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> And this is only possible thanks to the technology, science, inventions and expertise of the White race which makes it possible for these indians.
> 
> The actual racial IQ of indians is 82. Less than that of Pakistan and Afghsnistan:
> 
> https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#
> 
> 
> On top of having a low IQ, indisns also have the smallest weiners in the world:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6161691.stm
> 
> http://m.mensxp.com/special-feature...e-the-second-smallest-penis-in-the-world.html


too bad you are not in charge of pakistani army expounding this martial race theories


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Rule of Thumb----Hindus is basically Indo Aryans + Dravidians with other races being inducted much much later

People of the Indus Basin are not only Indo-Aryans but also are the recipients of multiple-pulses of later nomadic Indo-European genes like Persians,Scythians,Kushans,Wusuns,Yuezhis,various hues of Hunas.....


Even Mahabharata itself (400 BC-400 AD) said that the Indus basin region was not fit anymore for Vedic sacrifices because of intrusion of Mlecchas


_'There where forests of Pilus stand, *and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.'*_
*
The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 44*

Because of having equal association with later nomadic Indo-Europeans as with earlier Indo-Aryans, people of the Indus Basin chose MOSTLY trans-national religions like Buddhism instead of Hinduism. 

That's not to say that Central Asian nomads who settled in Indus Basin never converted to Hinduism..Quite the contrary..Examples abound such as Northern Scythians and Alchon Huns. But their level of piety and religiosity were no where close to say that of the Indo-Aryan Brahmins. The Heavy enforcement of Hinduism was missing during those empires


There were pious Hindu empires in the Indus Basin from time to time though, but they were manned by super pious Indo-Aryan Brahmins rather than nomadic converted Hindus...


Chief example of such a dynasty would be the later Hindu Shahis from 850 AD to 1001 AD..who were estimated to be Mohyal Brahmins....


Around 17.5% of male lineages in Northern India belong to the Indo-European pool..Compared to that by my estimation, around 40% of the male lineages in Pakistan belong to the Indo-European pool....

This 20% difference in IE lineage will of course show up in how the two peoples will identify themselves..This subject requires a nuanced and patient view....

When I referring to Pakistan, I am referring specifically to that part of Pakistan that lies between the eastern bank of the Indus and the Indian border...The Western part of Pakistan is beyond the scope of the Indic cultural sphere.

and I have given ample evidence from pre-Islamic times to avoid any needless religious confrontation...

Indus Basin was slowly differentiating itself from Eastern India by adopting the successive innovations of Mahayana Buddhism..Swat itself played a major role in Transmission of Buddhism into Central Asia...


If there was no Islam, Pakistan would be Buddhist and still would be cold to us akin to Sri Lanka ..(though the modern enmity would largely be missing).....Way more Buddhist stupas are found around Pakistan than ancient Hindu temples


----------



## MultaniGuy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Rule of Thumb----Hindus is basically Indo Aryans + Dravidians with other races being inducted much much later
> 
> People of the Indus Basin are not only Indo-Aryans but also are the recipients of multiple-pulses of later nomadic Indo-European genes like Persians,Scythians,Kushans,Wusuns,Yuezhis,various hues of Hunas.....
> 
> 
> Even Mahabharata itself (400 BC-400 AD) said that the Indus basin region was not fit anymore for Vedic sacrifices because of intrusion of Mlecchas
> 
> 
> _'There where forests of Pilus stand, *and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.'*_
> *
> The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 44*
> 
> Because of having equal association with later nomadic Indo-Europeans as with earlier Indo-Aryans, people of the Indus Basin chose MOSTLY trans-national religions like Buddhism instead of Hinduism.
> 
> That's not to say that Central Asian nomads who settled in Indus Basin never converted to Hinduism..Quite the contrary..Examples abound such as Northern Scythians and Alchon Huns. But their level of piety and religiosity were no where close to say that of the Indo-Aryan Brahmins.
> 
> 
> There were pious Hindu empires in the Indus Basin from time to time though, but they were manned by super pious Indo-Aryan Brahmins rather than nomadic converted Hindus...
> 
> Chief example of such a dynasty would be the later Hindu Shahis from 850 AD to 1001 AD..who were estimated to be Mohyal Brahmins....
> 
> 
> Around 17.5% of male lineages in Northern India belong to the Indo-European pool..Compared to that by my estimation, around 40% of the male lineages in Pakistan belong to the Indo-European pool....
> 
> This 20% difference in IE lineage will of course show up in how the two peoples will identify themselves..This subject requires a nuanced and patient view....
> 
> When I referring to Pakistan, I am referring specifically to that part of Pakistan that lies between the eastern bank of the Indus and the Indian border...The Western part of Pakistan is beyond the scope of the Indic cultural sphere.
> 
> and I have given ample evidence from pre-Islamic times to avoid any needless religious confrontation...
> 
> Indus Basin was slowly differentiating itself from Eastern India by adopting the successive innovations of Mahayana Buddhism..Swat itself played a major role in Transmission of Buddhism into Central Asia...
> 
> 
> If there was no Islam, Pakistan would be Buddhist and still would be cold to us akin to Sri Lanka ..(though the modern enmity would largely be missing).....Way more Buddhist stupas are found around Pakistan than ancient Hindu temples


Glad you agree we are as different as a Banana is to a truck.


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Rule of Thumb----Hindus is basically Indo Aryans + Dravidians with other races being inducted much much later
> 
> People of the Indus Basin are not only Indo-Aryans but also are the recipients of multiple-pulses of later nomadic Indo-European genes like Persians,Scythians,Kushans,Wusuns,Yuezhis,various hues of Hunas.....
> 
> 
> Even Mahabharata itself (400 BC-400 AD) said that the Indus basin region was not fit anymore for Vedic sacrifices because of intrusion of Mlecchas
> 
> 
> _'There where forests of Pilus stand, *and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.'*_
> *
> The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 44*
> 
> Because of having equal association with later nomadic Indo-Europeans as with earlier Indo-Aryans, people of the Indus Basin chose MOSTLY trans-national religions like Buddhism instead of Hinduism.
> 
> That's not to say that Central Asian nomads who settled in Indus Basin never converted to Hinduism..Quite the contrary..Examples abound such as Northern Scythians and Alchon Huns. But their level of piety and religiosity were no where close to say that of the Indo-Aryan Brahmins. The Heavy enforcement of Hinduism was missing during those empires
> 
> 
> There were pious Hindu empires in the Indus Basin from time to time though, but they were manned by super pious Indo-Aryan Brahmins rather than nomadic converted Hindus...
> 
> 
> Chief example of such a dynasty would be the later Hindu Shahis from 850 AD to 1001 AD..who were estimated to be Mohyal Brahmins....
> 
> 
> Around 17.5% of male lineages in Northern India belong to the Indo-European pool..Compared to that by my estimation, around 40% of the male lineages in Pakistan belong to the Indo-European pool....
> 
> This 20% difference in IE lineage will of course show up in how the two peoples will identify themselves..This subject requires a nuanced and patient view....
> 
> When I referring to Pakistan, I am referring specifically to that part of Pakistan that lies between the eastern bank of the Indus and the Indian border...The Western part of Pakistan is beyond the scope of the Indic cultural sphere.
> 
> and I have given ample evidence from pre-Islamic times to avoid any needless religious confrontation...
> 
> Indus Basin was slowly differentiating itself from Eastern India by adopting the successive innovations of Mahayana Buddhism..Swat itself played a major role in Transmission of Buddhism into Central Asia...
> 
> 
> If there was no Islam, Pakistan would be Buddhist and still would be cold to us akin to Sri Lanka ..(though the modern enmity would largely be missing).....Way more Buddhist stupas are found around Pakistan than ancient Hindu temples





So the Hindu faith even admits that the ancestors of modern-day Pakistsnis were different to that of modern day indians, 1000s of years ago? Intetesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> So the Hindu faith even admits that the ancestors of modern-day Pakistsnis were different to that of modern day indians, 1000s of years ago? Intetesting.


Vahikas meaning outsiders, and here referring to the Indus people........This chapter was probably formalized just before the Gupta era...The constant settlement of various waves of Central Asian nomads in the basin was perhaps too much for the Brahmins to take.....History of the subcontinent should be seen as a constant struggle between nomadic empires and settled empires...Seeing it in a religious prism is boring and straitjacketed....It mirrors Ibn Khaldun's Asabbiyah theory in toto....If there was no Islam, then Buddhist, Shamanist, Tengriist nomadic empires would have fought the same fight against the Indo-Aryans ..the fearsome Northern Yuans and the Dzungar Khanates were Buddhist......If Arabs had overrun the subcontinent as they did in other places, then we could have seen the history in religious terms..But they didnot and here we are.......................


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

diplomat7 said:


> If i am a man or woman lets just leave it to human itself.
> 
> Again check out the reasons why no one respects south Asian muslims. And you are still considered Hindus in majority of middle east. The generic term for south asian is hindu only. So as much as u try to beat your chest of "not indian" you will be what you are.
> 
> Regarding the penis size with the penis sizes we indians have we have managed to have highest population. So one day or other there is a high probabilty you and your people will end up getting fckd by Indian literally and metaphorically.
> 
> Still i fail to understand if this is a kind of sexual frustration you have that you cannot talk without including sexual elements in rational debate. I am not sure who did "dirty things" with you or your goat ran away i am not sure. But dude there are doctors you should visit them. Har beemari laailaj nahi hoti.




EPIC FAIL...........Even White English people are converting to Islam in England in growing numbers:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2016/02/conversion-islam

The biggest Muslim population in the UK are Pakistanis and they are responsible for this. One of the most powerful political figures in England and Europe is the mayor of London. The mayor of London is a Pakistani called Sadiq Khan. An indian has never held this position.

Your assertions about the Middle East are not valid here. In London, there is a growing number of younger Pakistanis, Arabs , Turks & Iranian/Persian Muslims intermarrying with eachother in increasing numbers.

indians may have the largest population in the world but they are also the MOST ugliest, deformed and physically repulsive race on earth:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/05fa1d82aaebee915fc0f05d4f498536/tumblr_inline_o4c0qbEIEC1trd1i3_500.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-soywmvP4V8E/VvT8_YSdLDI/AAAAAAAAFqk/NokntT0jSDcJt8_S-hZZZz8m-b3FFatBg/s1600/Karthy+and+Marie.JPG

PS I think your mama got a big strong alpha Pakistani/Muslim lund in her choot and ghand-hole and made your papa watch. Just go and ask her.........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok mourya

Pakistanis ....cry...louder more louder..but you are just converts by sword..whether you divided to another 10 countries you will remain as Hindu or Indians to Arabs ...


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

ashok mourya said:


> Pakistanis ....cry...louder more louder..but you are just converts by sword..whether you divided to another 10 countries you will remain as Hindu or Indians to Arabs ...





Scientific and anthropological evidence says otherwise:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...cal-divide-is-at-least-1600-years-old.513143/

Think you're getting your info from the same indian source that vehemently proclaimed that Pakistan would NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance............

Don't know about you, but we couldn't care less what the Arabs or anyone else thinks for that matter.


PS your mama likes to swallow Pakistani/Muslim juice in front of your papa. That is why you are here. You are sadomasochists like all the other indians on PDF.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ashok mourya said:


> Pakistanis ....cry...louder more louder..but you are just converts by sword..whether you divided to another 10 countries you will remain as Hindu or Indians to Arabs ...


meanwhile u look like a bhangi... lardarse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

The Indian Penis Size news doing the rounds in the internet is fake...refer to Human Penis Size article in Wikipedia and there you would find a link to an actual study on Indian Penis size

That study of 500 men yielded an average erect length of 13.01 cm

The International average in 2015 was reckoned to be 13.12 cm (erect length)


@PAKISTANFOREVER


----------



## MultaniGuy

ashok mourya said:


> Pakistanis ....cry...louder more louder..but you are just converts by sword..whether you divided to another 10 countries you will remain as Hindu or Indians to Arabs ...


In Islam it is forbidden to convert by the sword.

Had it been that way, the Mughals should have converted every single Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, and Parsi in South Asia to Islam.

The Mughals, Nizam of Hyderabad, Nawab of Awadh, Nawab of Bahawalpur, never converted people by the sword.

You are just a liar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ashok mourya

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> meanwhile u look like a bhangi... lardarse.


Just tell me your real name..I can show mirror to you about your race...


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Let's keep the thread limited to pre-Islamic times people..That is more than enough for the scope of this thread.


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The Indian Penis Size news doing the rounds in the internet is fake...refer to Human Penis Size article in Wikipedia and there you would find a link to an actual study on Indian Penis size
> 
> That study of 500 men yielded an average erect length of 13.01 cm
> 
> The International average in 2015 was reckoned to be 13.12 cm (erect length)
> 
> 
> @PAKISTANFOREVER





Wikipedia can't be trusted. Is not a reliable honest source. The source I used is from leading imminent scientists based in the West. If the news is fake, please provide the evidence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Wikipedia can't be trusted. Is not a reliable honest source. The source I used is from leading imminent scientists based in the West. If the news is fake, please provide the evidence.


People shouldn't use wikipedia really.

Anyone can modify it.

Personally I use Britannica as my encyclopedia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

ashok mourya said:


> Just tell me your real name..I can show mirror to you about your race...





Just ask these indians the same question:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/05fa1d82aaebee915fc0f05d4f498536/tumblr_inline_o4c0qbEIEC1trd1i3_500.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-soywmvP4V8E/VvT8_YSdLDI/AAAAAAAAFqk/NokntT0jSDcJt8_S-hZZZz8m-b3FFatBg/s1600/Karthy+and+Marie.JPG



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Let's keep the thread limited to pre-Islamic times people..That is more than enough for the scope of this thread.




Will do. Sorry for going off topic. Need to be civil and scientific here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously



However even today if there is one Nationality that looks similar to Pakistanis
It is Indians

Even afghans look less similar to Pakistanis than Indians


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


> However even today if there is one Nationality that looks similar to Pakistanis
> It is Indians
> 
> Even afghans look less similar to Pakistanis than Indians


I disagree with you.

Pakistanis and Indians do not look alike.

Maybe only the Muhajirs.

Pakistanis and Afghanistanis look alike though.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Iqbal Ali said:


> I disagree with you.
> 
> Pakistanis and Indians do not look alike.
> 
> Maybe only the Muhajirs.
> 
> Pakistanis and Afghanistanis look alike though.









Indian PM and Pakistani PM


----------



## ashok mourya

Iqbal Ali said:


> In Islam it is forbidden to convert by the sword.
> 
> Had it been that way, the Mughals should have converted every single Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, and Parsi in South Asia to Islam.
> 
> The Mughals, Nizam of Hyderabad, Nawab of Awadh, Nawab of Bahawalpur, never converted people by the sword.
> 
> You are just a liar.


Except Indonesia and Malaysia every Muslim country first conquered by sword and then converted by different means including sword,suffism,...etc


----------



## Kabira

niaz said:


> I can only say about what I know happened in Punjab.
> 
> At the time of partition nearly all of the high caste & rich Hindus & Sikhs migrated to India. Low caste Hindus & Sikhs, otherwise known as ‘Kammies’ had no incentive to move because they would still be at the bottom of the heap.
> 
> To avoid being killed during the riots these people changed their religion. Those who converted to Islam were later called ‘Musalli’ from ‘Musla’; what a Punjabi Muslim was called by the Punjabi non- Muslims prior to the partition. Many however became Christians. Sweeper class among the converted Christians are called ‘Chura’ which is the same as Bhangi in Urdu.



Musalis is quite old term as recorded by British and was used for chuhra like people who converted to Islam and lived in majority muslim villages. As northen punjab, potohar and south AJK where muslim population was up to 90%, in that region these people are still called massalis. By 1947 must of chuhra hindus were converted to Chrsitianity who didn't left. Then we are left with mazhabhi sikhs who left with other sikhs in 1947, there can be case of some of them staying back and converting to Christianity but I doubt it was the case in general.

Chuhra is distinct caste name though. Kammi is again very loose term and shouldn't be confused with chuhra/mussalis. Anyone doing anything other then belonging to agricultural tribes is basically kammi but racially kammi people are very diverse and are not all like chuhras at all. They all have distinct identities and not all kammis will be willing to do the job of churas/mussalis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Have been reporting your pathetic posts for a while now.. and for one of the few times... ignored em.. despite them being overly abusive.

But seems no action on your posts has only given you more confidence to abuse us and our hospitality.


@Jungibaaz. @Slav Defence. @Irfan Baloch



diplomat7 said:


> If i am a man or woman lets just leave it to human itself.
> 
> Again check out the reasons why no one respects south Asian muslims.


Really? Have you even been outside of your well?

Its you people who arw considered dirty,smelly by so called middlr easterners and trust me 99.9% wouldnt even sit with you to eat a morsel of food.



> And you are still considered Hindus in majority of middle east. The generic term for south asian is hindu only. So as much as u try to beat your chest of "not indian" you will be what you are.



Really? You are bloody called hindi not others.. and are considered submissive people.

Don't trust me? Why dont you go to ME or even Quora and read the arab opinions.. or should i spoon feed you?


> Regarding the penis size with the penis sizes we indians have we have managed to have highest population



Congrats youve made it to the list.

Along with rats and rabbits... all submissive and pathetic.



> So one day or other there is a high probabilty you and your people will end up getting fckd by Indian literally and metaphorically


.
And in reality.. there is more possibility of you or your wife getting fuked by a Big Pakistani guy... Along with yourself.




> The tragedy of your people is they are not trying to be Pakistanis. Your half life is spent in proving we are "not indians". Your country has even embraced the invaders to actually do that. And in fact everyone makes fun of you for that.
> 
> Still i fail to understand if this is a kind of sexual frustration you have that you cannot talk without including sexual elements in rational debate. I am not sure who did "dirty things" with you or your goat ran away i am not sure. But dude there are doctors you should visit them. Har beemari laailaj nahi hoti.



Okay.. so listen to me here... asshole... who were the invaders? Here is a fukin hint.. people from accross the indus.. i.e; us Pashtuns and Baloch.

And who were getting their mums fuked and their temples ransacked? Certainly not people of sarghoda but you umpa lumpas of somnath .. and the throne of power was delhi not faisalabad.


So now go to a neem hakeen wabal e jaan to fix your gupt rog...tiny cretin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Stephen Cohen said:


> However even today if there is one Nationality that looks similar to Pakistanis
> It is Indians
> 
> Even afghans look less similar than Indians





FALSE. They don't. That is indian propaganda and myth. The same indian propaganda and myth that vehemently proclaimed that Pakistan would NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance. 

Even the scientific and anthropological evidence refutes your claims:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...cal-divide-is-at-least-1600-years-old.513143/

I have lived in London all my life and I have see 1000s of Pakistanis and indians. I can categorically say that bar a few exceptions, the vast majority of Pakistanis look completely different to indians. Even some White people can tell the difference. We have nothing in common with indians. That's why Pakistan HAD to be created. Ultimately, it's why bangladesh HAD to be created too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


>


The Indian guy is darker and shorter.

Nawaz Sharif is lighter skin color than the Indian one.

Just because both of them are wearing Sherwanis means nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Wikipedia can't be trusted. Is not a reliable honest source. The source I used is from leading imminent scientists based in the West. If the news is fake, please provide the evidence.





An Indian study of 500 men ages 18 to 60 published in the* International Journal of Impotence Research *found flaccid, stretched and erect length to be 8.21 cm, 10.88 cm and 13.01 cm, respectively.


This sentence as well as link the Medical Journal which houses the study is provided in the Human Penis Size article in wikipedia ...I cannot post links here because of being a new member...That's an internationally reputed peer-reviewed medical Journal


----------



## MultaniGuy

ashok mourya said:


> Except Indonesia and Malaysia every Muslim country first conquered by sword and then converted by different means including sword,suffism,...etc


You are stupid, name me which country was converted by the sword?


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Iqbal Ali said:


> Nawaz Sharif is lighter skin color than the Indian one.



Color difference is there but Facial features Match a lot


----------



## ashok mourya

Iqbal Ali said:


> I disagree with you.
> 
> Pakistanis and Indians do not look alike.
> 
> Maybe only the Muhajirs.
> 
> Pakistanis and Afghanistanis look alike though.


Just compare images of Pakistani,Afghan and Indian cricket teams ..who is similar to whom..


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Stephen Cohen said:


> Color difference is there but Facial features Match a lot


The indian looks more like a Chinese though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok mourya

Iqbal Ali said:


> You are stupid, name me which country was converted by the sword?


Pakistan...


----------



## django

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Something like this happened to somebody I know. A forever alone, pudgy thick featured dark guy makes it to the best colleges and then the West. Comes back home to marry the fairest, prettiest looking girl possible. Is over the moon, relocates to the West with the girl. Girl elopes with a white man. The guy becomes heart broken and dejected , quits his job, returns back and settles down in a village back home


A good man always knows his limitations....Dirty Harry
.Kudos bro


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Stephen Cohen said:


> Indian PM and Pakistani PM






Oitfits look similar but you can clearly tell that both men are from a different race. For a start, NS is more fairer than the indian guy. 

By that definition, many people have said Saddam Hussein looked more Pakistani than Arab. That doesn't make Saddam Hussein a Lahori or Pakistani Punjabi.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

ashok mourya said:


> Just compare images of Pakistani,Afghan and Indian cricket teams ..who is similar to whom..


Forget cricket players, I know Pakistan has more in common with Afghanistan than with India.

I don't need your nonsense to convince me of facts I already know.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The indian looks more like a Chinese though.



The ONLY reason Pakistanis pass themselves as Indians in US 
is because they look similar to Indians 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drisht...-americans-pass-themselves-off-as-indian-now/


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> An Indian study of 500 men ages 18 to 60 published in the* International Journal of Impotence Research *found flaccid, stretched and erect length to be 8.21 cm, 10.88 cm and 13.01 cm, respectively.
> 
> 
> This sentence as well as link the Medical Journal which houses the study is provided in the Human Penis Size article in wikipedia ...I cannot post links here because of being a new member...That's an internationally reputed peer-reviewed medical Journal





Searched for it, can't find it. Wikipedia is open to manipulation. Can't accept it's articles.


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Oitfits look similar but you can clearly tell that both men are from a different race. For a start, NS is more fairer than the indian guy.
> 
> By that definition, many people have said Saddam Hussein looked more Pakistani than Arab. That doesn't make Saddam Hussein a Lahori or Pakistani Punjabi.


That is my analysis as well.

Nawaz Sharif is fairer than the Indian guy.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Stephen Cohen said:


> The ONLY reason Pakistanis pass themselves as Indians in US
> is because they look similar to Indians
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drisht...-americans-pass-themselves-off-as-indian-now/


Let me give a fuk man.








Nope.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Iqbal Ali said:


> I know Pakistan has more in common with Afghanistan than with India.



The similarity is only the beard






WIthout beard Indians & Pakistanis look similar


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Iqbal Ali said:


> Forget cricket players, I know Pakistan has more in common with Afghanistan than with India.
> 
> I don't need your nonsense to convince me of facts I already know.


Since hes so obsessed with skin color.

Ask him where would he stand even if compared with umar akmal. Let alone Yasir Shah,Afridi or even Misbah.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Stephen Cohen said:


> The ONLY reason Pakistanis pass themselves as Indians in US
> is because they look similar to Indians
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drisht...-americans-pass-themselves-off-as-indian-now/





But most Pakistanis in London have also been mistaken for Arabs, Turks and Iranians/Persians. Doesn't make us Middle Eastern just as it doesn't make us indian.

A few Pakistanis claiming to be indian doesn't change this fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


> The ONLY reason Pakistanis pass themselves as Indians in US
> is because they look similar to Indians
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drisht...-americans-pass-themselves-off-as-indian-now/


Idiot, thats a Indian written article.

In Canada, I always say I am Pakistani no matter what with great pride, because we are the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons. Heck even Syrian Arabs have respect for Pakistan. Even Saudis. 

Go back to your Indian forum, you joker.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Since hes so obsessed with skin color.
> 
> Ask him where would he stand even if compared with umar akmal. Let alone Yasir Shah,Afridi or even Misbah.


Good point. Those Dravidians have nothing in common with Afridi.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## django

diplomat7 said:


> Majority of ISRO is south Indians. And your so called marital race is still trying to figure out the form of government they want to live in after 70 years of independence.


ISRO sending a probe to orbit MARS does not mean Gangalanders are smart, it just means that due to their enourmous population they can churn out some pretty smart people even though the vast majority are not very smart, I am not trying to troll but I noticed that Southerners have much smaller heads than Northerners, I strongly believe their is a correlation between head circumference and intelligence/memory, according to research at MIT those with less head circumference are more likely to develop dementia and Alzheimer in older age and they have smaller brains, perhaps those smaller brains may have better connections, who knows but the fact is Gangadwelleres have very small heads, it is very noticeable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


> The similarity is only the beard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WIthout beard Indians & Pakistanis look similar


Ummm... the facial structures are quite different.

I see huge differences. You lost again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Stephen Cohen said:


> The similarity is only the beard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WIthout beard Indians & Pakistanis look similar





NOPE. Same skin tone but RS features are not Pakistani. You can tell he's indian.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Iqbal Ali said:


> Idiot, thats a Indian written article.
> 
> In Canada, I always say I am Pakistani no matter what with great pride, because we are the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons. Heck even Syrian Arabs have respect for Pakistan. Even Saudis.
> 
> Go back to your Indian forum, you joker.
> 
> Good point. Those Dravidians have nothing in common with Afridi.



India Insight
*India stepping up to the challenge of post-2014 Afghanistan*
By Sanjeev Miglani
November 12, 2012





Racing through the deserted streets of Kabul at nighttime, you are likely to be stopped at street corners by policemen once, twice or even more. If you are a South Asian, as I am, their guard is up even more. “Pakistani or Indian?” the cop barks out as you lower your window. When I answer “Indian”, he wants me to produce a passport to prove that, and as it happens, I am not carrying one. So I am pulled out of the car in the freezing cold and given a full body search, with the policemen muttering under his breath in Dari that *everyone goes around claiming to be an Indian, especially Pakistanis.*


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Searched for it, can't find it. Wikipedia is open to manipulation. Can't accept it's articles.




Google "Nature Penile length and circumference: an Indian study" 

then go the Nature website..sorry I am hamstrung because of being a new user

all attempts to sneakily post the link has failed 


I guess that's indication enough that we should be discussing anything but penile size


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> But most Pakistanis in London have also been mistaken for Arabs, Turks and Iranians/Persians. Doesn't make us Middle Eastern just as it doesn't make us indian.
> 
> A few Pakistanis claiming to be indian doesn't change this fact.


Name me which Pakistani claims to be Indian.

What this nonsense. I have yet to see a Pakistani claim to be an Indian.

All Pakistanis hate India or don't care about India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Google "Nature Penile length and circumference: an Indian study"
> 
> then go the Nature website..sorry I am hamstrung because of being a new user
> 
> all attempts to sneakily post the link has failed
> 
> 
> I guess that's indication enough that we should be discussing anything but penile size




Think we should just stick to the historical and anthropological data. Otherwise it will turn into a troll fest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


> India Insight
> *India stepping up to the challenge of post-2014 Afghanistan*
> By Sanjeev Miglani
> November 12, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racing through the deserted streets of Kabul at nighttime, you are likely to be stopped at street corners by policemen once, twice or even more. If you are a South Asian, as I am, their guard is up even more. “Pakistani or Indian?” the cop barks out as you lower your window. When I answer “Indian”, he wants me to produce a passport to prove that, and as it happens, I am not carrying one. So I am pulled out of the car in the freezing cold and given a full body search, with the policemen muttering under his breath in Dari that *everyone goes around claiming to be an Indian, especially Pakistanis.*


I dont see a link.

Again more garbarge. I WOULD NEVER CLAIM TO BE AN INDIAN. How stupid can a person get.

To be a Pakistani is a source of pride. To be an Indian is humiliating. To be associated with those Hindus, yuck.

You got to be kidding me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Google "Nature Penile length and circumference: an Indian study"



You should give a break to such weird interests and topics

at least dont post the same thing repeatedly


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Guys is there anyway we can steer the discussion back to the History of the Indus Basin pre-1001 AD?

If it continues this way, this thread will be locked..And this request goes to the Indian posters too...The first post in this thread was a Labour of Love..I want this thread to be accessible for a few weeks, so that I can post the sources in the Original article..as of now I cannot post links..a Heartfelt request..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Iqbal Ali said:


> I dont see a link.



http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2012...up-to-the-challenge-of-post-2014-afghanistan/

India Insight
*India stepping up to the challenge of post-2014 Afghanistan*
By Sanjeev Miglani
November 12, 2012





Racing through the deserted streets of Kabul at nighttime, you are likely to be stopped at street corners by policemen once, twice or even more. If you are a South Asian, as I am, their guard is up even more. “Pakistani or Indian?” the cop barks out as you lower your window. When I answer “Indian”, he wants me to produce a passport to prove that, and as it happens, I am not carrying one. So I am pulled out of the car in the freezing cold and given a full body search, with the policemen muttering under his breath in Dari that *everyone goes around claiming to be an Indian, especially Pakistanis.*


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

NS with the Iranian leader:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=P..._AUICygD&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=6SKFZ-TkG3uS2M:

Both men have the the same skin tone and similar features.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

ito said:


> Majority of Pakistanis claim that they have Arab ancestry who came from Arab world. And they ruled Hindus for 1000 years. Anyway does it matter now?


Who told you that?


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


> http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2012...up-to-the-challenge-of-post-2014-afghanistan/
> 
> India Insight
> *India stepping up to the challenge of post-2014 Afghanistan*
> By Sanjeev Miglani
> November 12, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racing through the deserted streets of Kabul at nighttime, you are likely to be stopped at street corners by policemen once, twice or even more. If you are a South Asian, as I am, their guard is up even more. “Pakistani or Indian?” the cop barks out as you lower your window. When I answer “Indian”, he wants me to produce a passport to prove that, and as it happens, I am not carrying one. So I am pulled out of the car in the freezing cold and given a full body search, with the policemen muttering under his breath in Dari that *everyone goes around claiming to be an Indian, especially Pakistanis.*


Again it is written by an Indian.

So I don't trust it. Why should a Pakistani try to be an Indian. Its absurd.

We have nothing to do with India.



PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> NS with the Iranian leader:
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=P..._AUICygD&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=6SKFZ-TkG3uS2M:
> 
> Both men have the the same skin tone and similar features.


Nawaz Sharif has the same skin color as Hassan Rouhani.

Agreed with you here.


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Its Ali Khan Marri..
> 
> And first bloody walk let alone show mirror to people...Lard arse.
> 
> So before talkin shyt about people.. its time to sit your *** down and talk sense..



You're actually a Maratha.

Think about it before mouthing off.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## MultaniGuy

I got to go. I will back soon. Give me 30 min.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> You're actually a Maratha.
> 
> Think about it before mouthing off.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


I only mouth off... when lowlifes deserve it... 

As for maratha.. whatever guy.. unlike u we dont suffer from any complexes..

Now play with ur kid instead of acting like a middle aged kid yourself.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Our superstar VS your superstar

Who is better looking


----------



## lastofthepatriots

LoL

Bharti pagal ho re he


----------



## Stephen Cohen




----------



## django

We have all gone off on a tangent , lets us get back to the discussion.Kudos

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## Stephen Cohen

django said:


> We have all gone off on a tangent as @padamchen doc stated, lets us get back to the discussion.Kudos



The whole premise of this thread is WRONG 

Indians and Pakistanis do look similar


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Stephen Cohen said:


> The whole premise of this thread is WRONG
> 
> Indians and Pakistanis do look similar





BS............lol.......lol........scientific and anthropological evidence says otherwise :

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...cal-divide-is-at-least-1600-years-old.513143/


----------



## Stephen Cohen

SIMILAR looks but DIFFERENT Abilities


----------



## Kabira

Stephen Cohen said:


> SIMILAR looks but DIFFERENT Abilities



Stop trolling or I will summon mod which will ban you for a month.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

@Stephen Cohen Please Keep the discussion limited to pre-1001 AD Indus Basin please

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Tesky said:


> Stop trolling or I will summon mod which will ban you for a month.



The whole premise of this thread is WRONG 

Indians and Pakistanis do look similar


----------



## django

Stephen Cohen said:


> The whole premise of this thread is WRONG
> 
> Indians and Pakistanis do look similar


Gangadesh Mata Ki Jai....now let us get back to the discussion at hand


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I only mouth off... when lowlifes deserve it...
> 
> As for maratha.. whatever guy.. unlike u we dont suffer from any complexes..
> 
> Now play with ur kid instead of acting like a middle aged kid yourself.



Lol ok man. 

And all this time I thought you were Iranic and tolerated your nonsense racism.

Cheers, Athrvan Doc


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> pre-1001 AD Indus Basin



Pre-1001 AD Indus Basin ; was largely a land inhabited by Hindus

So what differences are you talking about


----------



## padamchen

django said:


> We have all gone off on a tangent as @padamchen doc stated, lets us get back to the discussion.Kudos



I never said any such thing. That's the job of mods or seniors.

These threads have a typical trajectory and shelf life. Give or take 10 pages here or there depending on which class of posters take a liking and flock together.

I just like observing.

Shubh ratri.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

padamchen said:


> I* never said any such thing. *That's the job of mods or seniors.
> 
> These threads have a typical trajectory and shelf life. Give or take 10 pages here or there depending on which class of posters take a liking and flock together.
> 
> I just like observing.
> 
> Shubh ratri.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


OoopsPs sorry for my assumption, will edit my post.Kudos doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Stephen Cohen said:


> The whole premise of this thread is WRONG
> 
> Indians and Pakistanis do look similar



Not true, Bengalis and Indians are genetically more similar and look alike but we don't see you in Bangladesh section pointing out this fact. As one can see here Bengalis are right in middle of majority of Indian population.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Stephen Cohen said:


> Pre-1001 AD Indus Basin ; was largely a land inhabited by Hindus
> 
> So what differences are you talking about





Even Mahabharata itself (400 BC-400 AD) said that the Indus basin region was not fit anymore for Vedic sacrifices because of intrusion of Mlecchas


_'There where forests of Pilus stand, *and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.'*_
*
The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 44*


If you cannot back up your claims with academic information, YOU WILL BE IGNORED

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kabira

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> In all honesty so called haryanvis jatts n rajputs in Pak arent really considered some sort of greek gods, lol..and are a bit darker than souther panjabis/serikis...



 +1 In all honestly its hard to differentiate haryanvi jats/rajputs from other hindi speaking bhaiyas. The only reason parsi looked like them is because parsis themselves are anything but racially like Iranians lol

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## saiyan0321

I hope the thread gets salvaged but most threads based on information do have a shelf life and when usual characters show up which have shown in page 14-18 then its game over for the thread especially topics such as these. 

This is the type of thread you read with tea in a relaxed atmosphere due to the knowledge available.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Even Mahabharata itself (400 BC-400 AD) said that the Indus basin region was not fit anymore for Vedic sacrifices because of intrusion of Mlecchas
> 
> 
> _'There where forests of Pilus stand, *and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.'*_
> *
> The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 44*
> 
> 
> If you cannot back up your claims with academic information, YOU WILL BE IGNORED



Mahabharata basically is talking of the creeping and growing Ills in the
society of that time and HOW the KING should take the lead in re establishing righteousness or DHARMA

It never said that vast tracts of land should be just GOD forsaken

Infact it talks of Akhand Bharat ( that is politically incorrect word )
and an end to conflict


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


>


No Pakistani likes being called an Indian.
Only because Amitabh Bhachan is famous.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Stephen Cohen said:


> Mahabharata basically talking of the creeping and growing Ills in the
> society of that time and HOW the KING should take the lead in re establishing righteousness or DHARMA
> 
> It never said that vast tracts of land should be just GOD forsaken
> 
> Infact it talks of Akhand Bharat ( that is politically incorrect word )




Shoo off !! Little Man, you are not worth my time ,or the time of any other posters who are intent on having an academic discussion here


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


> SIMILAR looks but DIFFERENT Abilities


Haha, the Indian is dark skinned
The Pakistanis is light skinned.

Completely different.
Also the Pakistani has thinner lips.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Shoo off !! Little Man, you are not worth my time ,or the time of any other posters who are intent on having an academic discussion here



You are a self proclaimed Guru 
But you are just an UPSTART ; whose only claim to fame is peddling a false theory

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> Lol ok man.
> 
> And all this time I thought you were Iranic and tolerated your nonsense racism.
> 
> Cheers, Athrvan Doc



Yes im Baloch.. and you are an assimilated parsi (whom even iranian dont consider pure blood) let alone actual farsis.

Maybe you "dinkra" can stop acting fukra and stfu.


----------



## StandForInsaf

lot of brain farts on this thread.


----------



## MultaniGuy

Tesky said:


> Not true, Bengalis and Indians are genetically more similar and look alike but we don't see you in Bangladesh section pointing out this fact. As one can see here Bengalis are right in middle of majority of Indian population.


Excellent post.

We have nothing in common with INDIANS.

EVER!

This genetic proof shows we Pakistanis are different from Indians.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Iqbal Ali said:


> No Pakistani likes being called an Indian.
> Only because Amitabh Bhachan is famous.



You guys watch Bollywood and Star plus because you can relate to them 
UNLIKE Chinese movies 

you can relate to them because we look similar


----------



## MultaniGuy

Stephen Cohen said:


> You guys watch Bollywood and Star plus because you can relate to them
> UNLIKE Chinese movies
> 
> you can relate to them because we look similar


Haha nice try.

LOL i can never relate with an Indian.


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Iqbal Ali said:


> LOL i can never relate with an Indian.



I am talking of NON PDF Pakistanis


----------



## MultaniGuy

I can relate with an Afghanistani though.

I never watch bollywood or star plus.

nice try with garbage.



Stephen Cohen said:


> I am talking of NON PDF Pakistanis


Haha dont make me laugh.

You would banned on PDF for lying!


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

The opinions on this thread have no bearing on reality. Pakistan is a seperate soverign nation to india. It is completely different to india in EVERY way. The gulf of difference is so large that they can never be bridged. They are only set to get bigger. As time goes on and the older Pakistani generation die out, so does indian influence in Pakistan. The younger generation already know less about india than previous generations. They also are aware that our future and destiny lie with China, Turkey and to a lesser extent, the Muslim nations to the West of us. CPEC is only going to cement this opinion and reality. We recently celebrated the 70th anniversary of the creation of Pakistan. When we celebrate the 100th aniversary of Pakistan, the difference between Pakistan and india will be the same as the difference between Jordan and india or Turkey and india. This is where the reality is heading to. Nothing can stop it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The opinions on this thread have no bearing on reality. Pakistan is a seperate soverign nation to india. It is completely different to india in EVERY way. The gulf of difference is so large that they can never be bridged. They are only set to get bigger. As time goes on and the older Pakistani generation die out, so does indian influence in Pakistan. The younger generation already know less about india than previous generations. They also are aware that our future and destiny lie with China, Turkey and to a lesser extent, the Muslim nations to the West of us. CPEC is only going to cement this opinion and reality. We recently celebrated the 70th anniversary of the creation of Pakistan. When we celebrate the 100th aniversary of Pakistan, the difference between Pakistan and india will be the same as the difference between Jordan and india or Turkey and india. This is where the reality is heading to. Nothing can stop it.


I agree with you 100%.

You are right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Iqbal Ali said:


> Haha nice try.
> 
> LOL i can never relate with an Indian.





Neither can I. I actually find it easier to connect with other Muslims in London like Iraqis, Iranians, Turks Lebanese, Syrians, Tunisians and even Afghans. It could also be a cultural and religious thing. We all go to the same mosques, celebrate Eid together, pray together, have the same beliefs and now intermarry with one another. We DO NOT share this same bond or sentiment with indian people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Neither can I. I actually find it easier to connect with other Muslims in London like Iraqis, Iranians, Turks Lebanese, Syrians, Tunisians and even Afghans. It could also be a cultural and religious thing. We all go to the same mosques, celebrate Eid together, pray together, have the same beliefs and now intermarry with one another. We DO NOT share this same bond or sentiment with indian people.


Agreed with you 100%.

You are right, sir. 

These Indians try to show similarity between Pakistan and India because its their imperial mindset.

When there is no similarity between Pakistan and India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Stephen Cohen said:


> View attachment 420078
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our superstar VS your superstar
> 
> Who is better looking


You know whats more ironic?

Hes a tv star.. and you in all your foolishness are comparing an older javed shiekh to a young bachan.

Effectively showing your stupidity.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## django

Iqbal Ali said:


> Haha, the Indian is dark skinned
> The Pakistanis is light skinned.
> 
> Completely different.
> Also the Pakistani has thinner lips.


and thinner nose.Kudos


----------



## Stephen Cohen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> You know whats more ironic?
> 
> Hes a tv star.. and you in all your foolishness are comparing an older javed shiekh to a young bachan.
> 
> Effectively showing your stupidity.



The day you have an SUPER STAR of BIG B's CALIBRE and screen presence
we will give you Kashmir ; promise


----------



## StandForInsaf

Stupid thread , 

The original divide between India an Pakistan was religious , people of Pakistan have earned their own identity.

I have no shame to say that yes our ancestors were hindu indeed , and we are proud that they accepted Islam as true religion.

Sindh Punjab share more ethnic relation with some of Indian races , KP shares same ethnicity with afghans.
Islam makes us brother and a nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Stephen Cohen said:


> The day you have an SUPER STAR of BIG B's CALIBRE and screen presence
> we will give you Kashmir ; promise


Damn niga .. you cheap even on that account.

Since Fawad Khan has indian female fans drooling ... guess india giving atleast junagarh and manavdar to Pakistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Tesky said:


> Indian punjab lost all the good looking people when Arains moved to Pakistan as they tend to be purest indo-aryans.



According to my research Arains are indigenous to the region of west Pakistan, Iran, or quite possibly Central Asia. Which would make us indo aryans. Maybe a combination of sycthian Medes.



> Because *onions* are small and their tissues leave little or no trace, there is no conclusive opinion about the exact location and time of their birth. Many archaeologists, botanists, and food historians believe *onions originated* in central Asia. Other research suggests *onions* were first grown in Iran and West Pakistan.



https://www.onions-usa.org/all-about-onions/history-of-onions

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Stephen Cohen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Fawad Khan



He is a NOBODY in India

He was just a passing Fad ; the flavour of the month

Out of Sight ; Out of Mind ; We have new stars being created every year


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

StandForInsaf said:


> Stupid thread ,
> 
> The original divide between India an Pakistan was religious , people of Pakistan have earned their own identity.
> 
> I have no shame to say that yes our ancestors were hindu indeed , and we are proud that they accepted Islam as true religion.
> 
> Sindh Punjab share more ethnic relation with some of Indian races , KP shares same ethnicity with afghans.
> Islam makes us brother and a nation.





The scientific and anthropological evidence says otherwise. It completely refutes what you say:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...cal-divide-is-at-least-1600-years-old.513143/

Please read the eveidence or provide evidence for your POV otherwise it is irrelevant what you say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StandForInsaf

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> The scientific and anthropological evidence says otherwise. It completely refutes what you say:
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...cal-divide-is-at-least-1600-years-old.513143/
> 
> Please read the eveidence or provide evidence for your POV otherwise it is irrelevant what you say.



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

read here.
The major ethnic groups of Pakistan in numerical size include: Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Siddis, Saraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, Chitralis, Gujarati and other smaller groups. Smaller ethnic groups, such as Kashmiris, Kalash, Burusho, Brahui, Khowar, Hazara, Shina, Kalyu and Balti are mainly found in the northern parts of the country.


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

StandForInsaf said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan
> 
> read here.
> The major ethnic groups of Pakistan in numerical size include: Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Siddis, Saraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, Chitralis, Gujarati and other smaller groups. Smaller ethnic groups, such as Kashmiris, Kalash, Burusho, Brahui, Khowar, Hazara, Shina, Kalyu and Balti are mainly found in the northern parts of the country.





Wikipedia is not credible. So many manipulate it. Pakistanis don't even look like indians. There is a scientific and anthropological reason to this:

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/sc...he-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece


----------



## StandForInsaf

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Wikipedia is not credible. So many manipulate it. Pakistanis don't even look like indians. There is a scientific and anthropological reason to this:
> 
> http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/sc...he-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece



Thats about aryan migration path.

So in a nutshell: R1a is distributed all over Europe, Central Asia and South Asia; its sub-group *Z282 is distributed only in Europe* while another subgroup *Z93 is distributed only in parts of Central Asia and South Asia*; and three major subgroups of *Z93 are distributed only in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Himalayas*. This clear picture of the distribution of R1a has finally put paid to an earlier hypothesis that this haplogroup perhaps originated in India and then spread outwards. This hypothesis was based on the erroneous assumption that R1a lineages in India had huge diversity compared to other regions, which could be indicative of its origin here. As Prof. Richards puts it, “the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” thanks to the arrival of large numbers of genomic Y-chromosome data.

What you want to proof from this? aryan migration path?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

StandForInsaf said:


> Thats about aryan migration path.
> 
> So in a nutshell: R1a is distributed all over Europe, Central Asia and South Asia; its sub-group *Z282 is distributed only in Europe* while another subgroup *Z93 is distributed only in parts of Central Asia and South Asia*; and three major subgroups of *Z93 are distributed only in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Himalayas*. This clear picture of the distribution of R1a has finally put paid to an earlier hypothesis that this haplogroup perhaps originated in India and then spread outwards. This hypothesis was based on the erroneous assumption that R1a lineages in India had huge diversity compared to other regions, which could be indicative of its origin here. As Prof. Richards puts it, “the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” thanks to the arrival of large numbers of genomic Y-chromosome data.
> 
> What you want to proof from this? aryan migration path?




Sorry but your conjecture does not stand up to the analysis of imminent scientists and experts in this field. If they are not right than why do Pakistanis look so physically different to indians?


----------



## StandForInsaf

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Sorry but your conjecture does not stand up to the analysis of imminent scientists and experts in this field. If they are not right than why do Pakistanis look so physically different to indians?



ya well they don't stand up to imminent scientist and experts in this field. 


People belonging to z93 will look similar that's what your link tells.


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

StandForInsaf said:


> ya well they don't stand up to imminent scientist and experts in this field.
> 
> 
> People belonging to z93 will look similar that's what your link tells.




But then why do Pakistanis look so physically different to indians (bar the few exceptions)?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

Neanderthals still much?


----------



## StandForInsaf

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> But then why do Pakistanis look so physically different to indians (bar the few exceptions)?



because they are different races (bared exceptions).
Pakistan has less Dravidians populations may you are trying so say this?

https://pics.me.me/the-great-meltin...o-european-populations-dravidian-15383388.png









El Sidd said:


> Neanderthals still much?


Thrown great analysis baba ji.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Stephen Cohen said:


> He is a NOBODY in India
> 
> He was just a passing Fad ; the flavour of the month
> 
> Out of Sight ; Out of Mind ; We have new stars being created every year


----------



## Kabira

StandForInsaf said:


> because they are different races (bared exceptions).
> Pakistan has less Dravidians populations may you are trying so say this?
> 
> https://pics.me.me/the-great-meltin...o-european-populations-dravidian-15383388.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown great analysis baba ji.



Great expert explain how must of Indian population is genetically similar to Bengalis and look more like them?


----------



## El Sidd

StandForInsaf said:


> because they are different races (bared exceptions).
> Pakistan has less Dravidians populations may you are trying so say this?
> 
> https://pics.me.me/the-great-meltin...o-european-populations-dravidian-15383388.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown great analysis baba ji.



Simple evolution man. The first thing Neanderthals stopped fighting about when they became humans was no racism.

Question of intelligence over primitive instincts.

Loosely translated.

Insaan se ashraful makhlooqat honay tak ka safar.

Missing link.

Missing 30000 years in archeological evolution. The days spent in garden of eden.

What else. I can throw thousand theories man. 

Does it matter. 

No


----------



## StandForInsaf

El Sidd said:


> Simple evolution man. The first thing Neanderthals stopped fighting about when they became humans was no racism.
> 
> Question of intelligence over primitive instincts.
> 
> Loosely translated.
> 
> Insaan se ashraful makhlooqat honay tak ka safar.
> 
> Missing link.
> 
> Missing 30000 years in archeological evolution. The days spent in garden of eden.
> 
> What else. I can throw thousand theories man.
> 
> Does it matter.
> 
> No


Neanderthal and homosapien are different species baba ji.


----------



## MultaniGuy

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> But then why do Pakistanis look so physically different to indians (bar the few exceptions)?


Excellent comment.

We Pakistanis have nothing in common with Indians.

Period.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## El Sidd

StandForInsaf said:


> Neanderthal and homosapien are different species baba ji.



Lol i know

Homosapiens

Homo sapiens sapiens

Human


I like saying Neanderthals. It's more catchy.

The word homo has some stigma about it. I guess I am still Joey Tribbiani at heart


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> Neanderthals still much?



I am 2.5% Neanderthal and I find that offensive.



StandForInsaf said:


> Neanderthal and homosapien are different species baba ji.



That argument is likely to be debunked if scientists are able to prove that Homosapians and Neaderthals interbred.


----------



## El Sidd

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I am 2.5% Neanderthal and I find that offensive.



Did your 97.5 apologies first?
Mine did


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> Did your 97.5 apologies first?
> Mine did



I am like some Americans, I have an original Neanderthal princess in my line. I don't need to apologise. Now where can I get some benefits for the genocide that you humans carried out on us?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Advocate Pakistan

Tesky said:


> Yes I believe Gurjara-Pratiharas and nomadic gujjars of northen Pakistan and punjab are two different entities. Gurjara-pratiharas were rajputs, brahmins ruling class of present day Indian Gujarat/Rajasthan. While nomadic gujjars in north Pakistan and punjab are cattle herders and Gujrat and Gujranwala in punjab are named after them.



Well may be the cattle herding Gujjars of Kashmir and Punjab are also Rajput descendents because I know a family of Gujjars who migrated from Rajori IOK during 1965 to Mirpur AJK. And they call themselves as Gujjars of sub clan Chohan. But we do know that Chohan are Rajputs.
So may be due to certain reasons the Rajputs started to prefer calling themselves as Gujjars and with time any evidence of their Rajput lineage was lost.
Not offending any Gujjars here, just proposing a hypothesis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I am like some Americans, I have an original Neanderthal princess in my line. I don't need to apologise. Now where can I get some benefits for the genocide that you humans carried out on us?



Well like all good Americans. You should know.

Jesus dropped a meteor and you got extinct. And homos were homos. That's why.

Humans are now saying we fukked up. Let's go back.

Started in Spain. They have apes given human rights.

Greenpeace activists are literally just hippie kids mating with orangutans and Silverbacks.

I shizz you not but weirdly its possible



Advocate Pakistan said:


> Well may be the cattle herding Gujjars of Kashmir and Punjab are also Rajput descendents because I know a family of Gujjars who migrated from Rajori IOK during 1965 to Mirpur AJK. And they call themselves as Gujjars of sub clan Chohan. But we do know that Chohan are Rajputs.
> So may be due to certain reasons the Rajputs started to prefer calling themselves as Gujjars and with time any evidence of their Rajput lineage was lost.
> Not offending any Gujjars here, just proposing a hypothesis.



I always imagined them to be nomadic in nature. Much like the rest.


----------



## Advocate Pakistan

El Sidd said:


> Well like all good Americans. You should know.
> 
> Jesus dropped a meteor and you got extinct. And homos were homos. That's why.
> 
> Humans are now saying we fukked up. Let's go back.
> 
> Started in Spain. They have apes given human rights.
> 
> Greenpeace activists are literally just hippie kids mating with orangutans and Silverbacks.
> 
> I shizz you not but weirdly its possible
> 
> 
> 
> I always imagined them to be nomadic in nature. Much like the rest.



Well you reminded me of the words of an old man I met 4,5 years ago in Jehlum.
In his words even "Jatts and Gujjars are Rajputs who left their warrior skills. One took up agriculture and the other took up herding. The Rajputs at that time were too ashamed that some of their people have left fighting for a weak (in their opinion) and easy job. So they forced these groups not to use the name Rajput"
Wallahalam.


----------



## El Sidd

Advocate Pakistan said:


> Well you reminded me of the words of an old man I met 4,5 years ago in Jehlum.
> In his words even "Jatts and Gujjars are Rajputs who left their warrior skills. One took up agriculture and the other took up herding. The Rajputs at that time were too ashamed that some of their people have left fighting for a weak (in their opinion) and easy job. So they forced these groups not to use the name Rajput"
> Wallahalam.



I have heard similar stories.

While apart from that.

Gujjars are quite evenly spread across the whole of the region. Both sides of the border.


They recently found out a link between the gypsies in Romania to the maldharis in India.

Hungarians say that they are Mongols who came there looking after deer.

Like wtf

But its cool stories one should listen with open hearts and minds.

Sadly one ups are more important in a superficial material world

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> Well like all good Americans. You should know.
> 
> Jesus dropped a meteor and you got extinct. And homos were homos. That's why.
> 
> Humans are now saying we fukked up. Let's go back.
> 
> Started in Spain. They have apes given human rights.
> 
> Greenpeace activists are literally just hippie kids mating with orangutans and Silverbacks.
> 
> I shizz you not but weirdly its possible



Jesus didn't drop any meteor, that's just a myth invented by scientists to make us dumb. 

There's no way to go back now, once you go homo. Nothing you can do will reverse that..

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee Good luck.


----------



## El Sidd

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Jesus didn't drop any meteor, that's just a myth invented by scientists to make us dumb.
> 
> There's no way to go back now, once you go homo. Nothing you can do will reverse that..
> 
> Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee Good luck.




Dibs on humanzee football or as the American in you would understand as soccer.

Messi meets Humanzeenaldo

Any Thai corrupt guy wanna buy my club?


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> Any Thai corrupt guy wanna buy my club?



 How do you know it's a guy?


----------



## El Sidd

Sher Shah Awan said:


> How do you know it's a guy?



The left eye blinks late

Man are we just racist. This could effect my PDP credentials as a voter.

For this glorious tasks i present you the Indians. They will probably be blurting this out at the next party. 

I have a 1.3 billion brownies to blame.


And

Senddddddd


----------



## PakistaniNawab

First we were talking about the aryan invasion and now we are talking about thai khusareh.


----------



## El Sidd

Lion786 said:


> First we were talking about the aryan invasion and now we are talking about thai khusareh.



The Aryan logic is the same.

People from Afghanistan routinely invaded the Indus.

Call them whatever.

They came through the Khyber pass.

That's why we strategically displaced our people both sides of the Indus since this is a defence related forum.

When one plans a new civilisation it comes up. Don't ask how i know

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Butchcassidy

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I am 2.5% Neanderthal and I find that offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is likely to be debunked if scientists are able to prove that Homosapians and Neaderthals interbred.


I am 2.9% neanderthal,  you are more evolved than me

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Butchcassidy said:


> I am 2.9% neanderthal,  you are more evolved than me



Get back in line mate, I applied for the genocide fund first. Don't make me go Neanderthal on you. 

Also, out of curiosity, what's your paternal and maternal haplogroups? 

(Sorry, this feels like dating. I swear it's not.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Butchcassidy

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Get back in line mate, I applied for the genocide fund first. Don't make me go Neanderthal on you.
> 
> Also, out of curiosity, what's your paternal and maternal haplogroups?
> 
> (Sorry, this feels like dating. I swear it's not.)


Paternal L1c aka Lm357 (does this mean i am not an aryan )
Maternal M4a

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

We recently celebrated Pakistan's 70th anniversary. By the time we celebrate Pakistan's 100th anniversay, the difference between the people of Pakistan and india will be the same as that between Iran and india and Jordan and india. That is the direction both nations are heading in. Nothing can stop this raging reality regardless of what anyone says or does. Saying Pakistanis and indians are the same because they both have 2 arms and legs is not going to change that.


----------



## Pakistani E

Butchcassidy said:


> Paternal L1c aka Lm357 (does this mean i am not an aryan )
> Maternal M4a



No, you are a Pakistani. Also, your maternal haplogroup is exactly the same as mine. Which means, we share a common ancestor going back a few thousand years. Hello cousin/brother!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## El Sidd

Sher Shah Awan said:


> No, you are a Pakistani. Also, your maternal haplogroup is exactly the same as mine. Which means, we share a common ancestor going back a few thousand years. Hello cousin/brother!



Get a room cheesy


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> Get a room cheesy



You are welcome to join after you have submitted your haplogroup types. We must secure a future for our people.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## El Sidd

Sher Shah Awan said:


> You are welcome to join after you have submitted your haplogroup types. We must secure a future for our people.



Man if this catches on the people who keep spitting on the floor will be screwed.

It's like a modern day territory marking. 

Da fukk


----------



## Butchcassidy

Sher Shah Awan said:


> No, you are a Pakistani. Also, your maternal haplogroup is exactly the same as mine. Which means, we share a common ancestor going back a few thousand years. Hello cousin/brother!


Brothers from the same distant mother 
What is your Y haplogroup ?
Now if @Kaptaan permits, i can lay claim to IVC


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> Man if this catches on the people who keep spitting on the floor will be screwed.
> 
> It's like a modern day territory marking.
> 
> Da fukk



I spent twenty minutes spitting in a tube, your damn well right it better catch on. I don't want my spitting to have been for nothing.

@El Sidd 

Okay baba ji just saw your message on the other thread. So jao, you need your beauty sleep.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Butchcassidy

El Sidd said:


> Man if this catches on the people who keep spitting on the floor will be screwed.
> 
> It's like a modern day territory marking.
> 
> Da fukk


We can assign one to you, depending on what you want to be (aryan vs IVC fellow)


----------



## El Sidd

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I spent twenty minutes spitting in a tube, your damn well right it better catch on. I don't want my spitting to have been for nothing.



Man I am not sure it's natural spitting in a tube. Lol..

I mean who the hell cares man.

The world has already traced the DNA journey to biblical Adam.

Rest is just dick measuring of the lowest kind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Butchcassidy said:


> Brothers from the same distant mother
> What is your Y haplogroup ?
> Now if @Kaptaan permits, i can lay claim to IVC



J-M241

And also, I accept you as an honorary Pakistani anyway due to the common ancestor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

Butchcassidy said:


> We can assign one to you, depending on what you want to be (aryan vs IVC fellow)



I am just in it for the jokes.

The stuff I read here. I can sell out Madison Square garden

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> Man I am not sure it's natural spitting in a tube. Lol..
> 
> I mean who the hell cares man.
> 
> The world has already traced the DNA journey to biblical Adam.
> 
> Rest is just dick measuring of the lowest kind.



We have to accept the consequences of scientific advancements, the good and the bad.


----------



## Butchcassidy

Sher Shah Awan said:


> J-M241
> 
> And also, I accept you as an honorary Pakistani anyway due to the common ancestor.


Much obliged 
Though grandparents are from lyallpur and daska

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

El Sidd said:


> I am just in it for the jokes.
> 
> The stuff I read here. I can sell out Madison Square garden



I honestly think that not a single poster on this forum is very serious about the stuff they say. Except from Nuri Natt, he was very serious about race etc.


----------



## Butchcassidy

El Sidd said:


> I am just in it for the jokes.]
> 
> Aren't we all?
> Anyways baba ji so jao.
> You remind me of a guy who used to be here aka fauji

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Stephen Cohen said:


> was largely a land inhabited by Hindus


Assume it was. Tell me please how does that in any way change or *impact* anything. Hinduism is a *cosmos* and very hard to describe or categorize. And even if you can categorize it is not a ethnic group or* single* uniform entity. It's like saying Ethopia were [are] Christians. Then saying Egyptian Copts were [are] Christians. Then saying Assyrians were [are] Christians. Then saying Greeks were [are] Christians. 

How does listing these groups Christian help to form any impact - and I assume that is why you bring this up. A person living in Gandhara might have been a Hindu but that does not make him a Bengali or a Tamil Hindu. He remains a Gandharan. It's like today you have Hindu Tamils, Hindu in Nepal, Hindu in Bali, Hindu in Bengal or Hindu in Punjab. Just because all of them are Hindu does not detract from the fact that they have distinct identities and cultures/languages. 

So if you are trying use "Hindu" to try to latch on then it's not going to work anymore then a Ethopian might use Christianity to latch on to Greeks who also are Christians. I mean despite both peoples being Christian one is European the other is worlds apart and is African. Keep this in mind next time you get the reflex to say "Hindu".






a



Butchcassidy said:


> permits, i can lay claim to IVC


It's not for me to validate your claim or invalidate your *personal* claim. There are probably *millions* of people from the Indus region [irrespective of religion] in India or other countries of the world but that does not disconnect them from their genetic heritage. The discussion on this thread and my angle is more at the general level of the *mass* of peoples in South Asia as found within each of the countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

StraightShooter said:


> Vedic kingdoms' geographical boundaries extended all the way to current day Turkey, Syria and Iraq.


 Forget that, Hindus and the Vedic super-race once ruled the world.



wiseone2 said:


> The Gupta empire ruled the Indus valley. Most of the Muslim kings from Delhi ruled Punjab. A few had Sind, Peshwar and Baluchistan under their rule.


Gupta Empire never ruled the Indus Valley. The Kingdoms of the Indus payed tribute to the Gupta Empire but were never ruled by them. The Muslim kings of Delhi were foreigners and not Indians, this thread is also specifically talking about the era before Islam reigned in modern-day Pakistan.



Stephen Cohen said:


> Indians and Pakistanis do look similar


Hey, I and other Pakistani passengers just had to share a flight with Indians from Kuwait to New York. Indians looked, behaved and spoke completely foreign to us. I couldn't even hardly understand their Hindi; especially with the weird and fast accents they had. The only Indians that had any similarities with us were the Sikh passengers. 



Stephen Cohen said:


> Pre-1001 AD Indus Basin ; was largely a land inhabited by Hindus
> 
> So what differences are you talking about


Not even close. There was no such thing as Hinduism back then. People had different gods and different rituals to worship them. Although they did have some similarities, it was still different; kinda like the Mediterranean religions of antiquity (Egyptian, Phoenician, Roman, Greek, etc...). 

Indus Basin was mostly Buddhist, local religions, animalism and etc... with Zoroastrianism being popular in the West. It wasn't till after the Muslim invasions and the large-scale Buddhist merger into Hinduism that we began to see Hinduism taking shape within the Indus Basin. 

Even Sindh during the time of Muhammad Bin Qasim's invasion had a majority Buddhist population. It had only been several decades since the Buddhist dynasty was treacherously usurped, leading to the Hindu Rai Dynasty of Sindh.



Stephen Cohen said:


> You guys watch Bollywood and Star plus because you can relate to them


Yes, to an extent you can say that. 

Bollywood is dominated by Punjabis and people that have their origins in modern-day Pakistan. The culture that Bollywood showcases as Indian in its various movies and songs is actually just Punjabi culture. Even look at the accent they speak in and how much Urdu words they use - compare that to Indian News shows. 

Another reason why many Pakistanis watch or watched Bollywood was because there was no alternative. Bollywood uses a language we can understand, if any other country begins to make movies in our Urdu; they surely would also gain popularity in Pakistan. 

Secondly, Bollywood is nowhere close as popular in Pakistan as Indians think. It has been significantly declining in popularity ever since the revival of Pakistani cinema. 



StandForInsaf said:


> The original divide between India an Pakistan was religious , people of Pakistan have earned their own identity.


One of the reasons was religion, of-course. But if it had been the sole reason, then India wouldn't have about the same Muslim population as Pakistan does. Ancestors of modern-day Pakistanis and Indians have always had their separate identities. 

Just look at the name of Pakistan.

*P - P*unjab
*A - A*fghania
*K - K*ashmir
*S* *- S*indh
*TAN - *Balochi*TAN
*
We are a federation of different but linked peoples who are a separate cluster from the Indians. 



StandForInsaf said:


> I have no shame to say that yes our ancestors were hindu indeed , and we are proud that they accepted Islam as true religion.


Not true. They could've been Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Animalist or followed their own local religion. If you do not know what you're talking about, then it's best you don't.



StandForInsaf said:


> Sindh Punjab share more ethnic relation with some of Indian races , KP shares same ethnicity with afghans.
> Islam makes us brother and a nation.


Punjab shares ethnic relations with India's Punjab and it pretty much ends there. Sindh is a completely distinct and separate group, to give a small example to better your understanding - genetically the closest Indian ethnic group to Sindhis are Kashmiri pandits - now look at the geographic distance between these two peoples.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Just look at the name of Pakistan.
> 
> *P - P*unjab
> *A - A*fghania
> *K - K*ashmir
> *S* *- S*indh
> *TAN - *Balochi*TAN*



Tell us when did the ruler of Punjab ruled Baluchistan



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Gupta Empire never ruled the Indus Valley. The Kingdoms of the Indus payed tribute to the Gupta Empire but were never ruled by them. The Muslim kings of Delhi were foreigners and not Indians, this thread is also specifically talking about the era before Islam reigned in modern-day Pakistan.



Guptas ruled good portions of the Indus valley


----------



## Indus Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> Tell us when did the ruler of Punjab ruled Baluchistan


Tell me when ruler of Tamils ruled Kashmir?

@Talwar e Pakistan Great post.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

Kaptaan said:


> Tell me when ruler of Tamils ruled Kashmir?



non-Tamil kings have ruled Tanilnadu. Tamil rulers never went outside of Tamilnadu. maybe a small portion of neighboring states


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> Guptas ruled good portions of the Indus valley

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Kaptaan said:


> Tell me when ruler of Tamils ruled Kashmir?
> 
> @Talwar e Pakistan Great post.



When ruler of Punjab never ruled Baluchistan how can you claim a shared destiny ?


----------



## Indus Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> When ruler of Punjab never ruled Baluchistan how can you claim a shared destiny ?


When ruler of Tamils never ruled Kashmir or Assam or Ladakh how can you claim shared destiny?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Talwar e Pakistan said:


>






Kaptaan said:


> When ruler of Tamils never ruled Kashmir or Assam or Ladakh how can you claim shared destiny?



non-Tamil rulers did rule Rest of India and Tamilnadu


----------



## Indus Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> non-Tamil rulers did rule Rest of India and Tamilnadu


Non Punjabi rulers did rule rest of Pakistan including Punjab.

_*Is there something wrong with you? The exact claims *your* making about Pakistan can be made *for *India. And I did._


----------



## wiseone2

Kaptaan said:


> Non Punjabi rulers did rule rest of Pakistan including Punjab.
> 
> _*Is there something wrong with you? The exact claims *your* making about Pakistan can be made *for *India. And I did._



Very few Indian rulers ruled Punjab and Baluchistan together. Or that matter Punjab and Sind.

I did not start the thread - the whole premise is silly


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Rajaraja Chola said:


> So what holds the rest of India together which you guys refuse to acknowledge? The whole region was called Bharat/Bharata under King Bharat. That's one story. He may or may not have lived. But that's how "we" used to call ourselves. From North to South even though divided to different kingdoms.


No one called themselves 'Bharati' and the region was recognized as Bharat by only some peoples, mostly situated on the Ganges. It would be like a Gujjar calling himself a Baloch because he was once ruled by a Baloch dynasty.

Bharatas was a tribe that was situated around Ravi River. They entered into modern-day India (Haryana) after defeating a coalition of other Indus Basic tribes/kingdoms. 

These tribes/kingdoms were

*Abhira Kingdom*, centered in the Cholistan-Thar region.
*Bahlika Kingdom*, centered in Punjab.
*Gandhara grave culture*, also called _Swat culture_ and centered in the Swat Valley of present-day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
*Kamboja Kingdom*, centered in the Hindu Kush region.
*Kasmira Kingdom*, centered in present-day Kashmir Valley.
*Madra Kingdom*, centered in upper Punjab, with its capital at Sialkot
*Pauravas*, a sub-clan of Kambojas
*Sindhu Kingdom*, centered in present-day Sindh.
*Sudra Kingdom*, centered in the Cholistan-Thar region.
----

One of their ancestors, Emperor Bharata would late on go onto conquer most of South Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I honestly think that not a single poster on this forum is very serious about the stuff they say. Except from Nuri Natt, he was very serious about race etc.


I was into racial purity and stuff.


Than i got married into another ethnicity ...

Now im in it just to piss off people.



El Sidd said:


> I have heard similar stories.
> 
> While apart from that.
> 
> Gujjars are quite evenly spread across the whole of the region. Both sides of the border.
> 
> 
> They recently found out a link between the gypsies in Romania to the maldharis in India.
> 
> Hungarians say that they are Mongols who came there looking after deer.
> 
> Like wtf
> 
> But its cool stories one should listen with open hearts and minds.
> 
> Sadly one ups are more important in a superficial material world


Gujjars are found even in Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Kaptaan said:


> Non Punjabi rulers did rule rest of Pakistan including Punjab.
> 
> _*Is there something wrong with you? The exact claims *your* making about Pakistan can be made *for *India. And I did._



Madras, Bombay and Calcutta were the three primary outposts of British empire. That is the main reason Tamilnadu is part of India. Tamilnadu is well developed compared to the backwater Baluchistan is


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Yes im Baloch.. and you are an assimilated parsi (whom even iranian dont consider pure blood) let alone actual farsis.
> 
> Maybe you "dinkra" can stop acting fukra and stfu.



You are of Maratha lineage, assimilated as a Baloch "tribe".

You can say what you want buddy. To us you will always be the Marathas we lost in war.

Be proud. We even have a road named after you here.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Post Colonnial

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Study this plate..replace the dots with symbols and take out the spaces. The Kushan Shah (also known as Indo-Sassanids) and Gupta alliance defeated the Sassanids and the Hunas in 368 AD and 370 AD respectively.
> 
> dsal dot uchicago dot edu/reference/schwartzberg/fullscreen.html?object=062
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to study more on the Huns and pre-Islamic Turks that invaded the subcontinent,the Hindu Turki Shahis,The Brahmana/Brahmin Hindu Shahis as well as the Arab conquest of Afghanistan, go through the extensive resources of the University of Vienna.
> 
> pro dot geo dot univie dot ac dot at/projects/khm/showcases?language=en
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huns that invaded India were more caucasoid and white skin, rather than Mongoloid ...But I suspect that their soldiers were drawn from both nomadic Caucasoid races and nomadic Mongoloid races, with some being mixed of the two..I suspect they spoke proto-Turkic, inspite of being fair complexioned Caucasoids..They practiced Skull Deformation though



That is quite a sweeping assumption. levity aside, is there a reason you picked approx 2500 as the recorded history ? For example, the Upanishad you have cited iteself is as old as that - and if the philosophy, metaphysics and ethics as advanced as those described in that Upanishad are to exist, wouldn't it have taken several centuries atleast of evolution in thought? I hope you are continuing your research when time permits to go beyond

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> You are of Maratha lineage, assimilated as a Baloch "tribe".
> 
> You can say what you want buddy. To us you will always be the Marathas we lost in war.
> 
> Be proud. We even have a road named after you here.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Calm down u senile old bastard... ur losin ur mind along with ur women... go cry 2 ur sanghi thookous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Advocate Pakistan said:


> Well may be the cattle herding Gujjars of Kashmir and Punjab are also Rajput descendents because I know a family of Gujjars who migrated from Rajori IOK during 1965 to Mirpur AJK. And they call themselves as Gujjars of sub clan Chohan. But we do know that Chohan are Rajputs.
> So may be due to certain reasons the Rajputs started to prefer calling themselves as Gujjars and with time any evidence of their Rajput lineage was lost.
> Not offending any Gujjars here, just proposing a hypothesis.



Because nomadic lifestyle and being rajput is oxymoron. Gujjars were never rajputs. Chohan is clan of gujjars which likely have little to do with rajputs. Also gujjars always has been described as peaceful for a fact that they never were interested in fighting for land like jatts or rajputs. This is why in Gujrat and Gujranwala most of agricultural land is owned by jatts but districts named after gujjars.


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Calm down u senile old bastard... ur losin ur mind along with ur women... go cry 2 ur sanghi thookous.



Your true bishti mohalla self became quite evident to me recently.

I guess this is your true fauj pedigree.

Its true what they say about money and class.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Narcissist

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The Talpur dynasties and others who once ruled now speak Sindhi..



Talpurs didn't rule shit other than the land they occupy. They were tributaries to other dynasties for the most part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dreamer4eva

Sher Shah Awan said:


> No, you are a Pakistani. Also, your maternal haplogroup is exactly the same as mine. Which means, we share a common ancestor going back a few thousand years. Hello cousin/brother!



Congrats to both of you, you found a long distant cousin. Look, most of time PDF divide people but some time it unites also.
@Butchcassidy did you get your DNA test done through Ancestry DNA kit?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

padamchen said:


> Your true bishti mohalla self became quite evident to me recently.
> 
> I guess this is your true fauj pedigree.
> 
> Its true what they say about money and class.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



What is with you and looking down upon indic races like marathas? Parsis tend to be racist and look down upon Indians despite running like coward rats to take refugee in India. Parsis people look shade lighter but racially and linguistically gujaratis now.


----------



## Mian Babban

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> But most Pakistanis in London have also been mistaken for* Arabs,* Turks and Iranians/Persians. Doesn't make us Middle Eastern just as it doesn't make us indian.
> 
> .


Majority of Arabs themselves look like Indians. Without those Arab garbs, many Arabs will be mistaken as Indians

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Tesky said:


> What is with you and looking down upon indic races like marathas? Parsis tend to be racist and look down upon Indians despite running like coward rats to take refugee in India. Parsis people look shade lighter but racially and linguistically gujaratis now.



You are mistaken genda.

I am of Maratha lineage myself.

Just reminding an old member (married though still pretty juvenile) where he comes from.

One problem being born and growing up a Parsi is that we cannot do low class gutter warfare.

Family is strictly off limits. So is chawl style jhopadpatti language.

Best to disengage.

We have tons of unfortunate specimens like these in bhendi bazaar, bishti mohalla, pala galli, bhimpura, mitha nagar, and especially Mumbra.

We lovingly call them our Mini Pakistans.

Which is unfair when you see the evidence here.

Because none if any of them go on to pass through the hallowed portals of our forces.

In that, Pakistan truly has empowered subcontinental Muslims. And I doff my hat to her for that.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Mian Babban

niaz said:


> In my opinion beauty has nothing whatsoever to do with the skin colour; it is a combination of the proportionate features and body (not too skinny but leaning towards the voluptuous side) and the charm /coquettishness which in Urdu is called ‘Adaa’. Akbar Allahabadi in the poem addressed to his son ‘Ishratee’ writes:
> 
> "mom kee putliyon par aisee tabeea't pighlee
> chaman-e-Hind kee pariyon kee adaa bhool gaye"
> 
> (You have such a crush on the wax dolls of Europe that you have forgotten coquetry of the fairies of the garden of India).
> 
> Growing up in Sargodha we used to hear a lot about beauty of the girls of Lahore. Government College Lahore in 1958 had co-education, Kashmiri girls had lighter skin, but overall I did not find Lahori girls physically any prettier than those from Sargodha & Lyallpur (Faisalabd), the two cities I knew intimately. Lahori girls were however more charming, mainly because of access to better education and having a better dress sense.
> 
> Now as an old man of 74, please take it from me; beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder.



Rohilla (Afghan settled in India) poet of 18th century, Kazim Khan Shaida, says ;

"She has perplexed me with her artful Indian ways.
I Shaida am a simple-minded Afghan of Roh"


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Post Colonnial said:


> That is quite a sweeping assumption. levity aside, is there a reason you picked approx 2500 as the recorded history ? For example, the Upanishad you have cited iteself is as old as that - and if the philosophy, metaphysics and ethics as advanced as those described in that Upanishad are to exist, wouldn't it have taken several centuries atleast of evolution in thought? I hope you are continuing your research when time permits to go beyond





it's not arbitrary..the overwhelming consensus is that, there is not enough evidence to construct dynasty lineages and war chronologies, pre Bimibisara...The Pre-Buddhist Upanishads are considered proto-Historical....Vedas and IVC are considered pre-Historical....proper unbroken, definite recorded history of India begins with Magadhan dynasties..Magadhan empire gained early supremacy because of easy access to unlimited supply of iron

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## halupridol

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Notice: Commenters are requested to keep the discussions as much as possible in the era between 185 BC----1001 AD and if there is pressing need in the era between 1707 AD--1849 AD. Commenters are also requested to keep the focus on the North-western section of the subcontinent
> 
> The Logic being that the first era mentioned is the Post Mauryan but Pre-Islamic era (prior to the Battle of Peshawar)
> The second era is the tussle between Durrani,Maratha and Sikh Empire in the wake of Aurangzeb's death
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_
> 
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-settled Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> 
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan. A later more granular analysis with other posters suggest they may have failed to take the Lahore-Sialkot-Gujarat corridor*
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> *Shunga Empire*------*Established in 185BC to abolish the Mauryan Empire.Immediately lost the Lahore-Sialkot corridor as well as the Indian NorthWest to the Greeks. Greeks were well settled in Pakistan by 180BC as well as in much of North-West India including Mathura*
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. Judaism cannot survive without Israel. Hinduism cannot survive without India. If tomorrow the land of Israel dissolves into the ocean,Judaism would go extinct in a couple of decades but Christianity would linger on. Same way if India were to be submerged under the ocean,Hinduism would die out all over the world while Buddhism would linger on.This same logic applies to Shintoism. Shintoism needs the Land of Japan to survive.*
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and *Ahom Kingdom *tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked
> 
> 
> @Slav Defence Can you please help? I cannot post anymore on this thread as I donot have Senior Cafe priviliges..This post will be updated with academic sources, as soon as I cross the minimum number of days required to post links


What a load of horsecrap,,,what has ahom kingdom got to do with north indians or south indians.despite looking similar even the whole of northeast doesnt claim ahom lineage.
we do have our individual clan/ethnic identities.but for all othrs(outsiders),we r northeasterners,,i.e. Chinky,Chinese luking indians.
Just like northies(or southies)despite some diff. here n there,,u all look same to all non bhayyas,,ur looks,ur language,ur food,ur culture,even ur galis r same or too similar for othrs to differentiate.
Basically,It simply doesnt matter to non bhayyas how u bhayya indians or bhayya pakistanis see urself,,for us u all just bhayyajees

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Butchcassidy

dreamer4eva said:


> Congrats to both of you, you found a long distant cousin. Look, most of time PDF divide people but some time it unites also.
> @Butchcassidy did you get your DNA test done through Ancestry DNA kit?


23 and me


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> Your true bishti mohalla self became quite evident to me recently.
> 
> I guess this is your true fauj pedigree.
> 
> Its true what they say about money and class.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Go fuk yourself while you are at it.

A fkwit who loves to talk crap about women and calls for killings n attrocities of kashmiris talkin bout class and pedigree... like a hoe bout virginity.


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

wiseone2 said:


> Madras, Bombay and Calcutta were the three primary outposts of British empire. That is the main reason Tamilnadu is part of India. Tamilnadu is well developed compared to the backwater Baluchistan is




With the billions the Chinese are spending in Gwadar, it's anything but. You seem to be getting your news from the same indian source which vehemently proclaimed that Pakistan would NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance...........


----------



## wiseone2

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> With the billions the Chinese are spending in Gwadar, it's anything but. You seem to be getting your news from the same indian source which vehemently proclaimed that Pakistan would NEVER EVER become a nuclear weapons state with or without Chinese assistance...........


Bot in action

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## defence_analyst

Tesky said:


> What is with you and looking down upon indic races like marathas? Parsis tend to be racist and look down upon Indians despite running like coward rats to take refugee in India. Parsis people look shade lighter but racially and linguistically gujaratis now.



Completly agree with you there, let me make thread on how Parsis stabbed Indian hindus in the back in British raj era. And how now they sing vandematram as nothing happened. 



Tesky said:


> I don't know. I mean look at parsis, despite the fact that women no longer remain parsi once she marry outside. Despite that pure parsis now look like perhaps shade lighter gujaratis at best racially. Same thing with Kashmiri pandits, they don't look like ethnic Kashmiris from valley at all. Same happened to khatri hindus in Delhi, if they had moved to Amristar instead of Delhi then they would have remained same. South asian male isn't as racist like south americans, its not like they have much options to begin with unlike in south america which is pred white with others being minorty. Even mulatos have at least 50% or more european ancestry. In south asia high caste looks depend more on geographic location and low castes look same irrespective of location most times.



Its not because kashmiri pandits, parsis or khatris has been marrying poor dalits. The fact is high castes get darker and more aborginal as you move towards east and south. When pandit settled outside marry some brahmin from UP/Bihar, he will not remain same as Kashmiris.


----------



## Pakistani E

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> I was into racial purity and stuff.
> 
> 
> Than i got married into another ethnicity ...
> 
> Now im in it just to piss off people.



Same, mixed marriages humanise the "other". I hope all Pakistanis take part in this noble endevour. 

I also sometimes tease Mirpuris here in the U.K about them being not real Kashmiris to get some banter going. They are so many of them here that unfortunately they have become a visible target.



dreamer4eva said:


> Congrats to both of you, you found a long distant cousin. Look, most of time PDF divide people but some time it unites also.
> @Butchcassidy did you get your DNA test done through Ancestry DNA kit?



He was already my brother in humanity, now he's a distant familial cousin as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

North-East and Sikkim------------------------------------------Tibeto-Burmans
Assam-----------------------------------------------------------Trans Tibeto-Burmans
Gangetic Plain and North-West India--------------------------Indo-Aryans
Sutlej till Indus------------------------------------------------- Trans Indo-Aryans (40% Paternal IE component vs 17.5% for Indo-Aryans)

West of Indus--------------------------------------------------- Horseborne Nomadic Races


IE----IndoEuropeans


----------



## SorryNotSorry

Can't call BS on this other martial races baloney . But- I can say this with confidence- all you Pakistani Punjabis = Indian Punjabis. Stop pretending.


----------



## halupridol

Mian Babban said:


>


 a bihari panwala near my home looks like this guy.
hmm,,,might have arab genes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> North-East and Sikkim------------------------------------------Tibeto-Burmans
> Assam-----------------------------------------------------------Trans Tibeto-Burmans
> Gangetic Plain and North-West India--------------------------Indo-Aryans
> Sutlej till Indus------------------------------------------------- Trans Indo-Aryans (40% Paternal IE component vs 17.5% for Indo-Aryans)
> 
> West of Indus--------------------------------------------------- Horseborne Nomadic Races
> 
> 
> IE----IndoEuropeans


Sniff sniff...
Secular?



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> like a hoe bout virginity.


Many are virgin. Many remain so.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

SarthakGanguly said:


> Sniff sniff...
> Secular?
> 
> 
> Many are virgin. Many remain so.


Why "Apsara's" on strike?


----------



## Nexus

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Even Mahabharata itself (400 BC-400 AD) said that the Indus basin region was not fit anymore for Vedic sacrifices because of intrusion of Mlecchas
> 
> 
> _'There where forests of Pilus stand, *and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.'*_
> *
> The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva: Section 44*
> 
> 
> If you cannot back up your claims with academic information, YOU WILL BE IGNORED



can you tell me what chandrabhaga means in the Mahabharat text you mentioned above ?


----------



## SarthakGanguly

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Why "Apsara's" on strike?


Nope. Hoors. Of the same sex.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Why "Apsara's" on strike?




Apsaras originally meant women of the Water Scythians

Apa---Water
Saka---Scythians

Apsaka----->Apsara

There used to be Scythian tribes residing on the south-western banks of Lake Balkhash in Kazakhastan
Their women were known for their legendary beauty..Slowly Brahmins deified the beauty of these women by calling the nymphs of Heaven , Apsaras

These Water Scythians were present around Lake Balkhash from around 200 BC

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

SarthakGanguly said:


> Nope. Hoors. Of the *same sex*.


so u like 2 smoke fat cigars.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> like 2 smoke fat cigars.


I like some cigars. But not enough to smoke really. Once in a while.


----------



## khanasifm

@ 1:24:00 onwards is the bottom line

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dreamer4eva

Butchcassidy said:


> 23 and me


Sorry mate, didn't get your answer. I asked the question as ancestry.com flog a DNA test to find out about your origins on Australian tv.



Sher Shah Awan said:


> He was already my brother in humanity, now he's a distant familial cousin as well.


Good words bro. This world would be a better place if more people think like that. Your folks raised you well. All the best for your future endeavours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Butchcassidy

dreamer4eva said:


> Sorry mate, didn't get your answer. I asked the question as ancestry.com flog a DNA test to find out about your origins on Australian tv.
> 
> 
> Good words bro. This world would be a better place if more people think like that. Your folks raised you well. All the best for your future endeavours.


Oh, sorry I didn't make it clear. The kit i used was from a company called 23and me. Ancestry.com is equally good.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

khanasifm said:


> @ 1:24:00 onwards is the bottom line



Partition was the best thing that ever happened.

I love Jinnah for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chak Bamu

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> One needs to be very careful of their gene pool being infected with hyper-ugly deformed savages. Nobody wants their offspring to lool like the missing link between apes and humans.





Iqbal Ali said:


> lol halarious.
> 
> Indeed Indians are dark skinned.





PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> At least with the Afghan the kids will look healthy and good looking. They won't look worst than sub-human apes.



Easy there guys. Such racist overtones are unbecoming of this forum. Perhaps many of these 'ugly' ones are closer to God and better humans than 'fairer' gentry. Humility never takes away credit from the worthy, only adds to it. All humanity is a garden and all colors are beautiful.

I want to congratulate @Juggernaut_is_here on a very well framed and researched article. Although I am uncomfortable with his equating Judaism with Zionism, overall the quality is excellent & deserving of positive ratings. I was aware of the idea that he has put forth, but in a vague way. There is no particular geographic barrier East of Pakistan, except Thar. Between East and West Punjab, the boundary is quite arbitrary. One could make a case of Beas & Satluj being somewhat of a barrier, but that would mostly be due to people of Doaba being clannish in their own way. Today's boundary is not writ in geography, but politics. It may change tomorrow, as it always has been doing.

The thesis does fall when considering the time of Delhi Sultanate & Mughal Empire. The slow, inexorable conversion of local population to Islam in Punjab required the relative peace that existed back then and Pakistani Punjab had longer contact with Muslims and this later translated into boundary being roughly where it is today. One can not overlook this while looking at the reasons why the boundary exists where it does today.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

@Chak Bamu

Thanks for the kind words....But I want to clarify my point further...It is not my aim or intention to equate Judaism with Zionism....The Land of Israel may be under Arab,Ottoman,British control and still Judaism would survive.
But if that strip of land were to sink to the bottom of the ocean because of some violent natural calamities, Judaism would also end immediately or within the ensuing couple of decades..But Christianity would still continue ...Judaism is tied way too much to the land of Israel...Same with Hinduism and India as well as Shintoism and Japan



And Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empires are considered Nomadic empires in my thesis, and nomadic empires were able to unite Indus Basin and Ganga,Yamuna doab both pre and post-Islam...Indo Aryan Empires could unite whole of North India and during their most powerful times, the small triangle of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat..


Of course the very ancient Mauryan empire being the sole exception

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

Judaism has existed for about 1900 years without a home country. It would continue to do so without Israel because adaptation is in place and has been so for many centuries. However, your point is well-taken without any reference to Israel & Judaism. It is merely a matter of tangential nuance.

For the length of time Mughal empire existed, I would consider it to have Central Asian / Afghan roots, but not something that was foreign in nature. By the time of Jehangir, it was well-integrated and not something non-indigenous to India. The same can hardly be said for Sultanate of Delhi, since no one dynasty ruled long enough to be fully indigenized, except perhaps the tail end of Tughlaqs.

What I am trying to say is that your thesis has a basis, but not a primary contributor to the present borders in my view. The genetic effect exists as a spectrum and it is difficult to decide on a cut-off value to it, especially in Punjab. The more direct contributor is probably religious. Though one may argue that it acted similar to the genetic component (probably low-correlation) in its effect, in my view it had the greater effect. We could step back to look at the effect and assign a broader umbrella term of Identity as to how and why it happened this way. Identity would encompass the social, geographic, religious, & genetic factors. Then we could put forth our idea as to which factor predominated.

In any case, I am glad that you are contributing to PDF with such a positive attitude. Your restraint and focus in face of provocation by trolls on both sides is remarkable. I thank Providence for a new high quality poster from across the border.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Post Colonnial

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> it's not arbitrary..the overwhelming consensus is that, there is not enough evidence to construct dynasty lineages and war chronologies, pre Bimibisara...The Pre-Buddhist Upanishads are considered proto-Historical....Vedas and IVC are considered pre-Historical....proper unbroken, definite recorded history of India begins with Magadhan dynasties..Magadhan empire gained early supremacy because of easy access to unlimited supply of iron



so because there is no 'evidence to construct' does it change the past or nullify it? 
I think your methodology is a good starting point but will urge you try to rid it of such big assumptions which counter the otherwise data driven flow. Otherwise you end up with such contradictions as not using facts from Vedic history but yet try to use Upanishads which are by definitio, interpretations of Vedic precepts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Post Colonnial said:


> so because there is no 'evidence to construct' does it change the past or nullify it?
> I think your methodology is a good starting point but will urge you try to rid it of such big assumptions which counter the otherwise data driven flow. Otherwise you end up with such contradictions as not using facts from Vedic history but yet try to use Upanishads which are by definitio, interpretations of Vedic precepts.




Ask Most Indians what happened before 500 BCE, they will say flying chariots, talking monkeys, Gods sending babies down to earth , Giants, brahma-Astras were happening..The fantastical supernatural battles of Ramayana and Mahabharata were happening before 500 BC...Fact is both Historians and common people have too little evidence to construct a proper history of the subcontinent in the pre-500 BC era.. and let's face it, Indians were not like the Chinese, Mespotamians,Hittites, Greeks regarding historical accuracy and regarding keeping accurate historical records..there were exactly two proper historians in pre-Islamic India...Kalhana and Banabhatta

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## halupridol

@Chak Bamu
How r u old geezer,,i thought u left,,long time,no see.
Wait a minute,,is tht u in the dp?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Post Colonnial

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Ask Most Indians what happened before 500 BCE, they will say flying chariots, talking monkeys, Gods sending babies down to earth , Giants, brahma-Astras were happening..The fantastical supernatural battles of Ramayana and Mahabharata were happening before 500 BC...Fact is both Historians and common people have too little evidence to construct a proper history of the subcontinent in the pre-500 BC era.. and let's face it, Indians were not like the Chinese, Mespotamians,Hittites, Greeks regarding historical accuracy and regarding keeping accurate historical records..there were exactly two proper historians in pre-Islamic India...Kalhana and Banabhatta



what you are assuming is not at all different from what those Indians may say, only in the opposite direction. Objectivity means finding the facts, not reacting to other idiocy with ones own


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Post Colonnial said:


> what you are assuming is not at all different from what those Indians may say, only in the opposite direction. Objectivity means finding the facts, not reacting to other idiocy with ones own




I am hamstrung because I cannot post links being a new member..else I would have flooded my comments with references..but if you are a bit enterprising enough, you will find the necessary academic links supporting my arguments

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Suriya

Lion786 said:


> Why are you lot begging to be different from indians. North indians and punjabis and Sindhis are genetically from the same racial background only pashtuns and baloch are iranic btw I did a ancestry dna kit and my family are mirpur ajk and i got 87% south asian and 7% central asian and 3% melanesian.


87% ? You are Dorga from mirpur/Jammu region . That pretty much explains it .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> You are mistaken genda.
> 
> I am of Maratha lineage myself.
> 
> Just reminding an old member (married though still pretty juvenile) where he comes from.



Says the confused faggot.. parsi wannabe.

I know where i come from... Balochistan... does your paternal lineage come from there? Most likely .... 

So called marathas were massacred by Pashtuns and Baloch in Panipat... you might be a specimen from that particular era... 



> One problem being born and growing up a Parsi is that we cannot do low class gutter warfare.
> 
> Family is strictly off limits. So is chawl style jhopadpatti language.



Did stop you from being a cunt...and talkin about genetics and women and whatnot? Your mum must be real proud.




> We have tons of unfortunate specimens like these in bhendi bazaar, bishti mohalla, pala galli, bhimpura, mitha nagar, and especially Mumbra.
> 
> We lovingly call them our Mini Pakistans.



And you must be from Kamathipura aka little india? Aka maratha-parsi khana.



> Because none if any of them go on to pass through the hallowed portals of our forces.
> 
> In that, Pakistan truly has empowered subcontinental Muslims. And I doff my hat to her for that.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



True, considered indian mil only hires wife swapping,low lifes engaged in atrocities like gang rapes and fake encounters.. india has empowered the former low class ,bhangi type,2nd citizens of former muslim empires..


----------



## Suriya

> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son._



This is same old blatant lie and distortion of Sankrit Shlokas to say something totally different from what was supposed to mean.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Suriya said:


> This is same old blatant lie and distortion of Sankrit Shlokas to say something totally different from what was supposed to mean.




This is the Ram Krishna Mission translation, by Nikhilananda....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Suriya

Chak Bamu said:


> What I am trying to say is that your thesis has a basis, but not a primary contributor to the present borders in my view. The genetic effect exists as a spectrum and it is difficult to decide on a cut-off value to it, especially in Punjab. The more direct contributor is probably religious. Though one may argue that it acted similar to the genetic component (probably low-correlation) in its effect, in my view it had the greater effect. We could step back to look at the effect and assign a broader umbrella term of Identity as to how and why it happened this way. Identity would encompass the social, geographic, religious, & genetic factors. Then we could put forth our idea as to which factor predominated.



So true .

1. When Pakistan was created 70 yrs back and not 1600 years back , East pakistan/Bangladesh was part of it .

2. It was primary and solely based along the religious line , that's why you see most of Punjabi and Sindhi Hindus and Sikhs of west pakistan are now living in India after being evicted from their native places of time that goes far beyond 1600 years .



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> This is the Ram Krishna Mission translation, by Nikhilananda....


Don't just throw up names . It means nothing .

The word used in garbha sanskar "* Soumya* " which means radiant in sankrit and not fair complexioned .


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Suriya said:


> So true .
> 
> 1. When Pakistan was created 70 yrs back and not 1600 years back , East pakistan/Bangladesh was part of it .
> 
> 2. It was primary and solely based along the religious line , that's why you see most of Punjabi and Sindhi Hindus and Sikhs of west pakistan are now living in India after being evicted from their native places of time that goes far beyond 1600 years .
> 
> 
> Don't just throw up names . It means nothing .
> 
> The word used in garbha sanskar "* Soumya* " which means radiant in sankrit and not fair complexioned .




I think Radhakrishnan and Swami Nikhilananda of RKM were more knowledgeable on the proper translation than anybody commenting on this thread.....

Sarvapalli Radhakarishnan was head of religious studies at Oxford for close to two decades and also a Nationalist who later became President

and you have to see all the three verses, there is a clear colour gradation as well knowledge gradation..As if , if you have more of one (lightness of skin), you get less of other


----------



## PakistaniNawab

Suriya said:


> 87% ? You are Dorga from mirpur/Jammu region . That pretty much explains it .


Nope my family are vains/bains rajputs.



Suriya said:


> 87% ? You are Dorga from mirpur/Jammu region . That pretty much explains it .


Yeah my family like most azad kashmirs aren't koshur we are pahari only india's kashmir has koshurs.


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Says the confused faggot.. parsi wannabe.
> 
> I know where i come from... Balochistan... does your paternal lineage come from there? Most likely ....
> 
> So called marathas were massacred by Pashtuns and Baloch in Panipat... you might be a specimen from that particular era...
> 
> 
> 
> Did stop you from being a cunt...and talkin about genetics and women and whatnot? Your mum must be real proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you must be from Kamathipura aka little india? Aka maratha-parsi khana.
> 
> 
> 
> True, considered indian mil only hires wife swapping,low lifes engaged in atrocities like gang rapes and fake encounters.. india has empowered the former low class ,bhangi type,2nd citizens of former muslim empires..



You seem stressed kid.

And yeah, unlike Razzi, who matured, you're a huge disappointment.

I guess it's the genes.

Forget Razzi. He was always likeable.

Even Areesh and Windy ...

Cheers, Doc


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> You seem stressed kid.
> 
> And yeah, unlike Razzi, who matured, you're a huge disappointment.
> 
> I guess it's the genes.
> 
> Forget Razzi. He was always likeable.
> 
> Even Areesh and Windy ...
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Never wanted to be likeable... how bout you? Shyt smeared Arse hole..


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Never wanted to be likeable... how bout you? Shyt smeared Arse hole..



Ok please don't bore me now.

Go play.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> Ok please don't bore me now.
> 
> Go play.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Have an awesome answer... but lets leave it..

bye fag.


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Have an awesome answer... but lets leave it..
> 
> bye fag.



Bye confused Maratha.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> Bye confused Maratha.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


beta its ur Baloch papa from Panipat.
sudhar jaa ab gandu.


----------



## Kaushika

Lion786 said:


> Nope my family are vains/bains rajputs.


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> beta its ur Baloch papa from Panipat.
> sudhar jaa ab gandu.



If you were Baloch beta, I was your baap.

Now you're just a long lost adopted brother.

Marri .... Lollzzzzxxxxx

Cheers, Athrvan Doc


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> If you were Baloch beta, I was your baap.


madarchod tou tu khud panipat mein chudi huwi randi ka bacha ha.. salai ******** parsioun ka bhi hisa hai tuj mein.. lutfa e haram.



> Marri .... Lollzzzzxxxxx


Papa ka naam yaad hai? 

Marrri nai teri maa ki mari thi... tab paida huwa tou


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> madarchod tou tu khud panipat mein chudi huwi randi ka bacha ha.. salai ******** parsioun ka bhi hisa hai tuj mein.. lutfa e haram.
> 
> 
> Papa ka naam yaad hai?
> 
> Marrri nai teri maa ki mari thi... tab paida huwa tou



Lol

Pakistan Army zindabad.

 OLQs

@Joe Shearer look what happens when a Maratha goes "Baloch" ...

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mian Babban

padamchen said:


> Bye confused Maratha.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Your "Cheers, Doc" is very distracting

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Mian Babban said:


> Your "Cheers, Doc" is very distracting



Ok puffy.

Don't tell me you're also "Baloch" ? 

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Kaushika

padamchen said:


> Lol
> 
> Pakistan Army zindabad.
> 
> OLQs
> 
> @Joe Shearer look what happens when a Maratha goes "Baloch" ...
> 
> Cheers, Doc



you just met your long lost Marri Maratha Brother, congratulations !



Mian Babban said:


> Your "Cheers, Doc" is very distracting


ah, we crossed path again, how are you ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mian Babban

padamchen said:


> Ok puffy.
> 
> Don't tell me you're also "Baloch" ?
> 
> Cheers, Doc


You did not answer me about your "Cheers Doc" thing. I am dying from curiosity

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Kaushika said:


> you just met your long lost Marri Maratha Brother, congratulations !



Adopted brother.

He's been spouting racist Baloch BS for a decade here. 

Since he was a teen.

Now he lets on he's a Marri ... 

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

Suriya said:


> So true .
> 
> 1. When Pakistan was created 70 yrs back and not 1600 years back , East pakistan/Bangladesh was part of it .
> 
> 2. It was primary and solely based along the religious line , that's why you see most of Punjabi and Sindhi Hindus and Sikhs of west pakistan are now living in India after being evicted from their native places of time that goes far beyond 1600 years .



I think the nuance of my post is totally lost on you. Conversion from Hinduism to Islam happened slowly as a long-term social process in South Asia, with Western parts having more Muslim due to longer time that this process worked. I was pointing out that conversion to Islam and genetic diffusion are comparable processes, since they both have a sociological dimension. Which of the factors that comprise identity on a macro scale (group identity level) could be more important? That could be discussed by serious and considerate posters. This is not for trolls to do, who are only good for making noise, repeating cliches, & derailing good threads.

As far as evictions during partition is concerned, riots during partition were two sided affairs both in Bihar/ Bangal in the East, and Punjab in the West. My family migrated from East Punjab, so I know quite well what happened. My 80 year old mother is a living witness. Projecting riots on the country level is a favorite trick employed by Indians. It does not quite work anymore because people who actually study history seriously are able to make the necessary distinctions.



Suriya said:


> Don't just throw up names . It means nothing .
> 
> The word used in garbha sanskar "* Soumya* " which means radiant in sankrit and not fair complexioned .



I could make a number of observations here, but suffice to say that a connection between diet and genetics (?) is interesting as presented.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Clutch

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Notice: Commenters are requested to keep the discussions as much as possible in the era between 185 BC----1001 AD and if there is pressing need in the era between 1707 AD--1849 AD. Commenters are also requested to keep the focus on the North-western section of the subcontinent
> 
> The Logic being that the first era mentioned is the Post Mauryan but Pre-Islamic era (prior to the Battle of Peshawar)
> The second era is the tussle between Durrani,Maratha and Sikh Empire in the wake of Aurangzeb's death
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_
> 
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-settled Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> 
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan. A later more granular analysis with other posters suggest they may have failed to take the Lahore-Sialkot-Gujarat corridor*
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> *Shunga Empire*------*Established in 185BC to abolish the Mauryan Empire.Immediately lost the Lahore-Sialkot corridor as well as the Indian NorthWest to the Greeks. Greeks were well settled in Pakistan by 180BC as well as in much of North-West India including Mathura*
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. Judaism cannot survive without Israel. Hinduism cannot survive without India. If tomorrow the land of Israel dissolves into the ocean,Judaism would go extinct in a couple of decades but Christianity would linger on. Same way if India were to be submerged under the ocean,Hinduism would die out all over the world while Buddhism would linger on.This same logic applies to Shintoism. Shintoism needs the Land of Japan to survive.*
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked
> 
> 
> @Slav Defence Can you please help? I cannot post anymore on this thread as I donot have Senior Cafe priviliges..This post will be updated with academic sources, as soon as I cross the minimum number of days required to post links




This is probably the best thread and well written post I have read on PDF. Lots to digest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kaushika

padamchen said:


> Adopted brother.
> 
> He's been spouting racist Baloch BS for a decade here.
> 
> Since he was a teen.
> 
> Now he lets on he's a Marri ...
> 
> Cheers, Doc


it seems Desi Hitler was a jew 

my condolences are with him

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Kaushika said:


> it seems Desi Hitler was a jew
> 
> my condolences are with him



They are full of guys claiming foreign lineage.

Which is a joke most of us just snigger over and let it go good naturedly.

But if you must be a racist Dick, at least make sure you ARE of different lineage first.

And if not, never go full retard and announce it on the open forum.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Acknowledge

Chak Bamu said:


> Easy there guys. Such racist overtones are unbecoming of this forum. Perhaps many of these 'ugly' ones are closer to God and better humans than 'fairer' gentry. Humility never takes away credit from the worthy, only adds to it. All humanity is a garden and all colors are beautiful.


Are you really a Pakistani?
So far the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis seen have been overtly racist, generally violence loving in nature and almost never good at critical or higher reasoning. You are different? How? Were you not raised in Pakistan like the member Kaptaan? He uses insults much like the rest do, but you can see the man hides a calm intelligent disposition behind him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## padamchen

Acknowledge said:


> Are you really a Pakistani?
> So far the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis seen have been overtly racist, generally violence loving in nature and almost never good at critical or higher reasoning. You are different? How? Were you not raised in Pakistan like the member Kaptaan? He uses insults much like the rest do, but you can see the man hides a calm intelligent disposition behind him.



@Kaptaan was not raised in Pakistan.

He is a Brit of Pakistani lineage.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arefin007

indo arians to the east and iranic arians to the west of the indus river. dardic arians in the north like kashmiris

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kaushika

padamchen said:


> They are full of guys claiming foreign lineage.
> 
> Which is a joke most of us just snigger over and let it go good naturedly.
> 
> But if you must be a racist Dick, at least make sure you ARE of different lineage first.
> 
> And if not, never go full retard and announce it on the open forum.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



he's a hot headed guy, just like any other maratha. 

i had troll feast with that guy few months ago, why ? because he was angry that one of my Ancestor was general in the Army of Brahmin Sahi/Hindu Shahi kingdom.

just ignore him, i believe you are not living off as landlord like him.

even i am currently working on my final year project of business degree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Kaushika said:


> he's a hot headed guy, just like any other maratha.
> 
> i had troll feast with that guy few months ago, why ? because he was angry that one of my Ancestor was general in the Army of Brahmin Sahi/Hindu Shahi kingdom.
> 
> just ignore him, i believe you are not living off as landlord like him.
> 
> even i am currently working on my final year project of business degree.



If you noticed I've not abused him or his family.

What's the difference between our respective upbringings if we do the same?

They'd love it if we do. Inka mohalla yaad aa jayega. Complete with jobless crotch scratching goons spitting through their teeth.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chak Bamu

Acknowledge said:


> Are you really a Pakistani?
> So far the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis seen have been overtly racist, generally violence loving in nature and almost never good at critical or higher reasoning. You are different? How? Were you not raised in Pakistan like the member Kaptaan? He uses insults much like the rest do, but you can see the man hides a calm intelligent disposition behind him.



Pakistanis on PDF are a very very biased sample. Most people in Pakistan are not passionately anti-India as the nationalist crowd here. I assume that most Indians are same way, although I do feel that more Indians are obsessed with Pakistan than vice versa.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## wiseone2

Chak Bamu said:


> Pakistanis on PDF are a very very biased sample. Most people in Pakistan are not passionately anti-India as the nationalist crowd here. I assume that most Indians are same way, although I do feel that more Indians are obsessed with Pakistan than vice versa.



Indians on PDF might be. Indians outside of PDF would might not care

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

wiseone2 said:


> Indians on PDF might be. Indians outside of PDF would might not care


Going by my exposure of Indian media and general interaction with Indians, I would like to stick with my opinion. This is not based on a survey, but my experience.


----------



## Acknowledge

Chak Bamu said:


> Pakistanis on PDF are a very very biased sample. Most people in Pakistan are not passionately anti-India as the nationalist crowd here. I assume that most Indians are same way, although I do feel that more Indians are obsessed with Pakistan than vice versa.


I was not talking about being passionately anti-Indian. Or for that matter, Indians being passionately anti-Pakistani.
This is a defense forum. It stands to reason that the highly nationalistic yet educated/literate crowd would throng places like these. They would naturally be anti-India/Pakistan.
The sample is skewed in favour of literate/educated, financially atleast middle class, males that are highly passionate. There are exceptions, but this is the average demographic of this forum whether Pakistani or Indian.

I was actually talking of something much _more_. I said, the average Pakistani I find on this forum(with the above mentioned demographics) exhibits a shocking lack of _critical thinking, higher reasoning _coupled with a tendency of find violence acceptable/encouraging and a surprising level of tendency to just believe whatever the other Pakistani says(rumour mongering/conspiracy believing) without ever bothering to do a simple google search to ascertain facts.

There are very notable exceptions to the rule. Kaptaan as I said, despite exhibiting such behaviour at times, comes across clearly as a calm, intelligent individual. So does Waz. Some others...And now you.

As I said, there are exceptions, but the average Pakistani on this forum, despite being the privileged lot of Pakistan exhibits such behaviour. It is instructive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Suriya

Chak Bamu said:


> I think the nuance of my post is totally lost on you. Conversion from Hinduism to Islam happened slowly as a long-term social process in South Asia, with Western parts having more Muslim due to longer time that this process worked. I was pointing out that conversion to Islam and genetic diffusion are comparable processes, since they both have a sociological dimension. Which of the factors that comprise identity on a macro scale (group identity level) could be more important? That could be discussed by serious and considerate posters. This is not for trolls to do, who are only good for making noise, repeating cliches, & derailing good threads.
> 
> As far as evictions during partition is concerned, riots during partition were two sided affairs both in Bihar/ Bangal in the East, and Punjab in the West. My family migrated from East Punjab, so I know quite well what happened. My 80 year old mother is a living witness. Projecting riots on the country level is a favorite trick employed by Indians. It does not quite work anymore because people who actually study history seriously are able to make the necessary distinctions.


I think you totally failed to grasp by my barely nuanced post .

1. I agreed with you that change of religion and rise of Islam in western Punjab and sindh progressed over centuries as Muslim rule consolidated over those regions and stayed till date. Even today see conversion considered a great act and some done live on pakistani TV . Why do u think i thought anything different ?

2. My comment relating to partition was in context that partition was based on racial or geographical difference but was purely along the religious lines . Unfortunately it was demanded by only the muslims and Hindus and Sikhs faced the repercussion which changed their lives for ever. 

You went on same rona dhona that muslims too suffered the burnt of partition atrocities , then you must know partition riots were started by Muslims on the call of Jinnah's direct action day and from that days north India and Bengal became communal conundrum . 



> I could make a number of observations here, but suffice to say that a connection between diet and genetics (?) is interesting as presented.



Garbha sanskar is hindu spiritual practice derived from the Ayurveda that professes to give birth to healthy child with sound mind and body that enables to produce good natured noble being rooted in spirituality . 
*It isn't focused on diet and certainly not on skin color or race . *

There are Ayurvedic Garbh sanskar clinic in Europe and US where majority clients are white peoples.



Chak Bamu said:


> Going by my exposure of Indian media and general interaction with Indians, I would like to stick with my opinion. This is not based on a survey, but my experience.



You should vastly enlarge you experience .

1. Going by political media , India constant obsession in Pakistan strategic, political and religious contexts .
While in India though we do discuss Pakistan but it's limited to security and terrorism related issues.

2. On Pakistani info entertainment media India virtually rules , be it our movies or music , even our cartoons and hindi made programs in Discovery channel improving ur hindi vocabulary at the least .

You go to any youtube video related to india , you see Pakistanis commenting on it. Even hindu mythological/religious serials r watched by some pakistanis.
*
While Pakistani movies and soaps are virtually non existent in india which i think should change . Pakistan cock studio liked minuscule punjabi elite in north india.*

3. Constant bizarre lies and propaganda put on ur media get the most attention of Indians that in turn forces them join forums like this to put the record straight .


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

@Surya you have to give better evidence that those 3 lines were not denoting skin colour/tone


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> Lol
> 
> Pakistan Army zindabad.
> 
> OLQs
> 
> @Joe Shearer look what happens when a Maratha goes "Baloch" ...
> 
> Cheers, Doc


only ur mum went baloch and gave birth to a confused parsi,marathi *****.middleaged chutiya beggin 2 get fked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Chak Bamu said:


> Going by my exposure of Indian media and general interaction with Indians, I would like to stick with my opinion. This is not based on a survey, but my experience.



from a sample size of 100 friends & relatives most of them are clueless about pakistan. all my friends & relatives are educated and middle class to rich. 95% plus would not know the four provinces of pakistan. unless pakistan tries some operation like kargil or pathankot the vernacular newspaper they read would not print anything about pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakistaniNawab

Kaushika said:


>


Let me guess dogars are also rajputs.


----------



## Kaushika

Lion786 said:


> Let me guess dogars are also rajputs.


yes, dogras are Rajputs who are Hindus or Sikh and have not mixed with various other people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chak Bamu

wiseone2 said:


> from a sample size of 100 friends & relatives most of them are clueless about pakistan. all my friends & relatives are educated and middle class to rich. 95% plus would not know the four provinces of pakistan. unless pakistan tries some operation like kargil or pathankot the vernacular newspaper they read would not print anything about pakistan.



Like I said, my experience is not a scientific survey; but its my experience nonetheless. In any case PDF is not a place from where you can make any sort of generalization about Pakistan.

During last two general elections in Pakistan, India seldom gets referenced. It is not a topic of conversation leading up to and beyond elections. But I distinctly remember that in the last general elections in India, Pakistan figured quite prominently in Indian political discourse.

Anyways, all this talk is derailing the thread. We can simply agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> only ur mum went baloch and gave birth to a confused parsi,marathi *****.middleaged chutiya beggin 2 get fked.



Did you scratch your crotch and spit through your teeth in your jaali waali topi and ganji and three fourth pyjamas before you typed this gem? 

Tell us more about your "Baloch" lineage please ...

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

padamchen said:


> Did you scratch your crotch and spit through your teeth in your jaali waali topi and ganji and three fourth pyjamas before you typed this gem?


nope my balls... u seem 2 love 2 suck.


----------



## padamchen

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> nope my balls... u seem 2 love 2 suck.



Happily you're married now aren't you?

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Chak Bamu said:


> Like I said, my experience is not a scientific survey; but its my experience nonetheless. In any case PDF is not a place from where you can make any sort of generalization about Pakistan.
> 
> During last two general elections in Pakistan, India seldom gets referenced. It is not a topic of conversation leading up to and beyond elections. But I distinctly remember that in the last general elections in India, Pakistan figured quite prominently in Indian political discourse.
> 
> Anyways, all this talk is derailing the thread. We can simply agree to disagree and move on.



in national election pakistan is a valid issue.

in elections for state legislatures pakistan is irrelevant. In India state elections are the ones that have the most impact on people's lives.

in the english media there are 3-4 articles on pakistan. in the regional print media there are 0-1 articles on pakistan.

i will grant you this coverage on pakistan tends to be sensational and devoid of substance


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I honestly think that not a single poster on this forum is very serious about the stuff they say. Except from Nuri Natt, he was very serious about race etc.



Excuse me?



Kaptaan said:


> Tell me when ruler of Tamils ruled Kashmir?
> 
> @Talwar e Pakistan Great post.



To be honest, I thought it was the exact opposite.



wiseone2 said:


> non-Tamil kings have ruled Tanilnadu. Tamil rulers never went outside of Tamilnadu. maybe a small portion of neighboring states



Remind my fading memory cells how Gangaikonda Chozha translates. Leave the Pakistanis out of this.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> No one called themselves 'Bharati' and the region was recognized as Bharat by only some peoples, mostly situated on the Ganges. It would be like a Gujjar calling himself a Baloch because he was once ruled by a Baloch dynasty.
> 
> Bharatas was a tribe that was situated around Ravi River. They entered into modern-day India (Haryana) after defeating a coalition of other Indus Basic tribes/kingdoms.
> 
> These tribes/kingdoms were
> 
> *Abhira Kingdom*, centered in the Cholistan-Thar region.
> *Bahlika Kingdom*, centered in Punjab.
> *Gandhara grave culture*, also called _Swat culture_ and centered in the Swat Valley of present-day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
> *Kamboja Kingdom*, centered in the Hindu Kush region.
> *Kasmira Kingdom*, centered in present-day Kashmir Valley.
> *Madra Kingdom*, centered in upper Punjab, with its capital at Sialkot
> *Pauravas*, a sub-clan of Kambojas
> *Sindhu Kingdom*, centered in present-day Sindh.
> *Sudra Kingdom*, centered in the Cholistan-Thar region.
> ----
> 
> One of their ancestors, Emperor Bharata would late on go onto conquer most of South Asia.



@Kaptaan

Read the post above. Are you still a fan? Nothing personal.



Chak Bamu said:


> Easy there guys. Such racist overtones are unbecoming of this forum. Perhaps many of these 'ugly' ones are closer to God and better humans than 'fairer' gentry. Humility never takes away credit from the worthy, only adds to it. All humanity is a garden and all colors are beautiful.
> 
> I want to congratulate @Juggernaut_is_here on a very well framed and researched article. Although I am uncomfortable with his equating Judaism with Zionism, overall the quality is excellent & deserving of positive ratings. I was aware of the idea that he has put forth, but in a vague way. There is no particular geographic barrier East of Pakistan, except Thar. Between East and West Punjab, the boundary is quite arbitrary. One could make a case of Beas & Satluj being somewhat of a barrier, but that would mostly be due to people of Doaba being clannish in their own way. Today's boundary is not writ in geography, but politics. It may change tomorrow, as it always has been doing.
> 
> The thesis does fall when considering the time of Delhi Sultanate & Mughal Empire. The slow, inexorable conversion of local population to Islam in Punjab required the relative peace that existed back then and Pakistani Punjab had longer contact with Muslims and this later translated into boundary being roughly where it is today. One can not overlook this while looking at the reasons why the boundary exists where it does today.



I didn't agree with him, indeed, disagreed violently, but didn't want to rain on his parade. A very nice effort by a new member. And I wholly agree that it was very well researched. Ah, well, it can't be helped; blood will out <odious smirk>

Tell you what, it's the fish and the 30% Tibeto-Burmese mixture.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Joe Shearer said:


> Are you still a fan?


Of?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I am hamstrung because I cannot post links being a new member..else I would have flooded my comments with references..but if you are a bit enterprising enough, you will find the necessary academic links supporting my arguments



Weak argument.

You could forward your references, or your complete referenced note, to a cooperative member, and get it published that way.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I think Radhakrishnan and Swami Nikhilananda of RKM were more knowledgeable on the proper translation than anybody commenting on this thread.....
> 
> Sarvapalli Radhakarishnan was head of religious studies at Oxford for close to two decades and also a Nationalist who later became President
> 
> and you have to see all the three verses, there is a clear colour gradation as well knowledge gradation..As if , if you have more of one (lightness of skin), you get less of other



You might also ask: what precisely does moon-like effulgence mean? Darker? 

The man is a bigot and Hindu-centric, and cannot get away from that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Joe Shearer said:


> Weak argument.
> 
> You could forward your references, or your complete referenced note, to a cooperative member, and get it published that way.




I will post the complete reference table of my original post in a few hours, as I can post references now....there is a big gap in the historical understanding of the subcontinent between 300 BC and 1000 AD ..and I am doing my part in clearing that up..I will provide ONLY academic references

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

padamchen said:


> You seem stressed kid.
> 
> And yeah, unlike Razzi, who matured, you're a huge disappointment.
> 
> I guess it's the genes.
> 
> Forget Razzi. He was always likeable.
> 
> Even Areesh and Windy ...
> 
> Cheers, Doc



Getting carried away a bit, Doc?



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I will post the complete reference table of my original post in a few hours, as I can post references now....there is a big gap in the historical understanding of the subcontinent between 300 BC and 1000 AD ..and I am doing my part in clearing that up..I will provide ONLY academic references



I agree - largely - with your statement about the big gap, but do remember Pargiter. I don't agree with the conclusions of your original (and admittedly very striking) note. But let's have the references; not that I will necessarily read them, but many others, both sceptical and supportive, will, and some will benefit from reading those.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Joe Shearer said:


> Getting carried away a bit, Doc?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - largely - with your statement about the big gap, but do remember Pargiter. I don't agree with the conclusions of your original (and admittedly very striking) note. But let's have the references; not that I will necessarily read them, but many others, both sceptical and supportive, will, and some will benefit from reading those.




Isn't Pargiter the one who studied the history of the Puranas? Would his work have any significant to say regarding the geopolitical evolution of the NorthWest in pre-Islamic times?


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> Excuse me?



As we were discussing issues related to race, genetics etc. I had in my mind unsavory characters who leave extremely bigoted comments, it was these that I was referring to. Although I do confess to everyone else it might seem I was talking about every single poster or posts. 

That's not the case though, there are a number of posters who's words I take very seriously and respect, especially those with experience in their relevant fields and the others who are experienced with life in general.


----------



## padamchen

Joe Shearer said:


> Getting carried away a bit, Doc?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - largely - with your statement about the big gap, but do remember Pargiter. I don't agree with the conclusions of your original (and admittedly very striking) note. But let's have the references; not that I will necessarily read them, but many others, both sceptical and supportive, will, and some will benefit from reading those.



The Jesuits were masters of negative reinforcement.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

padamchen said:


> The Jesuits were masters of negative reinforcement.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



I wish I had a similar noble profession as yours to put underneath my every post, but signing off with "Banker" just doesn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Original Post cannot be edited anymore to provide references...Is there any solution to this?


----------



## MultaniGuy

Because Donald Trump is an arrogant idiot.


----------



## padamchen

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I wish I had a similar noble profession as yours to put underneath my every post, but signing off with "Banker" just doesn't have the same ring to it.



Don't take it seriously. It's just a punchline.

Like a Maratha passing off as a Baloch.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Joe Shearer

Acknowledge said:


> Are you really a Pakistani?
> So far the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis seen have been overtly racist, generally violence loving in nature and almost never good at critical or higher reasoning. You are different? How? Were you not raised in Pakistan like the member Kaptaan? He uses insults much like the rest do, but you can see the man hides a calm intelligent disposition behind him.



I see that you are a new member. The gentleman you are referring to is one of the best. Unfortunately, he is rarely to be seen in recent times, and he is missed sorely.

Your observation about Kaptaan was striking in its perception. Brilliant. Under the cover of that shrill, strident persona, he is one of the best intellects that I know. My compliments on your perceptive gaze. I hope that you will match it with your other posts, and look forward to it.



padamchen said:


> Lol
> 
> Pakistan Army zindabad.
> 
> OLQs
> 
> @Joe Shearer look what happens when a Maratha goes "Baloch" ...
> 
> Cheers, Doc



I beg your pardon. I was brought up delicately. Is it all right with you if I look away?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I wish I had a similar noble profession as yours to put underneath my every post, but signing off with "Banker" just doesn't have the same ring to it.



ROTFL.

@padamchen 

Doc, he's got you on that one.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Original Post cannot be edited anymore to provide references...Is there any solution to this?



That's strange. You could always start a new thread, with the references embodied. I agree that such a procedure would be clumsy, but don't know what else to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## defence_analyst

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Original Post cannot be edited anymore to provide references...Is there any solution to this?



Copy first post and then put sources in separate post here. Later some mod will edit first post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sher Shah Awan said:


> As we were discussing issues related to race, genetics etc. I had in my mind unsavory characters who leave extremely bigoted comments, it was these that I was referring to. Although I do confess to everyone else it might seem I was talking about every single poster or posts.
> 
> That's not the case though, there are a number of posters who's words I take very seriously and respect, especially those with experience in their relevant fields and the others who are experienced with life in general.



To confess everything, my post was tongue-in-cheek, hoping to coax a compliment out of you. Thoroughly despicable and underhand, I regret to have to admit.


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> To confess everything, my post was tongue-in-cheek, hoping to coax a compliment out of you. Thoroughly despicable and underhand, I regret to have to admit.



Hehe, it was simple enough (to see). I even wrote the original post mentioning you were one of the posters who was universally respected here, including by myself. But then I thought, what the hell, let's get some interactions out of you first. It's not every day that one gets to converse with such a titan of PDF such as yourself.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

I believe this divide is much more older than 1600 and goes all the way back to the Indus Valley Civilization. 

Even if you look in the Mahabharata, there are many examples, one being of how it speaks about how the three main kingdoms of the Indus and some Central Asian tribes share the same cultural affinity. 

"The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices." (8:44)


----------



## Pakistani E

padamchen said:


> Don't take it seriously. It's *just a punchline.*
> 
> Like a Maratha passing off as a Baloch.
> 
> *Cheers, Doc*



I once had a doctor laugh at me when I described a symptom. Is this normal?


----------



## padamchen

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I once had a doctor laugh at me when I described a symptom. Is this normal?



No man. That was rude and elitist.

Sadly in this day of hi fi (and commercially rewarding) batteries of investigations, history taking and a thorough system based clinical examination is a lost art.

As most oldies will tell you, I don't do rude and elitist ...

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Hehe, it was simple enough (to see). I even wrote the original post mentioning you were one of the posters who was universally respected here, including by myself. But then I thought, what the hell, let's get some interactions out of you first. It's not every day that one gets to converse with such a titan of PDF such as yourself.



I'm ANGUISHED.

And to think that you are a respectable banker


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> *respectable banker*



An oxymoron as big as a "Liberal extremist". 

But thank you, I read your reply to my post on your birthday thread and it's very encouraging to see someone like you following my posts!



padamchen said:


> No man. That was rude and elitist.
> 
> Sadly in this day of hi fi (and commercially rewarding) batteries of investigations, history taking and a thorough system based clinical examination is a lost art.
> 
> As most oldies will tell you, I don't do rude and elitist ...
> 
> Cheers, Doc



He was nearing retirement, so I let it go, he was a family doctor for over a decade and otherwise a thorough professional. And I don't think 40s is old.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I believe this divide is much more older than 1600 and goes all the way back to the Indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> Even if you look in the Mahabharata, there are many examples, one being of how it speaks about how the three main kingdoms of the Indus and some Central Asian tribes share the same cultural affinity.
> 
> "The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices." (8:44)



To a man with a hammer, every problem in the world looks like a nail. If you are really serious and are not twitching out factoids to make an all too specious a case, you will be able to discern in these descriptions the gradually increasing space, cultural, religious and linguistic, between the tribes who had stayed behind, the tribes who migrated but stayed in touch and the tribes who also migrated but were gradually, steadily gravitating to the increasing attraction of the powerful, iron-wielding eastern lands. The Mahabharata still describes an upper Indian political scenario where the great power centres were roughly centred about Delhi, the older regions to the north-east, the west and the south-west were known, and seen to be drifting away, and the power of the eastern states, that of the hero Krishna's maternal uncle, Kamsa, being an example, the gift of the powerful kingdom of Anga to the hero Karna being another, was slowly increasing. This was a prelude to the growth of the menacing power of the Magadhan state, that in time crushed all others and built the first not-from-epic-sources Indian empire, perhaps some nine hundred years later.

The relationship between the events - if ever they existed - and individuals of the Mahabharata and the great period of Sandracottos/Chandragupta and the rise and rise of the Magadhan state might be compared to the relationship between the probably Mycenaean heroes of the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer, forebears of the Greeks of the Battle of Marathon, or the Battle of Salamis, or the glorious and lesser-known Battle of Plataea.

To return to your point, what you found described was not the inherent and permanent difference between two racial stocks but the slow drifting apart of friends and neighbours increasingly separated by time and space. The Gandhara that you cite gave the imperial family a daughter, Gandhari, and an astute but crooked manipulative brother-in-law to the High King, the uncle of the Kauravas, Shakuni. They were not different stock, just far-distant kinfolk living too far away to keep in touch with the politics of the centre. 

Later, during the battle proper, we are introduced to the ferocious horse-borne warriors, the Parama Kamboja, hard-riding cavalry that could be staved off only with great difficulty, only by the united efforts of several of the heroes. Already these kinfolk were drifting away for each generation spent away; by 600 BC, Panini the grammarian, reputedly from those same parts, was able to discuss verbs and verb-forms that were 'archaic', and no longer belonged to the rigidly-defined derivative of the Indo-Aryan in which the Vedas were composed, a derivative which came to be known as 'the polished tongue', Sanskrit.

Again, it needs to be emphasised: what has been singled out and described is the natural linguistic phenomenon of formation and differentiation of dialects of the same language. In much the same way, Indo-Iranian had split into Iranian and Indo-Aryan, so close even within the Avesta and the Rg Veda forms of each that scholars of the one could follow the other, indeed, so close that knowledge of the Avestan form of Iranian was helpful for a full understanding of the Vedas, and could guide one through the rapids and shoals of Vedic Indo-Aryan, and precisely the same situation holding for knowledge of Indo-Aryan, the matrix from which Sanskrit was derived.

It is the same situation, with regard to social custom, ritual practice and with regard to use of language, that may be seen in real life in the differences in dialect between the one that is native to me, the dialect presently spoken in Dhaka, and the over-cultivated one spoken by the gentry of Calcutta. 

These differences are not good enough to serve as a dividing mark between neighbouring ethnicities.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Even without going in history difference in skin tones, complexion or habits is evidence

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Here are DETAILED Military 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







@Joe Shearer Thank you for your Massive contributions...are you a professional Historian? This level of knowledge seems out of reach of even the most dogged of amateur historians


Can we please have an Ask @Joe Shearer on History Thread? A single thread where your answers to all the questions are collated and where industrious members will always link others to if any questions regarding history were to come up?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## U-571

what are we even kidding?

racially and historically the so called Pakistan or north west india was always part of sub continent history, india was never one single united kingdom but an aggregate of kingdoms

north indians including pakistan always had some type of commonality when it comes to historic kingdoms but the south india never had one

the gupta and maurya ruled pakistan and afghanistan but never ruled south india

entire pakistan was hindu and buddhist before arrival of islam, buddhism extended back all the way to afghanistan

i have seen many videos and one afghani guy did his DNA test and ound that he had more indian part in him than the caucasian part

afghans are ethnically also mixed historically with indians as well

culturally the entire south east asia is under the influence of indian culture

including burma, thailand, malaysia, indonesia, old indian hindu temples can be seen in combodia (angor wat)

before arrival of islam, sanskrit was the lnguage of malay people

kingdoms dont dictate shared history the culture does and pakistan is culturally, socially, and geologically linked with india

west of indus river is not so much


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Could u kindly elaborate the point that how historical east of river indus pakistan can be linked to norsemen?and who are actually norsemen ? So a better insight could be gained regading this thread.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Ahmad Sajjad Paracha said:


> Could u kindly elaborate the point that how historical east of river indus pakistan can be linked to norsemen?and who are actually norsemen ? So a better insight could be gained regading this thread.





Norsemen are Northern Vikings who settled later in France,Italy,England..Converted to Christianity and gave up their raiding warlike ways for the most parts 


East of River Indus till Mathura had been always settled by nomadic warlike tribes who gave up their nomadic lifestyle and took up agriculture......These are the Indo-Greeks from Balkh, Scythians,Kushanas,Yuezhis,Wusuns,Alchon Huns,Kidarites .....A wild guess but educated guess would be that around 20% of the paternal lineages in the Punjab,Sindh region descend from these settled nomadic tribes


----------



## xyxmt

In a country where travelling west of Satluge river was a pop for centuries thinks people on the other side are same as us, nice fantasy


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

xyxmt said:


> In a country where travelling west of Satluge river was a pop for centuries thinks people on the other side are same as us, nice fantasy



crossing west of Indus was Paap for centuries, not west of Sutlej


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Norsemen are Northern Vikings who settled later in France,Italy,England..Converted to Christianity and gave up their raiding warlike ways for the most parts
> 
> 
> East of River Indus till Mathura had been always settled by nomadic warlike tribes who gave up their nomadic lifestyle and took up agriculture......These are the Indo-Greeks from Balkh, Scythians,Kushanas,Yuezhis,Wusuns,Alchon Huns,Kidarites .....A wild guess but educated guess would be that around 20% of the paternal lineages in the Punjab,Sindh region descend from these settled nomadic tribes


Thank you so much for your input but if ahmad shah abdali was huns descendent then it makes durranis norsemen too and they live in west of indus river and belong to pakhtun background.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Ahmad Sajjad Paracha said:


> Thank you so much for your input but if ahmad shah abdali was huns descendent then it makes durranis norsemen too and they live in west of indus river and belong to pakhtun background.




No that make them like Vikings

Norsemen are the ones who gradually lost their pagan warlike raiding ways and became ruling Christian class in civilized parts of Europe 


Cognate of Norsemen in Indian subcontinent would be the ruling elite of Punjab,Sindh in Pre-Islamic times..they used to be warlike nomadic horsemen..crossed the Indus..conquered it..and then settled down to rule and perform agriculture and build forts and castles.....The Fort at Bhatinda being a prime example...built by the Kushans around 100 AD


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> No that make them like Vikings
> 
> Norsemen are the ones who gradually lost their pagan warlike raiding ways and became ruling Christian class in civilized parts of Europe
> 
> 
> Cognate of Norsemen in Indian subcontinent would be the ruling elite of Punjab,Sindh in Pre-Islamic times..they used to be warlike nomadic horsemen..crossed the Indus..conquered it..and then settled down to rule and perform agriculture and build forts and castles.....The Fort at Bhatinda being a prime example...built by the Kushans around 100 AD


If i am not wrong there is conflict on kushan's orgin some say they were indo european and some say they settled from gansu (which is in china) so according to you they were indo-european right ?


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Ahmad Sajjad Paracha said:


> If i am not wrong there is conflict on kushan's orgin some say they were indo european and some say they settled from gansu (which is in china) so according to you they were indo-european right ?




they were Indo-European from Modern day China.....Indo-Europeans have gradually shrunk since the beginning of common era..Tocharians and other blonde Indo-Europeans were wide spread in the Tarim Basin


----------



## xyxmt

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> crossing west of Indus was Paap for centuries, not west of Sutlej



read about your religion dude


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

xyxmt said:


> read about your religion dude




If you can show me sources then I would be happy to 

I am a secular Buddhist btw


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> If you can show me sources then I would be happy to
> 
> I am a secular Buddhist btw


Do u belong from pakistan btw ?


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Ahmad Sajjad Paracha said:


> Do u belong from pakistan btw ?




Nope ........India, West Bengal


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Nope ........India, West Bengal


It's impressive the way you have crystallized the history of native pakistani i've read history books but could not find any such thing i thought u belong from pakistan till now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## axisofevil

LMAO...more BS....from those trying to manipulate historical facts.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Indians have to understand that if they want to get united with Pakistan, they will have to say goodbye to Ladakh, whole of North-East sans Assam, South India...
> 
> They may gain Nepal,Bangladesh in the process
> Nepalis especially the Indo-Aryan ones,only want to associate themselves with the fairer and sharper looking of Indians like Kashmiri Pandits,Kumaons,Rajputs and likes
> 
> and Pakistan would also then face a split with its Western Provinces and Gilgit Baltistan....(People from those provinces would not want to be associated with ethnicities further east due to huge disparity in looks)
> 
> 
> All in All it would be a lose -lose situation in terms of looks and geo strategic reach for Pakistan
> It would be a lose-lose situation in terms of GDP loss and mountainous territory loss for India
> 
> 
> In short, It's not Happening..and the sooner many Indians give up the dream of Akhand Bharat (Historical reality only once for 120 years in 2,500 years documented history) the more conducive the neighbourhood situation would be, as many Pakistanis are wary of the claims of Akhand Bharat ....Both nations should be happy to have vast,diverse but still somewhat coherent Nation-states for themselves




Dude you so full of ish. Admit you are a Pakistani first.


----------



## Kashmiri Brahman

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> My man... even sikhs make fun of your "north indians" from UP,Bihar etc... showing them as inferior,funny language speaking kammis,servants .. in their movies.


True when you look at even Bollywood punjabi movies such as son of sardar where biharis are shown as servants to punjabis.

But this is India we Kashmiris also mock punjabis by calling them Darkies, Honey Singh (wannabe Aryans etc.). Normal Dosage of Racism is healthy as long as peope dont start racially abusing eachother.

I am sure you have racial fractures in your country as well. 

Sorry if i have offended you. If you are a punjabi


----------



## !eon

wiseone2 said:


> Maybe Pusthuns and Baluchis have cultural things India does not have. But they are less than 15% of Pakistan's population.


You pretent to be wise but as always are absolutly wrong 
My dear, Pashtuns live in masses, whole and whole villages in Punjab and they are huge in numbers in Sindh. They are based all over in Pakistan like no other ethnic group. 

Then secondly, Punjab is divided, with no single culture and language in Punjab of Pakistan. you know no thing and comment like an expert on Pakistan.


----------



## Kashmiri Brahman

Kaptaan said:


> Okay I think at best I would concede that the demography in Pakistan as a whole has significant overarching aspects with Indians living in westerly states. If India can *divide* herself like [below] this I think we can certainly sit down and talk "same".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or how about a Tibeto-Burman and Dravidian zones partitioned from India? Any takers? @wiseone2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see I find it hilarious how Indians take the *knife* out and start *dividing* our people along *ethnic* lines. But hey let's take the knife out of their hands and* turn* it on India and see how they* like* their Dravids, Austrolids, Tibeto-Burmans get *sliced *and diced from their Indo-Aryan speakers? Boot on *their* feet feel nice?



Do yu really think that Majority of Upwalas and company have similarity with you ? There is a British made wall i forgit its name. Some british used to divide Both People based on various factors.

Name of that Wall is Amritsar ~ Katiyawar bridge i think.


----------



## Sanchez

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> they were Indo-European from Modern day China.....Indo-Europeans have gradually shrunk since the beginning of common era..Tocharians and other blonde Indo-Europeans were wide spread in the Tarim Basin



Indo-Europeans in China？ Only South Asians may be called Indo-Europeans. Those white Yuezhi or Huns kicked out by Chinese are not Indo-Europeans by definition.


----------



## Royal Kathiyawadi

LAMO Southasians and their thirst to become Gora Sahib is funniest thing in the world, second only to Spaniards trying to be Nordic.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Royal Kathiyawadi said:


> LAMO Southasians and their thirst to become Gora Sahib is funniest thing in the world, second only to Spaniards trying to be Nordic.


Pakistanis aren't trying to be Gora, they're just trying to be Pakistanis. Indians here are trying to force and impose a false "Indian" identity on them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kedardel

Why disrespect something which you don't understand. U don't disrespect a Video call on a phone just because u use it. Imagine someone commenting on video calls just 150 years ago. He would laugh at the aspect of people talking to a stone and viewing the caller at the same time. 
Let's not generalize things here. 



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Ask Most Indians what happened before 500 BCE, they will say flying chariots, talking monkeys, Gods sending babies down to earth , Giants, brahma-Astras were happening..The fantastical supernatural battles of Ramayana and Mahabharata were happening before 500 BC...Fact is both Historians and common people have too little evidence to construct a proper history of the subcontinent in the pre-500 BC era.. and let's face it, Indians were not like the Chinese, Mespotamians,Hittites, Greeks regarding historical accuracy and regarding keeping accurate historical records..there were exactly two proper historians in pre-Islamic India...Kalhana and Banabhatta

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

Kedardel said:


> Why disrespect something which you don't understand. U don't disrespect a Video call on a phone just because u use it. Imagine someone commenting on video calls just 150 years ago. He would laugh at the aspect of people talking to a stone and viewing the caller at the same time.
> Let's not generalize things here.



Well they say half of the knowledge of the world drowned in Alexandria fire.

Half burned in Baghdad

Alot of it during the great Indian wars the Mahabharata

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kedardel

Why name Gurjar Pratihara Kingdom as a Rajput Kingdom. If it was a Kingdom of Rajputs then non usage of word Rajput in the kingdom clearly shows that the Rajput as a Caste and identity didn't existed then and the Rajputs only came out of The Gurjara Pratiharas.
None of the Kings of the Kingdom are claimed by Rajputs. There are no references of Rajputs before about 1000 AD. In fact any reference is merely an assumption by a historian, for extraneous reasons, reading the evidence.
Nomadic Gujjars are hand full of people and minuscule compared to the Gurjar caste spread to such a great extent. Nomad Gurjars are a small part of Gurjars. Its a pity that Gurjars are only remembered as Nomads since the contemporary history and geography books give example of Nomad people and quote minuscule Gujjar nomads. 



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Joe Shearer Thank you for your Massive contributions...are you a professional Historian? This level of knowledge seems out of reach of even the most dogged of amateur historians
> 
> 
> Can we please have an Ask @Joe Shearer on History Thread? A single thread where your answers to all the questions are collated and where industrious members will always link others to if any questions regarding history were to come up?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BrahminZada

Kedardel said:


> Why name Gurjar Pratihara Kingdom as a Rajput Kingdom. If it was a Kingdom of Rajputs then non usage of word Rajput in the kingdom clearly shows that the Rajput as a Caste and identity didn't existed then and the Rajputs only came out of The Gurjara Pratiharas.
> None of the Kings of the Kingdom are claimed by Rajputs. There are no references of Rajputs before about 1000 AD. In fact any reference is merely an assumption by a historian, for extraneous reasons, reading the evidence.
> Nomadic Gujjars are hand full of people and minuscule compared to the Gurjar caste spread to such a great extent. Nomad Gurjars are a small part of Gurjars. Its a pity that Gurjars are only remembered as Nomads since the contemporary history and geography books give example of Nomad people and quote minuscule Gujjar nomads.



the guy who founded Gurjar Pratihar empire was Son of a Brahmin.

history tells us that a Brahmin guy had 2 wives from 2 different castes one is a brahmin and second one is a kshatriya. son of 
brahmin wife became a high priest and son of kshatriya dynasty Became Royal clan of Pratihara empire. hence name such as naga"bhatta". pratihar royal lineage is not only inte world that have roots in Brahmins. Gautam rajputs are sons of warrior Brahmins as well, there are some other royal clans in Rajputana who have adopted Brahmin boys if they fail in providing Heir to their kingdom.


----------



## Kedardel

Your post re-confirms that Rajputs were not an identity at that time that is why it was not named Rajput Kingdom where as after 1000 AD you will find Rajputana. But before 1000 AD you will find Gurjardesh.

As far as your explanation regarding Brahmins its just a fable. Are you suggesting there is a clan or there used to be a Gurjar Brahmin clan earlier ?? 



BrahminZada said:


> the guy who founded Gurjar Pratihar empire was Son of a Brahmin.
> 
> history tells us that a Brahmin guy had 2 wives from 2 different castes one is a brahmin and second one is a kshatriya. son of
> brahmin wife became a high priest and son of kshatriya dynasty Became Royal clan of Pratihara empire. hence name such as naga"bhatta". pratihar royal lineage is not only inte world that have roots in Brahmins. Gautam rajputs are sons of warrior Brahmins as well, there are some other royal clans in Rajputana who have adopted Brahmin boys if they fail in providing Heir to their kingdom.


----------



## BrahminZada

Kedardel said:


> Your post re-confirms that Rajputs were not an identity at that time that is why it was not named Rajput Kingdom where as after 1000 AD you will find Rajputana. But before 1000 AD you will find Gurjardesh.
> 
> As far as your explanation regarding Brahmins its just a fable. Are you suggesting there is a clan or there used to be a Gurjar Brahmin clan earlier ??



Rajputs are Kshatriyas and there are gurjar brahmiss today.

Gurjarrashtra was name of Southern Rajasthan and north Gujarat at that time. There were Gurjar rajput, Gurjarbrahmin , Gurjar Baniya gurjar bhis at that time. It was solankis who named His Kingdom Gujarat after conquest of Kutchh, malwa, Saurashtra, Anhilwar and central strip. Souther Gujarat was lata at that time.


----------



## TMA

wiseone2 said:


> From Wikipedia
> Punjabi 45%
> Sindhi 14%
> Saraiki 8%
> Mohajhir 8%
> 
> Pashtun 15%
> Balochi 3.5%


You know that there are significant Pukhtoon and Baloch in Punjab and Sindh.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Indians have to understand that if they want to get united with Pakistan, they will have to say goodbye to Ladakh, whole of North-East sans Assam, South India...
> 
> They may gain Nepal,Bangladesh in the process
> Nepalis especially the Indo-Aryan ones,only want to associate themselves with the fairer and sharper looking of Indians like Kashmiri Pandits,Kumaons,Rajputs and likes
> 
> and Pakistan would also then face a split with its Western Provinces and Gilgit Baltistan....(People from those provinces would not want to be associated with ethnicities further east due to huge disparity in looks)
> 
> 
> All in All it would be a lose -lose situation in terms of looks and geo strategic reach for Pakistan
> It would be a lose-lose situation in terms of GDP loss and mountainous territory loss for India
> 
> 
> In short, It's not Happening..and the sooner many Indians give up the dream of Akhand Bharat (Historical reality only once for 120 years in 2,500 years documented history) the more conducive the neighbourhood situation would be, as many Pakistanis are wary of the claims of Akhand Bharat ....Both nations should be happy to have vast,diverse but still somewhat coherent Nation-states for themselves


Bravo! Why not write to Modi and the leadership of the RSS and tell them this?



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Notice: Commenters are requested to keep the discussions as much as possible in the era between 185 BC----1001 AD and if there is pressing need in the era between 1707 AD--1849 AD. Commenters are also requested to keep the focus on the North-western section of the subcontinent
> 
> The Logic being that the first era mentioned is the Post Mauryan but Pre-Islamic era (prior to the Battle of Peshawar)
> The second era is the tussle between Durrani,Maratha and Sikh Empire in the wake of Aurangzeb's death
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_
> 
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-settled Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> 
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan. A later more granular analysis with other posters suggest they may have failed to take the Lahore-Sialkot-Gujarat corridor*
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> *Shunga Empire*------*Established in 185BC to abolish the Mauryan Empire.Immediately lost the Lahore-Sialkot corridor as well as the Indian NorthWest to the Greeks. Greeks were well settled in Pakistan by 180BC as well as in much of North-West India including Mathura*
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. Judaism cannot survive without Israel. Hinduism cannot survive without India. If tomorrow the land of Israel dissolves into the ocean,Judaism would go extinct in a couple of decades but Christianity would linger on. Same way if India were to be submerged under the ocean,Hinduism would die out all over the world while Buddhism would linger on.This same logic applies to Shintoism. Shintoism needs the Land of Japan to survive.*
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked
> 
> 
> @Slav Defence Can you please help? I cannot post anymore on this thread as I donot have Senior Cafe priviliges..This post will be updated with academic sources, as soon as I cross the minimum number of days required to post links


I cannot believe what I am reading! Are you really from Bharat? Are you really a Vedantist? 

You sound like you are an ISI agent(!).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

TMA said:


> You know that there are significant Pukhtoon and Baloch in Punjab and Sindh.



when someone defines Sindhis it is not the population of Sind. it is the number of native Sindhi speakers in Pakistan


----------



## MultaniGuy

wiseone2 said:


> when someone defines Sindhis it is not the population of Sind. it is the number of native Sindhi speakers in Pakistan


Wrong Sindhis are those people who live Sindh.


----------



## wiseone2

Iqbal Ali said:


> Wrong Sindhis are those people who live Sindh.



That is not how demographics are classified worldwide

Look at some examples around the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan#Demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnataka#Demographics


----------



## TMA

wiseone2 said:


> That is not how demographics are classified worldwide
> 
> Look at some examples around the world
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan#Demographics
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnataka#Demographics


I understand. But ethnicity and race don't change when travelling over political borders or being born elsewhere. I did not turn into a Briton by virtue of birth place.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

wiseone2 said:


> when someone defines Sindhis it is not the population of Sind. it is the number of native Sindhi speakers in Pakistan


In Pakistan it's the population per province except for some cases, for example anyone that speaks Urdu as a first language, is counted as Muhajir.

Kashmiri Muhajir community of Punjab (makes up about 10% of Punjab) is categorized as Punjabi, 7 million strong Pashtun community of Karachi are classified as Sindhis, the non-Pashtun community of KPK (make up 25% of KPK) are categorized as Pashtuns, and etc...

It's a very flawed concept and wrongly categorizes distinct ethnic groups with the major ethnic groups of Pakistan. There is also no real definition of defining a "Punjabi"; Pakistan is immensly diverse and there is no way in hell that you can place hundreds of different ethnic groups into 5-6 categories.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AndrewJin

Interesting read, thanks


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Helpful images with the present border


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Strategic situation in North India at 319 AD by Youtuber *OllieBye

https://www.deviantart.com/olliebye/art/Strategic-Situation-in-North-India-319-CE-DRAFT-717930243
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6gNjP1W4FXWExT5QpYkmhQ/videos




*


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Steppe admixture

http://rpubs.com/anupampom/steppeinter



http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

The Achaemenid empire came right upto the banks of Ravi at 518 BC..simulating almost exactly the present border situation in Punjab @Indus Pakistan 
















Slightly different map


----------



## M. Sarmad

Kabira said:


> I think you are confusing Gujrat/punjab to be named after Gurjara. Gujrat city in north punjab is named after nomadic gujjars who settled in it in Mughal era, so relatively recently.



Gurjara and Gujjars are the same people.

As per V.A Smith, Gujjars migrated from the west by the Quetta and Kandahar route to the Rajputana and from Rajputana, they migrated to Punjab.

Muin ud-Din Munshi and Vinayak Vaidya believe primary Gujjar settlements were around Mount Abu, in Rajasthan. They argue that from Mount Abu they migrated to Punjab via northerly direction. _“This more or less close association of the dialects of the Gujars of the Sub-Montane districts of Punjab, hill country to the northwest of Punjab, and the lower hills from Chamba to western Nepal with eastern Rajasthan and especially Mewati dialect, clearly indicates the migration of Gujars from Rajasthan, where they acquired this language, to Yamuna valley through Delhi and from there westward into northwest hill country and further northward into the Himalaya.”
_
Akbar then did get (few of) them settle down in the _pargana_ Gujrat, _sarkar_ Chej Doab, _suba_ Lahore, named so after the Gujjars, in the year 1588



Kedardel said:


> ..... Nomadic Gujjars are hand full of people and minuscule compared to the Gurjar caste spread to such a great extent. Nomad Gurjars are a small part of Gurjars. Its a pity that Gurjars are only remembered as Nomads since the contemporary history and geography books give example of Nomad people and quote minuscule Gujjar nomads.



Thanks to the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 which declared Gujjars _criminal by birth_ for their opposition of the Brits in 1857.


----------



## xyxmt

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Great to see more and more Indians admitting it. We are two different peoples, even though we share similarities in culture due to partition era migration and centuries of Mughal/British rule. Pakistanis are a distinct people, with a distinct heritage, culture, history, practices, beliefs and etc... different from Indians.



contiguous geographical regions share come similarities in language and culture in the border regions that doesnt make them same as Indians would wish as to be same as them


----------



## Sindhi(Indus)

Punjabis, Kashmiris were Indians they're even Indians till this day 

The caste system existed in Kashmir and Punjab 

It doesn't exist in Sindh, Balochistan, KPK

That being said, Dardics are still blond hair and blue eyed people who were the outer branch of Hinduism in the past

Sindhis were not Hindus, they were Buddhist people and 80% of the population was when Bin Qasim arrived, 

The Sindhi Hindus are from migrants in India 

Raja Dhair was not a local but an invader from the south 

Generally speaking Sindhi Buddhist were not violent races but the Hindu Brahmins were at the time

Never in Sindhi history has Sindh ever been with India 

Do NOT let the dark skin in Sindh say a different story since Kashmiris are light skin but are full hinduized people and that pandits and brahmins still exist 

These concepts were never in Sindh


----------



## xyxmt

Punjab was center of All Indian (Hindustan) empires, Punjab ruled India for centuries so Punjab has to be Indian (Hindustan)


----------



## Cherokee

xyxmt said:


> Punjab was center of All Indian (Hindustan) empires, Punjab ruled India for centuries so Punjab has to be Indian (Hindustan)



No it was Bihar (Maurya) and the Mughals ( Delhi ) . Also British Empire but it was not indigenous . Punjabi empires never had dominion over entire India . Only three dynasties did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xyxmt

Cherokee said:


> No it was Bihar (Maurya) and the Mughals ( Delhi ) . Also British Empire but it was not indigenous . Punjabi empires never had dominion over entire India . Only three dynasties did.



Delhi was part of Punjab historically


----------



## Cherokee

xyxmt said:


> Delhi was part of Punjab historically



I won't call Mughals Punjabis tbh .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Sindhi(Indus) said:


> Punjabis, Kashmiris were Indians they're even Indians till this day
> 
> The caste system existed in Kashmir and Punjab
> 
> It doesn't exist in Sindh, Balochistan, KPK
> 
> That being said, Dardics are still blond hair and blue eyed people who were the outer branch of Hinduism in the past
> 
> Sindhis were not Hindus, they were Buddhist people and 80% of the population was when Bin Qasim arrived,
> 
> The Sindhi Hindus are from migrants in India
> 
> Raja Dhair was not a local but an invader from the south
> 
> Generally speaking Sindhi Buddhist were not violent races but the Hindu Brahmins were at the time
> 
> Never in Sindhi history has Sindh ever been with India
> 
> Do NOT let the dark skin in Sindh say a different story since Kashmiris are light skin but are full hinduized people and that pandits and brahmins still exist
> 
> These concepts were never in Sindh
> 
> View attachment 536318
> View attachment 536319
> View attachment 536320
> 
> View attachment 536323
> View attachment 536324
> View attachment 536325





please give small description which map is what,especially the circular maps


----------



## Chhatrapati

xyxmt said:


> Delhi was part of Punjab historically


Delhi was never part of Punjab. There was never a Kingdom centered around Punjab that ruled major chunks in India historically. Rather it was the other way around.


----------



## Sindhi(Indus)

Sindh was with the Mughals

Sindh was with Durrani empire

Sindh was with Ghaznavid empire

If these empires stretched into India, that doesn't mean Sindh was with India, that means Sindh was self governing and that it was apart of the empires,


Juggernaut_is_here said:


> please give small description which map is what,especially the circular maps



The maps are from Persians and Turks 

Al Ishtkari 

Al Kashghari 

Accounts from Ibn Battuta are also available too


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Sindhi(Indus) said:


> Sindh was with the Mughals
> 
> Sindh was with Durrani empire
> 
> Sindh was with Ghaznavid empire
> 
> If these empires stretched into India, that doesn't mean Sindh was with India, that means Sindh was self governing and that it was apart of the empires,
> 
> 
> The maps are from Persians and Turks
> 
> Al Ishtkari
> 
> Al Kashghari
> 
> Accounts from Ibn Battuta are also available too




Sindh stopped being part of any Indian empire (established by Hindu/Buddhist Indo-Aryan speakers) originating from Gangetic plain after the Maurya period...of course parts of SIndh the constituted the Thar desert most probably came under Guptas, Gurjara Pratiharas


----------



## Sindhi(Indus)

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Sindh stopped being part of any Indian empire (established by Hindu/Buddhist Indo-Aryan speakers) originating from Gangetic plain after the Maurya period...of course parts of SIndh the constituted the Thar desert most probably came under Guptas, Gurjara Pratiharas



No the Rajathani empires never held Sindh in history 

No Indian empire stretched over Sindh besides the Mauryan that was Buddhist who stretched into Eastern Iran too 

However Buddhism is not Indo Aryan 

You don't even know if Siddartha Guatama was an Indo Aryan, many research says that his family was from the Shakya Saka races from Nepal at the time


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Sindhi(Indus) said:


> No the Rajathani empires never held Sindh in history
> 
> No Indian empire stretched over Sindh besides the Mauryan that was Buddhist who stretched into Eastern Iran too
> 
> However Buddhism is not Indo Aryan
> 
> You don't even know if Siddartha Guatama was an Indo Aryan, many research says that his family was from the Shakya Saka races from Nepal at the time
> 
> View attachment 536526


I meant that Gurjara Pratiharas or Gupta empire may have held 25-50,000 sq kms extra compared to the modern border in the Thar region...

Scythians migrated into India post-Mauryan empire....Scythians in Nepal around 500 BCE is a bit of a stretch...and even if BUddha's family may have had some Scythian lineage, he would be still Indo-Aryan as he spoke something very close to Pali as mother tongue...just like Pashtuns who migrated to Punjab or UP hundreds of years ago are now Punjabis or North Indians because of their language and inevitable admixture in blood


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

excellent resources for historical maps as well as military maps of the Indian subcontinent 

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/maps/
https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/india.html
http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

The Aryan Migration/Invasion Theory is more or less set in stone now 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46616574

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## God Parshuram

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Great to see more and more Indians admitting it. We are two different peoples, even though we share similarities in culture due to partition era migration and centuries of Mughal/British rule. Pakistanis are a distinct people, with a distinct heritage, culture, history, practices, beliefs and etc... different from Indians.



Its is true but it took 1527 to realize this mistake. I feel sorry for the Pakistani people who lived like Indians before 1947.


----------



## M.AsfandYar

Indus Pakistan said:


> Please find me a border where you cross and on the other side you see aliens?


Pak China

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M.AsfandYar said:


> Pak China


Last time I checked Chinese are human beings and not 'aliens' from Mars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Indus Pakistan said:


> Last time I checked Chinese are human beings and not 'aliens' from Mars.





The Himalayan border is a hard border because of no internal resistance against malaria among the Mongoloid race

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

God Parshuram said:


> I feel sorry for the Pakistani people who lived like Indians before 1947.


There was no India [in the sense your implying] before 1947. Please stop this nonsense of conflating the geography called India with Indian republic. Prior to 1947 differant peoples of South Asia were bund together by British Raj. The only common thing they had was a common master - the British. Being in a prison with other inmates does not make you thier family.


How we became British Raj ~ the conquest by British of the Indus Valley in 1849.









And how we all, Burmans [Myanmar], Banglas, Indians, Pakistani's broke out from the British prison in 1947

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## M.AsfandYar

Now dont be kid. You know what you asked and what i mean.
There are no commonalities there. There has been little to no cultural exchange on both sides for a 1000s of years.


Indus Pakistan said:


> Last time I checked Chinese are human beings and not 'aliens' from Mars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M.AsfandYar said:


> Now dont be kid. You know what you asked and what i mean.


You stop being a sperm and I will stop being a kid. You know and I know Pak/China border is* exceptional *as it indeed is real geographic divide. That does not apply to* 90%* of the worlds borders.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## God Parshuram

Indus Pakistan said:


> There was no India [in the sense your implying] before 1947. Please stop this nonsense of conflating the geography called India with Indian republic. Prior to 1947 differant peoples of South Asia were bund together by British Raj. The only common thing they had was a common master - the British. Being in a prison with other inmates does not make you thier family.
> 
> 
> How we became British Raj ~ the conquest by British of the Indus Valley in 1849.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how we all, Burmans [Myanmar], Banglas, Indians, Pakistani's broke out from the British prison in 1947



You endorses India Pakistan divide for 1600 years. Now if there was no India than how divide happened?


----------



## Rusty

God Parshuram said:


> You endorses India Pakistan divide for 1600 years. Now if there was no India than how divide happened?


Your question is extremely stupid. 

First, are you saying the republic of India existed for 5000 years?

Second, you can have a million types of divides. Cultural, linguistic, family, tribe, food even.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## God Parshuram

Rusty said:


> Your question is extremely stupid.
> 
> First, are you saying the republic of India existed for 5000 years?
> 
> Second, you can have a million types of divides. Cultural, linguistic, family, tribe, food even.



You are a joker.


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *The India Pakistan geographical divide has roots of at least 1600 years
> *
> _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Notice: Commenters are requested to keep the discussions as much as possible in the era between 185 BC----1001 AD and if there is pressing need in the era between 1707 AD--1849 AD. Commenters are also requested to keep the focus on the North-western section of the subcontinent
> 
> The Logic being that the first era mentioned is the Post Mauryan but Pre-Islamic era (prior to the Battle of Peshawar)
> The second era is the tussle between Durrani,Maratha and Sikh Empire in the wake of Aurangzeb's death
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_
> 
> I know I will take a lot of flak from fellow Indians over this issue,but history has to be adjudged on its own merit. I more or less agree with @Kaptaan 's reading of phenotypes,history,geography but donot appreciate his caustic overtones.
> 
> _The Main point I am making is that the India, Pakistan divide in the sub-continent is not at all arbitrary, but falls right along the hardfought boundaries of various empires of the last 1600 years._
> 
> *That's a huge time span which is longer than the time span of historical Islam, almost as long as Historical Christianity and 2/3rds of documented history of India ..(documented History of India begins with Bimbisara,Ajatashatru) *
> 
> _This border solidified itself even before the invasions of Ghazni and , dare I say, even before the Arab landings in Sindh. The genesis of this border predates the arrival of Islam _
> *
> The divide between Indians and Pakistanis should not be seen as religious divide but rather as ethnic and even racial divide that made its distinction felt religiously.
> *
> The divide between India and Pakistan border is the divide between empires arising out of Indo-Gangetic Plain/Central India and Nomadic empires from the North-West OR empires created by recently settled nomads..
> 
> *I) *Historical Pakistan west of Indus can be likened to Pagan Vikings (Norse religion) also Afg
> *II)*Historical Pakistan east of Indus can be likened to Norsemen/Normans of Normandy and Italy who converted to Christianity and later carried out the Crusades
> *III)*Historical India east of Sutlej can be likened to Celtic Britain with a veneer of long-settled Anglo-Saxon nobility ..(Dravidians with Aryan upper castes)
> 
> 
> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_
> 
> 
> *Answer:*Really? That was for 120 years out of 2,500 years of documented history of the subcontinent. I would like to point out that this sort of display of historical illiteracy means you are denying the legitimacy,glory,recognition and rightful place in history of other Indic empires,warriors and conquerors that followed in the ensuing 2300 years .
> 
> Warfare changed a lot from 300 BC to 400 AD in whole of Eurasia(the time of Alexander to the sack of Rome)
> 
> Warfare was more infantry based during earlier part of this period and as such you could see the rise of Alexander, Ceasar,Mauryan Empire,Roman Republic and Empire.....
> During the later part of this period,nomadic warfare tactics,horseborne archery,cavalry were slowly being perfected till they reached perfection around the period of Hunnic
> rise all over Eurasia (ca. 400 AD)..This was facilitated by the invention of iron stirrups around 300 AD.
> 
> It is this type of military tactics that prevailed supreme in Eurasia till the onset of gunpowder, and even then it held its own till the onset of mass volley fire between 15th and 18th century.....On may well argue that the period between 400 AD and 1800 AD is the period that in which bulk of the identity of various regions of the subcontinent
> formed..Temple construction,the hallmark of Hinduism,didnot really take off before 100 AD..though there were Buddhist Stupas,Hindu cave shrines,Buddhist cave monasteries before.
> 
> In that sense we can reread Abdali's invasion of India. Abdali is considered descendant of the Hepthalites who invaded India around 455 AD and got repulsed. Abdali's invasion was not a mission to re-establish Islam's premier position in India but rather a replay of the
> fights between Gupta empire and the Hunas . A repeat of the interplay of the same
> geopolitical forces. Like the last time, Hunas/Abdalis checked the expansion of Indo-Aryans in the Northwest but they themselves failed to hold onto the gains made in Northern Central India. The Marathas conquered the NorthWest in 1758 which was reversed by Abdali/Durrani but Abdali/Durrani himself was forced to withdraw,reckoning that the maximum
> defensible,logical territory for him would be everything west of Sutlej..remember this was the Afghan empire at its peak....The Marathas during their resurrection 10 years later, could show their dominance over all of North India but again failed to make inroads into the
> NorthWest.._These developments are not isolated ..Below are a list of India's greatest empires from post-Maurya and Pre-Islamic times..the only empires that managed to hold onto modern day Pakistan and parts of Northern India were the nomadic ones ...I give an account of all major Indic/Indo-Aryan empires and not the nomadic ones_
> 
> *Gupta Empire*---------*All of modern North India and a small protrusion till Sialkot (Chenab?),though they allied with Kushan Shahs of Pakistan against Sassanids and defeated the Sassanid-Hunnic alliance.*
> *Harsha's empire*------*Much of modern Northern India and none of modern Pakistan *
> *Gurjara Pratihara(Rajputs)*-----------*All of Modern North India and a small protrusion till Gujarat,Punjab Pakistan. A later more granular analysis with other posters suggest they may have failed to take the Lahore-Sialkot-Gujarat corridor*
> *Pala Empire*----------*Same as Gurjara Pratiharas when they won against them temporarily *
> *Shunga Empire*------*Established in 185BC to abolish the Mauryan Empire.Immediately lost the Lahore-Sialkot corridor as well as the Indian NorthWest to the Greeks. Greeks were well settled in Pakistan by 180BC as well as in much of North-West India including Mathura*
> 
> 
> Time and again one sees that even the most powerful of Indic empires can only stretch till Sialkot and no more, they come up against a hard-barrier to their expansion capabilities from pure nomadic tribes or from newly settled nomadic tribes in the area. *One may even argue that the unseen geopolitical forces have so much influence, that the loss of Lahore,Sialkot,Gujarat Arc during Partition,led to the capture of Jammu (roughly corresponding to the said Arc) by the forces of the modern Indic empire--the Republic of India.*
> 
> 
> *2) The Cultural Unit Argument. Some Indians will also say that political divisions donot matter,as whole of sub-continent constitutes a single coherent cultural unit. *
> 
> *Answer:*I would say that statement is very vacuous and is on the same level as that of some Muslims from the sub-continent,whose forefathers converted post 11th century, claiming to be part of the same group of Arabs who conquered the Iberian peninsula in 8th century. *Political-military power matters if you want to impose or project your cultural power and identity. *
> 
> *3)* *The Afghanistan being Hindu Argument.There are always claims that
> Afghanistan used to be Hindu and that makes not only Afghanistan Indian but also the land between Afghanistan and India,by the said logic, Indian.*
> 
> *Answer:*This is an illogical comment that beggars belief! The First rulers of the Shahi dynasties were Turkic in origin..They probably were descendants of the various Hunnic dynasties that were retreating from India ...Many times royal dynasties convert to the religion of the ruled in order to gain greater legitimacy and the Turks were never exclusively Hindus all over the world, they were during various times
> Buddhists,Shamanists,Tengriists,Nestorian Christians,Muslims,Taoists etc.
> 
> Moreover eventhough these Hunnic people may have been ruling over a Hindu majority when they were briefly ruling over India, they certainly were ruling over a Buddhist majority when they were back in Afghanistan..This can be evident from the fact that the other famous Turkic Hindu dynasty in Afghanistan from the post-Gupta but pre-Islamic period, the Rutbils of Zabulistan, had hundreds of Buddhist monasteries compared to dozens of Hindu temples. *One must remember that Buddhism historically was a much more cosmopolitan religion less tied to its roots in the subcontinent and less emphatic of its ties to Indic culture than Hinduism.* Buddhism was much more of a trans-racial religion than Hinduism at any point in history.Hinduism has the same relationship to the land of India as Judaism has to the Land of Israel. *Whereas Buddhism has same relationship to India as Christianity has to the Land of Israel. In other words, if India were to disappear from the globe tomorrow, it won't delegitimize Buddhism even though it would certainly reduce Buddhism's influence. Judaism cannot survive without Israel. Hinduism cannot survive without India. If tomorrow the land of Israel dissolves into the ocean,Judaism would go extinct in a couple of decades but Christianity would linger on. Same way if India were to be submerged under the ocean,Hinduism would die out all over the world while Buddhism would linger on.This same logic applies to Shintoism. Shintoism needs the Land of Japan to survive.*
> 
> One more thing to note is that these Hindu Turks used to look towards the Chinese emperor for recognition of their suzerainity rather than to Indian rulers
> 
> 
> 
> However around 850 AD, the Shahi dynasty did come under a Brahmin ruler and the descendants of this Brahmin dynasty held on to Kabul till 871 AD,when they lost
> it to the Arabs. Then they regained it in 879 AD and held on to it till 900 AD,when they lost it for good to the Saffarids (Turkic/Iranic?)..They did hold on to slices of NWFP and Pakistani Punjab till 1001 AD though..
> so post Mauryas, proper Indic Hindus held on to Kabul for a grand total of 42 years in two
> streaks .It is reckoned that the Hindu Brahmins who ruled Kabul for 42 years were Mohyal Brahmins
> 
> 
> *Even during the Arab invasions the Hindu Kashmiri kings would rather appeal to the Tang Chinese than the Gurjara Pratiharas for alliance.This is a very peculiar situation that needs much study.though it must be said that the Tangs were defeated in the Battle of Talas and permanently lost the control of Central Asia, while the Gurjara Pratiharas limited the Arab expansion to Sindh only. *
> 
> 
> 
> *This ends the refutation of the most common arguments denying ancient Indo-Pak distinction *
> *------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *
> Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Historical context:*
> 
> Eventhough it might not be palpable, race and skin-tone has always played a major component in forming the identity of various peoples of the subcontinent since Ancient times.
> 
> *The Brahmins of the Far-North West were disbelieving when Brahmin students from Bihar used to visit Taxila and were of the opinion that some of these Brahmins were so dark-skinned that they couldnot possibly be true Brahmins. (Patanjali 2.2.6---ca 120 BC)
> *
> _The Brahmin debating with the Buddha in the Sonadanda Sutta claimed that one of the hallmarks of being a Brahmin was fair complexion._
> 
> Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which stems from around 8th century BC Bihar, equates lighter tones of skin colour to knowledge of various Vedas and advise various rituals in order to obtain children of various levels of merit and skin-colour
> 
> "
> _14) If a man wishes that a* son with a fair complexion should be born to him, that he should study one Veda *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they (husband and wife) should have rice cooked in milk and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 15) If a man wishes that *a son with a tawny or brown complexion should be born to him, that he should study two Vedas *and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in curds and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son.
> 
> 
> 16) If a man wishes that *a son with a dark complexion and red eyes should be born to him, that he should study three Vedas* and that he should attain a full term of life, then they should have rice cooked in water and eat it with clarified butter. Thus they should be able to beget such a son."_​*------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Some comments regarding race and appearance in the South Asian Modern context:*
> 
> Sikhism is nothing but a non-muslim identity of the settled nomads of the Punjab region who didnot want to be identified with Brahmanism.Most of the modern Sikhs have paternal lineage from Central Asian nomads like Scythians or have roots in upper Indo-Aryan castes like Khatri. *The point is phenotype matters people!* This is the reason why Sikhism,dominated by Jatts and Khatris (relatively lighter and sharper) ,was not too keen on gaining tens of millions of Dalits from Maharashtra as converts under the leadership of Ambedkar..Ambedkar then finally chose Buddhism, though the intellectual
> superiority of Buddhism (in his own estimation) appealed to Ambedkar for decades prior to that.
> *
> In the same vein Protestantism in the beginning was a revolt of the much fairer Northern Europeans to the hegemony of Southern Europeans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> *Closing Thoughts:*
> 
> Bottomline the present political situation of the Indian subcontinent dates back to the collapse of Mughal empire and the rise of Maratha and Durrani empire
> 
> *India*------------------Direct descendant of the Maratha Empire, with some gains of Sikh Empire and Ahom Kingdom tagged on to it
> *Pakistan*---------------Direct descendant of the Durrani Empire with some gains of the Sikh Empire reversed. or it may be argued that it is the rump state of the Gurkani empire
> *Bangladesh*-------------Direct descendant of the Nawabs of Bengal ...They are the inheritors of the heritage of Ali Vardi Khan
> 
> *Nepal*------------------------Direct descendant of the Gorkha Kingdom
> *Afghanistan*-----------------Another direct descendant of the Durrani Empire
> 
> Nepal is to India what Afghanistan is to Pakistan
> 
> Both Nepal's and Afghanistan's pride and identity lie in the fact that they were not subjugated by the Europeans like their more populous neighbours.
> But both were full of high altitude terrain which was totally alien to the Europeans.
> In a sense the British occupation of India was nothing but a postponement of the natural realignment of the borders of the various empires which were jostling for pre-eminence in the 18th century. The violence of partition was tragic but in the end rather inevitable.The violence was just the pent-up energy of long overdue geopolitical correction.
> 
> At least seven major political entities will always be present in the subcontinent
> At the moment they are
> 
> India
> Pakistan
> Nepal
> Bhutan
> Bangladesh
> Sri Lanka
> Maldives
> 
> If in some alternate Universe/timeline some parts of Pakistan and India were to merge then you would see many other parts break off too due to too large racial and cultural disparities
> 
> --------------------------------------*That's All Folks*----------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------*The End*------------------------------------------------
> 
> PS: I cannot post my extensive sources due to me being a novice here..But would direct people to necessary academic sources if asked
> 
> 
> @Slav Defence Can you please help? I cannot post anymore on this thread as I donot have Senior Cafe priviliges..This post will be updated with academic sources, as soon as I cross the minimum number of days required to post links



OP is pure gold.

Must read for all Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

God Parshuram said:


> Now if there was no India than how divide happened?


There was no Pakistan or India. But I was talking about their antecedents. I was not here on earth before 1963 but my linage goes back. When I use the the term India/Pakistan in this context I mean in the coterminous sense.

Of course the name India has existed for long time and contnues to exist in many permuations -


West India
Indiana
India
East Indies
Dutch East India
etc
All of course draw from the historical Sindh which is in Pakistan. This is much similiar to how Asia began as a name to mean western shores of Anatolia in Turkey but then came to mean the entire continent and often today in USA, Asian is taken as Chinese/Japanese etc. And ironically Turkey is often taken as European.

Another good example is Romania. That country shares the name with the classic Roman Empire whereas the country that sprouted that empire is called Italy.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

even if Marathas were very successful I seriously doubt whether they would have been hold onto any territory west of modern Indian Punjab...of course biggest mistake of the Marathas was the failure to take Bengal inspite of 10 years of trying

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rusty

God Parshuram said:


> You are a joker.


Says the guy who thinks ROI has existed for 5000 years.

Indians are world famous for low IQ. you are just proving that


----------



## Cygnus Black

The OP is a HERO. Only if most Indians were accepting of reality, South Asia would be a MUCH BETTER and peaceful place to live. The difference between Pakistan and India is not like East/West Germany but more like England and Ireland. The sooner we accept this reality, the better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKISTANFOREVER

Cygnus Black said:


> The OP is a HERO. Only if most Indians were accepting of reality, South Asia would be a MUCH BETTER and peaceful place to live. The difference between Pakistan and India is not like East/West Germany but more like England and Ireland. The sooner we accept this reality, the better.





Even more than the difference between Ireland and England. The English and Irish are the same race but different ethnicities. Pakistanis and indians are different ethnicities AND DIFFERENT RACES.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

God Parshuram said:


> I feel sorry for the Pakistani people who lived like Indians before 1947.



Majority of them did not even know what "Indian was" and those that did were introduced to the concept by foreign occupiers (The British ). They followed Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun, Kashmiri, etc... ways of living and culture, which stems back to thousands of years not this recently invented Indian concept.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> even if Marathas were very successful I seriously doubt whether they would have been hold onto any territory west of modern Indian Punjab...of course biggest mistake of the Marathas was the failure to take Bengal inspite of 10 years of trying


Marathas lost over a 100,000 men trying to hold onto the Indus region, they were booted out within a year and were never able to recover from their losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Cygnus Black said:


> but more like England and Ireland.


Nope. The average phenotype mode of Irish and English is same -


If you placed 10 random Irish and English together they are indistinguishable.
Irish and English share same religion.
99% of Irish and English have English as mother tongue.
The cuisine, culture of Irish and English again is indistinguishable. One side you have Irish stew, on the other English stew, Irish roast, English roast, Irish colour everything green, the English red.
I would place the differance between Lebanese and Italians, or differance between Armenians and Iranians or Italians and English as about the same as India and Pakistan.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Majority of them did not even know what "Indian was" and those that did were *introduced* to the* concept* by* foreign occupiers *(The British ). They followed Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun, Kashmiri, etc... ways of living and culture, which stems back to thousands of years not this recently invented Indian concept.


10/10. Brilliant summation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## God Parshuram

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Majority of them did not even know what "Indian was" and those that did were introduced to the concept by foreign occupiers (The British ). They followed Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun, Kashmiri, etc... ways of living and culture, which stems back to thousands of years not this recently invented Indian concept.
> 
> 
> Marathas lost over a 100,000 men trying to hold onto the Indus region, they were booted out within a year and were never able to recover from their losses.



You must be feeling proud of defeat of Marathas who came to save you guys from barbaric invaders. 

And Maratha never recovered? 


Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

PAKISTANFOREVER said:


> Even more than the difference between Ireland and England. The English and Irish are the same race but different ethnicities. Pakistanis and indians are different ethnicities AND DIFFERENT RACES.




The best analog for India and Pakistan is the difference between Northern Europe and Southern Europe which is essentially a racial and historical divide later legitimized through the religious divide between Protestantism and Catholicism..the darker Alpine races follow Catholicism while the substantially fairer Nordic races following Protestantism...of course, exceptions abound but the broad strokes cannot be denied...the darker Alpine races were directly under the Roman Empire, while the Nordic races were not



God Parshuram said:


> You must be feeling proud of defeat of Marathas who came to save you guys from barbaric invaders.
> 
> And Maratha never recovered?
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!




Victory at Panipat would have meant total destruction of the realms of Najibudullah and Shuja dullah in the early 1760s....may be even defeat of Nizam and Mysore during 1762 and 1763....finally culminating in the Battle of Buxar between Maratha and the British. may be The Marathas could have incorporated the Mysorean Rocket Corps before the Battle of Buxar...which most probably would have been a minor British tactical victory but strategic stalemate between Marathas and the British ...I would say...victory at Panipat would have meant that 2/3rds of India would have remained independent till the second World War...The Maratha part of India would have still come under the British and Allies, but only for a year or so like Iran....I have a complete alternate scenario of what if since 1761

Victory at Panipat would have also led complete cleansing of Muslims from co-terminous India and eventually Hindus from co-terminous Pakistan...1761 was a rude jolt that Hindus and Muslims cannot possibly live together.....only Muslims who have no Persian or Central Asian nobility in their blood could have been brought back to the fold of Hinduism at best

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani E

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The best analog for India and Pakistan is the difference between Northern Europe and Southern Europe which is essentially a racial and historical divide later legitimized through the religious divide between Protestantism and Catholicism..the darker Alpine races follow Catholicism while the substantially fairer Nordic races following Protestantism...of course, exceptions abound but the broad strokes cannot be denied...the darker Alpine races were directly under the Roman Empire, while the Nordic races were not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory at Panipat would have meant total destruction of the realms of Najibudullah and Shuja dullah in the early 1760s....may be even defeat of Nizam and Mysore during 1762 and 1763....finally culminating in the Battle of Buxar between Maratha and the British. may be The Marathas could have incorporated the Mysorean Rocket Corps before the Battle of Buxar...which most probably would have been a minor British tactical victory but strategic stalemate between Marathas and the British ...I would say...victory at Panipat would have meant that 2/3rds of India would have remained independent till the second World War...The Maratha part of India would have still come under the British and Allies, but only for a year or so like Iran....I have a complete alternate scenario of what if since 1761
> 
> Victory at Panipat would have also led complete cleansing of Muslims from co-terminous India and eventually Hindus from co-terminous Pakistan...1761 was a rude jolt that Hindus and Muslims cannot possibly live together.....only Muslims who have no Persian or Central Asian nobility in their blood could have been brought back to the fold of Hinduism at best



Hello brother. Welcome back, good to see you here again. You, amongst others, are the types of posters we desperately need on PDF these days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## W.11

The following passage from Hou Hanshu which is a chinese historical text refutes the notion that india was a single large kingdom but reiterates that it is made up of numerous kingdoms, even though these kingdoms were free, they all still called themselves Juandu/ India









Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Even-though whole of North-India got a single pulse of Indo-European genes with the Aryan intrusion, North-West India has got multiple pulses of Indo-European genes in the pre-Islamic times...
> starting with Persians,
> continuing with Greeks,Scythians,Kushans,Yuezhis,Wusuns,
> and ending with Alchon Huns,Kidarites,Hepthalites,Nezak Huns....
> 
> The ones in the North-West who chose to be inducted in the social order of Brahmanism became Hindus, the ones who wanted to maintain as much cultural heritage and link to Central Asia chose Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Nomadic shamanism.
> 
> *------Counterpoints by Indians that need to be refuted---*
> 
> *1)*_*Now Indians at this point will hark back to Mauryan Empire and say most of India, All of Pakistan and subtantial part of Afghanistan were united during that *_
> _*time , and all that has happened since then till the modern era doesnot matter.*_



The argument that since the NW India had to suffer multiple pulse of invasions i-e huns, kushans etc makes them separate is clearly elaborated in the text which states that the NW India was subjected to Kushan rule but was still part of Juandu/India and had not converted into Kushans themselves. NW India was still distinct from the Kushan territories despite being ruled by the kushans.

regards

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

