Children of the Indus

[Mian Babban]

Yes well Mehrgarh was one of the epicentres of the Indus Valley civilisation which is located in modern day Baluchistan.

Kachchi, where sites of Mehrgarh civilization are located, was a Pashtun majority area few centuries ago.

 

[shas]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

You are rewording facts to make it sound like Pakistanis and Indians are genetically very different.But genetically they are not very different,as both of them fall on South Asian cline.

If a Pakistani is 30% South Indian, 50% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

And a Indian is 50% South Indian, 30% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

That makes the Indian and Pakistani 80% similar and only 20% different.

Yes,Baloch is main component in the Pakistanis’s ancestry, and South Indian is main component in the Indian’s ancestry,but wording it like that makes it sound like they are very different but actually they are not.

By that logic,you can make someone who is 60% Black,40% White sound like very different from someone 40% Black,60% White by saying one is mostly White and other one is mostly Black.

By the way,when you average with Low-caste populations which are 30-40% of Sindh/Punjab population,who have more than 50% South Indian,then average person of Pakistan Sindh/Punjab is 40-45% South Indian. Which is not far from Indians.

And South Indian in HarappaWorld does not mean ASI.Its only part ASI. If you break it down then similarity is more.

 

[MultaniGuy]

You are rewording facts to make it sound like Pakistanis and Indians are genetically very different.But genetically they are not very different,as both of them fall on South Asian cline.

If a Pakistani is 30% South Indian, 50% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

And a Indian is 50% South Indian, 30% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

That makes the Indian and Pakistani 80% similar and only 20% different.

Yes,Baloch is main component in the Pakistanis’s ancestry, and South Indian is main component in the Indian’s ancestry,but wording it like that makes it sound like they are very different but actually they are not.

By that logic,you can make someone who is 60% Black,40% White sound like very different from someone 40% Black,60% White by saying one is mostly White and other one is mostly Black.

By the way,when you average with Low-caste populations which are 30-40% of Sindh/Punjab population,who have more than 50% South Indian,then average person of Pakistan Sindh/Punjab is 40-45% South Indian. Which is not far from Indians.

And South Indian in HarappaWorld does not mean ASI.Its only part ASI. If you break it down then similarity is more.

Nice try. Pakistanis and Indians are genetically different.

Only the Muhajir community in Pakistan may have genetics similar to Indians.

 

[UnitedPak]

You are rewording facts to make it sound like Pakistanis and Indians are genetically very different.But genetically they are not very different,as both of them fall on South Asian cline.

If a Pakistani is 30% South Indian, 50% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

And a Indian is 50% South Indian, 30% Baloch and 20% other (like SW Asian,Caucasian,NE Euro)

That makes the Indian and Pakistani 80% similar and only 20% different.

Yes,Baloch is main component in the Pakistanis’s ancestry, and South Indian is main component in the Indian’s ancestry,but wording it like that makes it sound like they are very different but actually they are not.

By that logic,you can make someone who is 60% Black,40% White sound like very different from someone 40% Black,60% White by saying one is mostly White and other one is mostly Black.

By the way,when you average with Low-caste populations which are 30-40% of Sindh/Punjab population,who have more than 50% South Indian,then average person of Pakistan Sindh/Punjab is 40-45% South Indian. Which is not far from Indians.

And South Indian in HarappaWorld does not mean ASI.Its only part ASI. If you break it down then similarity is more.

"Low caste" in Pakistan does not mean Dravidian or Tamil. Jesus Christ.

Your description of genetics applies to every single neighboring region on this planet. So nobody is genetically "different". The "South Indian" component can be found in Turkey, Iran and Iraq too. It's just a name, please do get over it. You are proving time and time again that Indians cannot cope with the nomenclature.

 

[El Sidd]

very informative