ADT
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 0
This article from this thread (http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/50411-genetic-journey-pakistani.html) is a great article and it sums it up
Pakistanis ignorance to their roots
It is common for Pakistanis to look back to their history starting in the 7th century AD when their ancestors were first exposed to Islam during Muhammed Bin Qasim's temporary presence in Sindh. Instead of looking back even further to their roots -which predate Islam- they identify with the invading nations and rulers who were mostly Islamic.
They (Pakistanis) go even further and fall under the delusion to believe these rulers as their "ancestors" (though there was minor race mixing with invading Arabs, Persians, Turko-Mongols and the local population, the majority still remain the same).
According to many Pakistanis, these supposed "ancestors" of theirs "brought civilization" to present-day Pakistan and the rest of Southern Asia. Before that there was no civilization there, at least from what they think.
Even those such as Zaid Hamid continue to carry the typical false slogan that Pakistanis have carried for generations that "we 'Muslims' ruled over the Indians for a thousands years and gave them civilization."
To really know who these 'Muslims' were (almost as if the word has a racial or tribal meaning) it is important to look into the history of these 'Muslims' who did indeed rule Pakistan and the rest of South Asia and if they really did bring civilization.
The first Muslims who stepped foot into Pakistan were the Arabs led by Muhammed Bin-Qasim, though it is believed they were not able to establish a firm control over the natives and were later driven out. Looking at Arab history, culture, ethnicity, linguistics it should be obvious to most people that Arabs are certainly not the ancestors of present-day Pakistanis. It does not take an anthropologist or a historian to point this out, but common sense. If one is still not convinced, then he/she is free to research Arab history, culture, genetics, linguistics. After all in the modern age of technology there are so many free resources out there to be used anytime whenever desired.
The second Muslim rulers of Pakistan were the Ghaznaviods. The general historic consensus is that they were a Persian-ruled dynasty but with an army consisted of Turko-Mongols. The Persians originate in the Fars province (Persia) of present day Iran while their army of Turko-Mongols were mostly of Altaic origins in present-day Mongolia and Siberia. Like the Arabs, the Ghaznavids's background can be further researched and from what is known, and they surely did not share a common origin with present-day Pakistanis.
Next came the Ghurids, another Persian-led force. What is known about their linguistics is that they were an Iranic-speaking people like the Persians (search Iranic languages to fully understand the meaning of the term) just like most of Pakistan's western populations the Baloch, the Pakhtuns. But, linguistics does not necessary coincide with genetics!
Take the Iranic-speaking Hazaara in Afghanistan. Just by looking at them, their Altaic/Turanoid origins become very obvious. Even recent genetic findings suggests that Pakhtuns and Baloch, though Iranic speaking share common genes with the Dardic speaking Kashmiris.
Coming back to the Ghurids, the theories are that most of them originated along the Afghanistan-Tajikistan areas. These areas are not part of present day Pakistan, nor are their current inhabitants Pakistanis.
After that came the Mughals (a corruption of the word "Mongol"), another empire like the Ghaznavids ruled mainly by Persians, but with a mainly Turko-Mongol army. It is common for Pakistanis to claim to be of Mughal descent. Unless they're willing to call the present-day Turko-Mongoloid peoples of the former USSR and Mongolia their 'cousins' despite their different Mongoloid skull structure -as opposed to the Caucasoid skulls of most Pakistanis - or their Altaic languages -as opposed to the majority Indo-European languages of Pakistanis, then they should stop calling the Mughals or any other foreign Muslim empires their "ancestors."
Instead Pakistanis should wake up and learn more about the history of their country and their people!
Given the basic insight to these invading empires, they certainly were not the ancestors of Pakistanis. In fact the British who were the last invading empire also shared something in common with Pakistanis as well!
1) They were Cuacasianoid by skull type like most Pakistanis.
2) They too spoke an Indo-European language (English.)
Based on this should Pakistanis start claiming British ancestry now!?! Or that the British Raj was somehow a 'Pakistani Empire'?? Also note there have been many intermarriages between Brits and Pakistanis and continues even today as there is a huge Pakistani community in Britain. This does not make the majority of Pakistanis of British descent, just a small handful. Likewise the same can be said for other invading empires.
Another common trend for Pakistanis is to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as "Indian" or "South Asian" or "desi."
Many brainwashed, Indianized Pakistanis, like the Islamists, always like to always associate with the other. Pakistanis who have a Pan-South Asian mindset wish for their pre-Islamic history which spread mostly and were based in Pakistan to be known as "Indian" or "South Asian". The truth is most ancient civilizations based in Pakistan did NOT spread over South Asia!
"Desi" is a term popular amongst Pan-South Asians. It is used to refer to Dravidian, Dardic, and Indo-Aryan speakers. But strangely enough it does not apply to Iranic speakers (ie. Balochis, Pakhtuns) despite Iranic speakers in Pakistan sharing common linguistics, genetics with Indo-Aryan and Dardic speakers. (Search Indo-Iranic languages).
The word "desi" has no scientific acceptance in modern-day anthropology or linguistics. A Dardic-speaking Kashmiri has no linguistic relation to a Dravidian speaking Tamil. Dravidian languages belong to a completely different and un-related language family than Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages. Dardic and Indo-Aryan along with Iranic are part of the Indo-Iranic family of languages.
What's more is that genetically the Dravidians lack R1A genetic markers that are least found in Southern India (though some sources state Tamils have a significant R1A contribution than other Dravidian speakers; suggesting genetic contributors in their gene pool coming from more northwards) while Dardic and Iranic-speakers in Pakistan have it the most.
So clearly "Desis" are no more than a people of an imagination based on ignorance, pseudoscience and false political propaganda.
Pakistan's new generation face an identity tug of war between Islamic Mid-Easternization and Indianization. The problem is that Indian propaganda has reached even western historians; who are often manipulated & used to promote false historic propaganda created for political agendas. But today some are starting to question Indian pseudo-history. Such as the terms "partition of India" or the "ancientness" of so-called "Hinduism."
Many are even coming to the realization that these ideas were merely invented by the British. "India" and "Hinduism" did not exist prior to the 18th century. If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Bhuddist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian or any other would have mentioned this phenomenon.
Contrary to popular myth the history of "India" and "Hinduism" are works of fiction! Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as "hinduism" instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of "hinduism!"
The republic of "India" was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the Peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (mainly Hyderabad, Goa, Junagara and then later on Kashmir, which triggered war with Pakistan) were invaded by military force.
Pakistani people on the other hand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC.
The maps showing the Indus Civilization -one of the oldest in the world- spread all over Pakistan. Most of the IVC's map coincides with that of Pakistan's present day map. It's main cities Harrappa, Mohinjadarro are also situated deep within Pakistan in various provinces.
Many Indian propagandists and Pan-'South Asian' Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was "one nation" as strictly defined, modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today.
Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as "proof" of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilizations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations.
Most Muslim countries/nations are proud of their pre-Islamic history and don't use their religion as a substitute for their identity. Not even the stateless Palestinians!
Egyptians are proud of their pre-Islamic and pre-Arab civilizations. Even the Catholic Italians are proud of Roman civilization, despite that it was not a Christian civilization till much after. Despite that the modern-day Italian state was established only in the 18th century. It's time Pakistanis do the same!
Before 1947 Pakistan did not have it's present-day name. But neither did India before the 1800s or Italy before the 1800s, neither did Afghanistan before 1747. But now that these are the current names of the lands and the people, they are used to apply to the same land and people in prehistoric times. The same logic can be applied for Pakistan. It is time the new generation of Pakistanis not make the mistake of their forefathers and learn about their roots which predate Islam by thousands of years. It should be passed on forever by each generation instead of being given away for free to history thieves eager to steal it.
Here are some basic facts on Pakistanis:
-They are mostly Caucasoid by skull type.
-They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo-Iranic language around the second milliniea BC.
Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic or even Indo-European, however it's speakers are not that genetically distinct from the rest of Pakistanis.
-They are geographically located around the Indus river.
-They formed a single civilization/nation from the days of the Indus Civilization from 3000BC till today.
-They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry.
Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected!
Even the non- Indo-European speaking populations - mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically.
A brief analysis of a study at an American university on Pakistani genetics:
Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan
Posted by Pakistani
History of Pakistan: Pakistanis ignorence to their roots
Pakistanis ignorance to their roots
It is common for Pakistanis to look back to their history starting in the 7th century AD when their ancestors were first exposed to Islam during Muhammed Bin Qasim's temporary presence in Sindh. Instead of looking back even further to their roots -which predate Islam- they identify with the invading nations and rulers who were mostly Islamic.
They (Pakistanis) go even further and fall under the delusion to believe these rulers as their "ancestors" (though there was minor race mixing with invading Arabs, Persians, Turko-Mongols and the local population, the majority still remain the same).
According to many Pakistanis, these supposed "ancestors" of theirs "brought civilization" to present-day Pakistan and the rest of Southern Asia. Before that there was no civilization there, at least from what they think.
Even those such as Zaid Hamid continue to carry the typical false slogan that Pakistanis have carried for generations that "we 'Muslims' ruled over the Indians for a thousands years and gave them civilization."
To really know who these 'Muslims' were (almost as if the word has a racial or tribal meaning) it is important to look into the history of these 'Muslims' who did indeed rule Pakistan and the rest of South Asia and if they really did bring civilization.
The first Muslims who stepped foot into Pakistan were the Arabs led by Muhammed Bin-Qasim, though it is believed they were not able to establish a firm control over the natives and were later driven out. Looking at Arab history, culture, ethnicity, linguistics it should be obvious to most people that Arabs are certainly not the ancestors of present-day Pakistanis. It does not take an anthropologist or a historian to point this out, but common sense. If one is still not convinced, then he/she is free to research Arab history, culture, genetics, linguistics. After all in the modern age of technology there are so many free resources out there to be used anytime whenever desired.
The second Muslim rulers of Pakistan were the Ghaznaviods. The general historic consensus is that they were a Persian-ruled dynasty but with an army consisted of Turko-Mongols. The Persians originate in the Fars province (Persia) of present day Iran while their army of Turko-Mongols were mostly of Altaic origins in present-day Mongolia and Siberia. Like the Arabs, the Ghaznavids's background can be further researched and from what is known, and they surely did not share a common origin with present-day Pakistanis.
Next came the Ghurids, another Persian-led force. What is known about their linguistics is that they were an Iranic-speaking people like the Persians (search Iranic languages to fully understand the meaning of the term) just like most of Pakistan's western populations the Baloch, the Pakhtuns. But, linguistics does not necessary coincide with genetics!
Take the Iranic-speaking Hazaara in Afghanistan. Just by looking at them, their Altaic/Turanoid origins become very obvious. Even recent genetic findings suggests that Pakhtuns and Baloch, though Iranic speaking share common genes with the Dardic speaking Kashmiris.
Coming back to the Ghurids, the theories are that most of them originated along the Afghanistan-Tajikistan areas. These areas are not part of present day Pakistan, nor are their current inhabitants Pakistanis.
After that came the Mughals (a corruption of the word "Mongol"), another empire like the Ghaznavids ruled mainly by Persians, but with a mainly Turko-Mongol army. It is common for Pakistanis to claim to be of Mughal descent. Unless they're willing to call the present-day Turko-Mongoloid peoples of the former USSR and Mongolia their 'cousins' despite their different Mongoloid skull structure -as opposed to the Caucasoid skulls of most Pakistanis - or their Altaic languages -as opposed to the majority Indo-European languages of Pakistanis, then they should stop calling the Mughals or any other foreign Muslim empires their "ancestors."
Instead Pakistanis should wake up and learn more about the history of their country and their people!
Given the basic insight to these invading empires, they certainly were not the ancestors of Pakistanis. In fact the British who were the last invading empire also shared something in common with Pakistanis as well!
1) They were Cuacasianoid by skull type like most Pakistanis.
2) They too spoke an Indo-European language (English.)
Based on this should Pakistanis start claiming British ancestry now!?! Or that the British Raj was somehow a 'Pakistani Empire'?? Also note there have been many intermarriages between Brits and Pakistanis and continues even today as there is a huge Pakistani community in Britain. This does not make the majority of Pakistanis of British descent, just a small handful. Likewise the same can be said for other invading empires.
Another common trend for Pakistanis is to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as "Indian" or "South Asian" or "desi."
Many brainwashed, Indianized Pakistanis, like the Islamists, always like to always associate with the other. Pakistanis who have a Pan-South Asian mindset wish for their pre-Islamic history which spread mostly and were based in Pakistan to be known as "Indian" or "South Asian". The truth is most ancient civilizations based in Pakistan did NOT spread over South Asia!
"Desi" is a term popular amongst Pan-South Asians. It is used to refer to Dravidian, Dardic, and Indo-Aryan speakers. But strangely enough it does not apply to Iranic speakers (ie. Balochis, Pakhtuns) despite Iranic speakers in Pakistan sharing common linguistics, genetics with Indo-Aryan and Dardic speakers. (Search Indo-Iranic languages).
The word "desi" has no scientific acceptance in modern-day anthropology or linguistics. A Dardic-speaking Kashmiri has no linguistic relation to a Dravidian speaking Tamil. Dravidian languages belong to a completely different and un-related language family than Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages. Dardic and Indo-Aryan along with Iranic are part of the Indo-Iranic family of languages.
What's more is that genetically the Dravidians lack R1A genetic markers that are least found in Southern India (though some sources state Tamils have a significant R1A contribution than other Dravidian speakers; suggesting genetic contributors in their gene pool coming from more northwards) while Dardic and Iranic-speakers in Pakistan have it the most.
So clearly "Desis" are no more than a people of an imagination based on ignorance, pseudoscience and false political propaganda.
Pakistan's new generation face an identity tug of war between Islamic Mid-Easternization and Indianization. The problem is that Indian propaganda has reached even western historians; who are often manipulated & used to promote false historic propaganda created for political agendas. But today some are starting to question Indian pseudo-history. Such as the terms "partition of India" or the "ancientness" of so-called "Hinduism."
Many are even coming to the realization that these ideas were merely invented by the British. "India" and "Hinduism" did not exist prior to the 18th century. If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Bhuddist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian or any other would have mentioned this phenomenon.
Contrary to popular myth the history of "India" and "Hinduism" are works of fiction! Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as "hinduism" instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of "hinduism!"
The republic of "India" was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the Peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (mainly Hyderabad, Goa, Junagara and then later on Kashmir, which triggered war with Pakistan) were invaded by military force.
Pakistani people on the other hand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC.
The maps showing the Indus Civilization -one of the oldest in the world- spread all over Pakistan. Most of the IVC's map coincides with that of Pakistan's present day map. It's main cities Harrappa, Mohinjadarro are also situated deep within Pakistan in various provinces.
Many Indian propagandists and Pan-'South Asian' Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was "one nation" as strictly defined, modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today.
Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as "proof" of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilizations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations.
Most Muslim countries/nations are proud of their pre-Islamic history and don't use their religion as a substitute for their identity. Not even the stateless Palestinians!
Egyptians are proud of their pre-Islamic and pre-Arab civilizations. Even the Catholic Italians are proud of Roman civilization, despite that it was not a Christian civilization till much after. Despite that the modern-day Italian state was established only in the 18th century. It's time Pakistanis do the same!
Before 1947 Pakistan did not have it's present-day name. But neither did India before the 1800s or Italy before the 1800s, neither did Afghanistan before 1747. But now that these are the current names of the lands and the people, they are used to apply to the same land and people in prehistoric times. The same logic can be applied for Pakistan. It is time the new generation of Pakistanis not make the mistake of their forefathers and learn about their roots which predate Islam by thousands of years. It should be passed on forever by each generation instead of being given away for free to history thieves eager to steal it.
Here are some basic facts on Pakistanis:
-They are mostly Caucasoid by skull type.
-They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo-Iranic language around the second milliniea BC.
Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic or even Indo-European, however it's speakers are not that genetically distinct from the rest of Pakistanis.
-They are geographically located around the Indus river.
-They formed a single civilization/nation from the days of the Indus Civilization from 3000BC till today.
-They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry.
Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected!
Even the non- Indo-European speaking populations - mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically.
A brief analysis of a study at an American university on Pakistani genetics:
Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan
Posted by Pakistani
History of Pakistan: Pakistanis ignorence to their roots
