Historical Background of Pakistan and its People

[AryanWolve]

[/COLOR]I think we can agree on (comment from DNA Forums.)

Undetermined would be the consensus. It's difficult to separate components that the cluster together or next to each other. All we can really conclude is you are not 100% either, but have components that put you between them genetically. Not much else you can expect except wait for more samples that more clearly define the clusters or hope a new ethnic group is determined to be in that space you occupy on the plot.

This means neither Pashtun nor Cohini_Jew but cluster inbetween them. Comment from DNA Forums.

 

[AryanWolve]

So there are Genetic similarities to Pashtos and Cohini_Jews with Romani People. There mtdna was traced to Punjab as Homeland of Romani People. So this fits with my (southasian) spot on the map.

 

[scorpi786]

Good for you, you happy know? Learnt something about yourself have you?

 

[AryanWolve]

Good for you, you happy know? Learnt something about yourself have you?

a little bit.

 

[scorpi786]

You'll learn more by discovering things about yourself, your built in needs and desires, how people see you, etc. The only way to achieve this is by interacting with people and being yourself.

You dont need to research no BS.

 

[AryanWolve]

From Harappa Ancestry Project Harappa Oracle, seems as if im a brahmin, cool. and the distance is quiete close, closer thane everything i got before 1.06 for bihari brahmin


[,1] [,2]
[1,] "69.9% tuscans + 30.1% Bihari Brahmin" "1.0627"
[2,] "71.8% tuscans + 28.2% Bengali Brahmin" "1.4946"
[3,] "70.3% tuscans + 29.7% UP Brahmin" "1.5379"
[4,] "33.9% bene-israel + 66.1% bulgarians" "1.5631"
[5,] "72.6% tuscans + 27.4% ap-brahmin" "1.7342"
[6,] "71.4% tuscans + 28.6% vaish" "1.7753"
[7,] "72.9% tuscans + 27.1% Oriya" "1.7949"
[8,] "71.7% tuscans + 28.3% Brahmins_from_Uttar_Pradesh" "1.8043"
[9,] "67.8% tuscans + 32.2% Rajasthani Brahmin" "1.8924"
[10,] "66.6% tuscans + 33.4% punjabi-arain" "1.8939"
>

 

[malinamartis]

Great post!!!! I am so glad to read about this topic...thanks for the sharing.

 

[Asian.Century]

 

[W.11]

PART-2

PAKISTAN RARELY PART OF INDIA

But, as the following discussion will prove, during the Hindu period it was the people of the Indus Valley in the West and the Padma-Meghna Delta in the East that mostly emerged triumphant. Both the wings remained independent of Gangetic Valley and in fact Pakistan-based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than India has ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ------ cultural, commercial as well as political ---- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that these two wings became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by the two wings. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the sub-continent took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. I shall quote a few passages from history to substantiate my statement.

"At the close of Samudragupta’s triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith).

"Harsha’s subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid)

"The Gurjara empire of Bhoja may be defined as, on the north, the foot of the mountains; on the northwest, the Sutlej; on the west the Hakra or the ‘lost-river’ forming the boundary of Sind." (Ibid).

"The rule of the Pratiharas had never extended across the Sutlej, and the history of the Punjab between the 7th and 10th centuries AD is extremely obscure. At some time, not recorded, a powerful kingdom had been formed, which extended from the mountains beyond the Indus, eastwards as far as the Hakra of lost-river, so that it comprised a large part of the Punjab, as well as probably northern Sind." (Ibid)

"Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown)

The above quotations amply prove that none of the periods of its greatest expansion did India succeed in occupying Pakistan. The only exception is the Maurya period in the 3rd century BC when Asoka’s empire is said to have extended up to the Hindu Kush, north of Kabul. Even in this isolated case of the Mauryas, historians are aware that Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who hailed from Pakistan (Punjab), did not get Pakistan by conquest but by diplomacy from the Greek rulers who had succeeded Alexander.

As pointed out by more than one writer, the five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that its independence had been a rule while its subservience to or attachment with India an exception. "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer’s nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee)

During its five thousand-year known history, Pakistan has been subservient to Central Indian governments only during the Maurya, the Turko-Afghan and British periods who were Buddhist, Muslim and Christian respectively. While the Mauryan (300-200 BC) and British (1848-1947) periods lasted barely a hundred years each, the turko-Afghan period was the longest covering a span of 500 years.

Here we come across an important ideological point. All the three religions i.e. Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which succeeded in uniting the sub-continent under the Maurya, Turko-Afghan and British rulers stood for universal brotherhood and were spread all over the world. In the context of ideology, the implications are obvious i.e., only people believing in universal brotherhood could unite and hold this sub-continent together. Otherwise Pakistan’s independence could never be challenged nor its people subdued by India’s Hindu Governments.

It is of these celebrated lands and of their intrepid people that we shall narrate the story here. In this article we shall give a brief historical background and the contribution made by each of the groups that inhabit it: We shall begin with a general account of the entire country first and then take up the history of each group.

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

The western scholars during the colonial period proposed an idea that pakistan was the eastern end of greek civilization and many buddhist arts were propagated as greek origin, etc. Taxila was declared as a city with greek iron grid planning and the black northern polished ware was declared as greek polished ware, so the idea that pakistan was actually more related to the west than india was an idea which was heavily propagated by the british colonial historians. A statue dating from indus civilization/ red jasper harappan torso was declared as example of greek influence in the indian/south asian/maurya arts, which is just rediculous

today we know that the greek polished ware didn't actually come from greece but Bihar, Magadh India and the period is 1000 BC and not the alexander's period. taxila being a greek planned city has been also debunked as well.

samundragupta was not the king who conquered Pakistan but his son chandragupta II, also called vikramaditya who not only captured Punjab/sapta sindh but also bactria.

calling mauryan king chandragupta as pakistabn/hailing from Punjab is laughable since the guy was part of magadh dynasty, even nandas before him held parts of Punjab.

what has been said about Punjab and sindh being mostly independent is also true, but then many other parts of india like kalinga/orissa, bengal etc also remained independent much of their pre islamic periods, gujarat mostly remained independent during gujarat sultanate period and bengal also remained independent as a separate sultanate.

regards

 

[W.11]

"Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown)

Actually just came to know that Harsha ''pounded the ruler of sindh'' according to his biographer Banabhatta, and Harsha was declared as the soverign of Uttarpatha by his rival Pulakesin 2. Kashmir was also under Harsha because al beruni recorded sri harsha era used in kashmir.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/history-vardhana.htm

regards

 

[W.11]

Actually just came to know that Harsha ''pounded the ruler of sindh'' according to his biographer Banabhatta, and Harsha was declared as the soverign of Uttarpatha by his rival Pulakesin 2. Kashmir was also under Harsha because al beruni recorded sri harsha era used in kashmir.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/history-vardhana.htm

regards

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

check out the names of the rulers of rai dynasty included as part of chach nama