India copying Pakistani/Western Culture

[aryan2007]

There is not this big differences among the Indian ethnic groups as you make out. Generally, they've mixed up. A Bengali and a Punjabi are extremes of Indian looks. If you exclude the fringes of India, most of the people are the same in look, Vedided.

What is Vedided??

India is as big as europe.. we have dissimilarities.... North India - south India there is gradual darkening of colour and in the north east you have tibeto-burman race.. in the south Dravidian.. in the north indo-aryan..

To be honest, if you get a picture of a street from Bengal, Calcutta, stick it up, I would not be able to tell whether it was from central India, Uttar Pradesh, South India, Bangalore, Calcuta, or even Delhi to an extent (Delhi perhaps just about).

what??
same can be said of Pakistan.. the only give away is Shalwar Kameez versus Pant Shirt... in India...
Cities like Karachi and Lahore have a more cosmopolitan make up.. go to Multan and then go to Abbotabad.. you will see even Pakistanis are different in colour and features... similiarly if you go to Jammu and then to Madurai people will be different...

 

[aryan2007]

Aryan and Stealth:
There are quite a few Pakistanis who do care about their entire history, not just the Islamic part, and there are several people on this forum who do - though RR may be the most vociferous one. It is a sweeping generalization to suggest that "Pakistani historians do not care for pre-Islamic history". No true historian could neglect such an important aspect of a nations history, but what goes into our textbooks isn't decided by historians, it is determined by politicians, and those choices have left a lot of us poorer in knowing our history.

Thank you.. only sane post in this whole thread...

This is something Musharraf has attempted to reform, and the revamped syllabus is supposed to contain plenty of references to our pre-Islamic history - though I final judgment on how qualitative the improvements are has to wait till the first texts come out.

Our textbooks are pretty open though and are not anti-Pakistani at all.. as far as I can remember.... though that idiot Joshi tried to Saffronise it but failed..
gory details are mostly left out in the textbooks... and Gandhi was not exactly praised as far as I remember.. and I don't see a cult of personality that is bestowed upon Jinnah being showered upon any Indian Politician.. you will see people not only abusing but praising Gandhi in India.. which I don't see in Pakistanis.. don't know what to make of it???

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Hopefully.. so that you realise how much of a shared culture exists between us and you..

Shared history? Gandhara had nothing to do with Bharat. For god sake learn ur history.

 

[aryan2007]

Shared history? Gandhara had nothing to do with Bharat. For god sake learn ur history.

Thanks I know my history...
Duryodhana the Villain in Mahabharata is Mom was the princess of Gandhara..

Gandhara Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cheers

 

[roadrunner]

Thanks I know my history...
Duryodhana the Villain in Mahabharata is Mom was the princess of Gandhara..

Gandhara Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cheers

So the Mahabharata says Gandhara was a place in Bharat, therefore we all must believe it You know what happened I hope..Gandhara was a place in Afghanistan/Pakistan, that was established during Vedic times, and most likely the place where the Rig Veda was written. Now as the further books were written (later Vedas and Mahabhrata), these books originated out of Bharat and therefore because they stole the culture of Gandhara and were in the process of manipulating it, they wrote in their later books that Gandhara was actually a place in Bharat.. It is proveable this is a lie..

I have to take issue with what you say also on your quote. I believe in Mahabharata scriptures that Gandhara was a Prince or Princess or something..rather than a place. Though I could be wrong on the details such as this.

 

[roadrunner]

What is Vedided??

India is as big as europe.. we have dissimilarities.... North India - south India there is gradual darkening of colour and in the north east you have tibeto-burman race.. in the south Dravidian.. in the north indo-aryan..

Not true. The colour of Bharat is in fact all one colour basically. It is 24-26 on the Basuti scale.

The map of ethnic group is shown in the other maps I've posted.

what??
same can be said of Pakistan.. the only give away is Shalwar Kameez versus Pant Shirt... in India...
Cities like Karachi and Lahore have a more cosmopolitan make up.. go to Multan and then go to Abbotabad.. you will see even Pakistanis are different in colour and features... similiarly if you go to Jammu and then to Madurai people will be different...

I'll post some pictures of North India, and some of South India soon..You can tell me which are from Calcutta, Delhi, Bangalore. It is difficult to tell the difference to be honest, because 99% of Bharatis have a Bharati appearance.

 

[Flintlock]

Roadrunner, just one major correction, the correct word is Bharatiya and not Bharati.

 

[Flintlock]

Not true. The colour of Bharat is in fact all one colour basically. It is 24-26 on the Basuti scale.
.

Alrite...you've just proved using this "Basuti scale" that the people of MP, Maharashtra and Orissa have the same colour.
What about the people of Himachal Pradesh? Or are the Himachalis not real Indians.
Any enlightening thoughts?

 

[aryan2007]

Alrite...you've just proved using this "Basuti scale" that the people of MP, Maharashtra and Orissa have the same colour.
What about the people of Himachal Pradesh? Or are the Himachalis not real Indians.
Any enlightening thoughts?

 

[aryan2007]

Not true. The colour of Bharat is in fact all one colour basically. It is 24-26 on the Basuti scale.

The map of ethnic group is shown in the other maps I've posted.



I'll post some pictures of North India, and some of South India soon..You can tell me which are from Calcutta, Delhi, Bangalore. It is difficult to tell the difference to be honest, because 99% of Bharatis have a Bharati appearance.

Have you seen teh Map it varies from 27-29 in the south to 24-26 in the deccan to 21-23 in cow belt+Maharashtra to 18-20 in a strip in the north.. to 15-17 in north east and North India

I have not seen a gr8er variation in any other country or so much diversity in even Africa for Godsake

 

[roadrunner]

Alrite...you've just proved using this "Basuti scale" that the people of MP, Maharashtra and Orissa have the same colour.
What about the people of Himachal Pradesh? Or are the Himachalis not real Indians.
Any enlightening thoughts?

People of Himachal Pradesh are the northernmost people of India, right on the border of both Kashmir and Pakistan. It's these fringe regions where you will get a lightening of skin colour, just as you will get some oriental looking Bengali Indians on the Eastern side of India. They are not however particularly Indian looking. The people of Himachal Pradesh are a cross between Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indian Punjabis. They won't look like the standard Bharati.

 

[roadrunner]

Have you seen teh Map it varies from 27-29 in the south to 24-26 in the deccan to 21-23 in cow belt+Maharashtra to 18-20 in a strip in the north.. to 15-17 in north east and North India

I have not seen a gr8er variation in any other country or so much diversity in even Africa for Godsake

Well that is kind of like wishful thinking. It's true that the fringes of India do have a slightly lighter skin colour than the average for India, somewhere between the average Pakistani and the average Indian. This only reinforces the view that the two regions are distinct.

I think your figures are off btw. The North-east of India is 21-23, and the Northwest of India is 18-20. The majority of India looks to be 24-26. Not sure diversity is the right term.

 

[Flintlock]

People of Himachal Pradesh are the northernmost people of India, right on the border of both Kashmir and Pakistan. It's these fringe regions where you will get a lightening of skin colour, just as you will get some oriental looking Bengali Indians on the Eastern side of India. They are not however particularly Indian looking. The people of Himachal Pradesh are a cross between Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indian Punjabis. They won't look like the standard Bharati.

Oh, so you arbitrarily decided that the people of the cow belt are the true Indians, and everyone else are just by chance a part of the country.

Can you tell me what percentage of the population the people of MP+Maharashtra+Orissa make?

How do you define what kind of look is "indian looking" and what kind isn't?

And you've arbitrarily decided to cross Kashmiris and Punjabis to create himachalis...now thats what I call anthropology!!

The people of Kashmir as as Indian as the people of Manipur. Keralites are as Indian as Punjabis, and Biharis are as Indian as Gujaratis. Please realize this before deciding who is Indian and who isn't.

That "Basuti Scale" you showed me is at best a crude approximation. With the number of tribes and races India has, it is very difficult to assign a skin colour with any particular region except in some fringe areas.

 

[Flintlock]

People of Himachal Pradesh are the northernmost people of India, right on the border of both Kashmir and Pakistan. It's these fringe regions where you will get a lightening of skin colour, just as you will get some oriental looking Bengali Indians on the Eastern side of India. They are not however particularly Indian looking. The people of Himachal Pradesh are a cross between Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indian Punjabis. They won't look like the standard Bharati.

Did you forget Uttaranchal, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, MIzoram, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Bengal, Sikkim, Punjab and Rajasthan.

Now tell me that the people of madhya pradesh and orissa are the true Indians and all these other Indians are just "fringe" people.

Completely Absurd.

 

[roadrunner]

Oh, so you arbitrarily decided that the people of the cow belt are the true Indians, and everyone else are just by chance a part of the country.

Can you tell me what percentage of the population the people of MP+Maharashtra+Orissa make?

How do you define what kind of look is "indian looking" and what kind isn't?

And you've arbitrarily decided to cross Kashmiris and Punjabis to create himachalis...now thats what I call anthropology!!

The people of Kashmir as as Indian as the people of Manipur. Keralites are as Indian as Punjabis, and Biharis are as Indian as Gujaratis. Please realize this before deciding who is Indian and who isn't.

That "Basuti Scale" you showed me is at best a crude approximation. With the number of tribes and races India has, it is very difficult to assign a skin colour with any particular region except in some fringe areas.

Please dude. This is denial. Kashmiris are not Indian/Bharati. But anyhow, let's ignore this for now. Himachal Pradesh is a fringe region of India, and like all fringe regions is composed of a mixed population of people from the surrounding areas, including Kashmir and Pakistan.

Now the "Cow Belt" as you put it (I assume it's the dark shade, 24-26 in the middle of India, comprises the MAJORITY of the Indian land area. I would say it comprises of around 70% of the land area of India. Are you saying that in these 24-26 areas, no Indians are living, and they're all crammed into the fringe regions of India? You should be a comedian