India copying Pakistani/Western Culture

[roadrunner]

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.

At least 70% of India in that map, is 24-26 in colour shade. Denying that is absurd.

 

[Flintlock]

Yeah..so total land area is 3,287,590 sq kms.

Total land area of Maharashtra+MP+Chattisgarh+Orissa+Jharkhand is 987,458 sq kms.

Thats roughly 30%.

So 30% of India's land area has some skin shade. Bravo. What is it that you were trying to prove?

...and why, oh why, does every thread you post on turn into a debate on skin colour?

 

[aryan2007]

People of Himachal Pradesh are the northernmost people of India, right on the border of both Kashmir and Pakistan.

They border with Tibet and Kashmir not 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.

I don't think bengalis are Oriental looking... it is the Sikkimese, And North Easters that are.. BTW Himachal Pradesh is 55,000 Km2 that is bigger than Punjab and Haryana .. so it is not exactly a fringe region..
HP and UA were called Punjab Hill states and combined are almost 110,000km2 ..

They are not however particularly Indian looking.

and what is Indian looking?? Bengalis, Biharis and UPites make up 33% of the Indian populace.. so an avg an Indian can be thought of looking similar to them.. (the jerks produce like rats) ..

but on a region wise survey as pointed out by ur map.. the skin colour rapidly changes ..

Here is ur map and the map of tropics

b/w the southern tip and tropic of cancer

TN and Kerala are 27-29
Maharashtra and Karnataka are b/w 21-23 or 24-26
AP and Orissa and Chattisgarh are 24-26(they are the most tribal states)
S MP is mostly 24-26
N mp is mostly 21-23
tropic of capricorn upwards
Gujarat is b/w21-23 and 18-20
Rajasthan is b/w 15-17 and 18-20
Punjab+HP+Haryana+UA(historical Punjab+hill states) are b/w 12-14 and 15-17
kash is 12-14 and 15-17 (this is strange)
UP is 18-20 and 15-17
Bihar+JH+Wb is 21-23 with some sprinkling of 18-20
SSS(Ne is b.w 15-20)

The people of Himachal Pradesh are a cross between Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indian Punjabis. They won't look like the standard Bharati.

Himachal Pradesh was a part of Punjab till 1966..
Anyways it is Bharatiya.. Hindustani or Indian ...
they are not crosses b/w anyone...
au contraire even a south Indian then doesnot look like an average Indian..

There are regional variations amongst the people...
Urban areas are generally full of migrant workers from UP/Bihar or Bengal so...
Goto smaller towns and rural areas or conduct ethnic skin colour surveys..

 

[roadrunner]

Yeah..so total land area is 3,287,590 sq kms.

Total land area of Maharashtra+MP+Chattisgarh+Orissa+Jharkhand is 987,458 sq kms.

Thats roughly 30%.

So 30% of India's land area has some skin shade. Bravo. What is it that you were trying to prove?

...and why, oh why, does every thread you post on turn into a debate on skin colour?

Why are you in such denial? 70% of India is covered in a skin shade of 24-26! Quit this desperate denial please, you don't just add up all the areas of each state!. You look at the map of skin distibution and work out what proportion of India is shaded 24-26!

 

[Flintlock]

Why are you in such denial? 70% of India is covered in a skin shade of 24-26! Quit this desperate denial please, you don't just add up all the areas of each state!. You look at the map of skin distibution and work out what proportion of India is shaded 24-26!

The area marked out more or less corresponds to these states. Why don't you do the math instead? tell me of you can stretch it to more than 35%.

Infact, I should have omitted western maharashtra, since it appears to be lighter in shade.

 

[Flintlock]

Oh I get it..you are considering North Indians and South Indians with the same colour as the same people. That is not true. South Indians are dravidians and they are different even if the skin colour matches some of the north Indians.

 

[roadrunner]

Punjab+HP+Haryana+UA(historical Punjab+hill states) are b/w 12-14 and 15-17
kash is 12-14 and 15-17 (this is strange)
UP is 18-20 and 15-17
Bihar+JH+Wb is 21-23 with some sprinkling of 18-20
SSS(Ne is b.w 15-20)

These figures are well out. The North-Western tip of Bharat in Himachal Pradesh passes through the top edge of the end of the Persian Gulf at Saudi. The Vertical of the same line passes through the tip of India (Sri L). The level of the colour here is 18-20, you have some of the states as 12-14 and 15-17!

The North-Eastern tip of Bharat in Assam, is at the same line as the bottom edge of the end of the Persian Gulf at Saudi. The vertical line passes down through the tip of Indonesia. This makes it about 18-20 even at this fringe region. It's obvious both of the extreme fringe regions are pink, 18-20 as in these maps.

 

[aryan2007]

These figures are well out. The North-Western tip of Bharat in Himachal Pradesh passes through the top edge of the end of the Persian Gulf at Saudi. The Vertical of the same line passes through the tip of India (Sri L). The level of the colour here is 18-20, you have some of the states as 12-14 and 15-17!

The North-Eastern tip of Bharat in Assam, is at the same line as the bottom edge of the end of the Persian Gulf at Saudi. The vertical line passes down through the tip of Indonesia. This makes it about 18-20 even at this fringe region. It's obvious both of the extreme fringe regions are pink, 18-20 as in these maps.

Ur maps are from pre-1940's data they are all wrong..

 

[roadrunner]

Ur maps are from pre-1940's data they are all wrong..

The maps might be pre-1940s, that does not make them wrong. Populations never change to the degree that an existing one is swamped out, unless you can advocate some form of genocide. But that's never happened in Pakistan's history. Lastly, it is the commonly accepted map for this physical characteristic.

 

[aryan2007]

The maps might be pre-1940s, that does not make them wrong. Populations never change to the degree that an existing one is swamped out, unless you can advocate some form of genocide. But that's never happened in Pakistan's history.

Dear RR I hope you have heard of the PARTITION??

Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly-formed states in the months immediately following Partition. Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority.

Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India

while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition.

IN 1951 33,816,000 was the population of Pakistan therefore almost 20-25% of W.Punjabis left their homeland..

IN 1950 357,000,000 was the population of India there fore 2-2.5% of Indian lefts their homeland..

Now since if 7.2mn Mohajirs darker people left and 7.2mn fairer "pakistanis" came to India then Indian skin colour turned fairer by 3-5% and Pakistani skin colour turned 20-30% darker..


Now questions come about Kashmir.. Since my govt claims 222,000km2 of Kashmir therefore my the map since it is area wise Indians turn quite a bit fairer...

So we can never agree till Kashmir is resolved...

Further the decadal population of fairer regions has been highest
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/India_decadal_growth_rate_map_en.svg

so looking at it pop + area wise I think an avg Pakistani will be slightly fairer than an average Indian..and an average North Indian will be fairer if not similar to an avg Pakistani.. and both are Brown..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

IN 1951 33,816,000 was the population of Pakistan therefore almost 20-25% of W.Punjabis left their homeland..

IN 1950 357,000,000 was the population of India there fore 2-2.5% of Indian lefts their homeland..

You mean that "X% of Pakistanis left their homeland" - since following that you state that "X% of Indians left their homeland".

 

[aryan2007]

You mean that "20-25% of Pakistanis left their homeland" - since following that you state that "2-2.5% of Indians left their homeland".

yep.. ............

 

[roadrunner]

Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India

while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition.

Rubbish. The figure was around 1 million, but let's use official census figures.

If you need proof..

BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 6(2) September October 2003 (Table A2)

Total Muslim population of west pakistan (1951 census) = 28 million

Total Muslim population of west pakistan (1941 census) = 22 million

Growth rate of West Pakistan = approx. 2% per annum

10 years will see a 110% increase (apologies, this should be 120% increase so double everything from now!)

Expected Muslim population in 1951 = 24.2 million.

Actual minus expected = 3.8 million immigrants.. Total West Pak pop (1951) = 29 million

So percentage of immigrants from India (majority from East Punjab) = 3.8/29 = 13%. (edit, this should be 7%)

This isn't too far off the Urdu speaking population of 7% or something of modern day Pakistan.

The figure of 20-30% is just baloney though. As for India, getting "lighter", say even if 5 million moved from Pak to India (which it wasn't, it was perhaps 1 million), then it would have affected only 0.7% of a 350 million population..a negligible impact! Easy t prove..might do so later.

PS I've used a growth rate of 2% per annum, but in fact the figure is much higher.

 

[aryan2007]

In the similiar manner here Pakistani people from Punjab are also not fair and in the most cases they also dark and eat rice in dinner about 90 % of them eat rice at dinner so your accusation of racial supremacy about West Pakistan is not fit well with arguments for Bangladesh separation.

India has a lot of white skinned people and Pakistan has a lot of pitch black people.

It just happens who came in contact with whom. Percentage wise Pakistan may have more fairer people especially because of the Kashmiri Punjabi breed, and of course Pathans, but Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan is filled with brown or even dark skinned people. Plus most of the Pakistanis that migrated from India and all quite darkish.

If dosti was as simple as cricket matches and skin color, we'd just lend our friends some fair and lovely and get over with it. Many of us do look alike, but looks have nothing to do with our issues.

Get over with the skin color.

I'm done with RR... what ever you say regarding skin colour is acceptable to me..

 

[UnitedPak]

Aryan, seriously, where are you getting such overblown figures?
Populations back then werent as big as they are today. The real figures were a few million people going either way.
A lot of Indians think they can increase this figure to compensate for the increase of growth rate in the past 60 years.

And correct me if I am wrong, but East and West Pakistans partition figures are always combined. And they still are under the banner of "Pakistan" to be as misleading as possible. Go Hindutvas.

20-30%???. "Baloney" doesnt quite cover this ridiculous figure.