Indo Aryan Languages of South Asia

[Chhatrapati]

you didnt have knowledge to point out the mistakes but did a long blabla in your post . i mean - you are just an indian , as i can see

Oh no. I'm bored pointing out mistakes on your little project because it's not worth it and these mistakes are so dumb that, anyone can google it which you should've done before publishing the "research". In short you should read more first to have a discussion, or to point out any accuracies. Making mistakes in the first line is a turnoff to any discussion as it makes others feel they're discussing with an empty vessel.

The name aryans came from a region including iran, afghanistan and the Pakistan on the other side of Indus river, its 2/3 of Pakistan landmass. This regions is refered to as "aryana" even in your vedas. People of this regions were called "aryans" or arya.

What your current vedas says, I won't comment on it.

Still I am proud NOT to satisfy "vedic criteria" of being aryan. As I said, I could not care less about race.

I am proudly muslim. That's enough for me.

P.S. I apologize to the OP for somewhat not sticking to the topic. but linguistic and ethnicity are interlinked. People who brought or influenced the languages cannot be ignored. Anyway I am out of this thread. It was a mistake, big one. NOT a post again on such threads.

You're applying modern day race theory to a civilization that identified it's people on rituals and customs unique to them. That's the fundamental flaw in your argument. Aryan simply means of one who has good qualities, there is no race and place of origin in it. If you don't follow the Vedic customs you're an outcast. That's why Kambojas who included Persians, originally Indo Aryans, were called Yona/Mlech because they were not following Vedic traditions anymore. But race theory put them at par with Aryans when they're not.

There is no modern and old Vedas, they're the same throughout history. Vedic criteria is important because you used Vedas as a reference to your entire theory, i.e about Indo Aryans, Linguistics and what not. There is no mention of any of it, outside the subcontinent.

The region included today's Pakistan and it's called Aryavarta not Aryana. You simply inherited the land that used to be Aryavarta. Ethnicity has greatly influenced Indic languages for sure, later religion influenced it too, like Buddhism, Jainism, and Islam. To some extent, English too, language is constantly evolving.

 

[Rafeh]

You're applying modern day race theory to a civilization that identified it's people on rituals and customs unique to them. That's the fundamental flaw in your argument. Aryan simply means of one who has good qualities, there is no race and place of origin in it. If you don't follow the Vedic customs you're an outcast. That's why Kambojas who included Persians, originally Indo Aryans, were called Yona/Mlech because they were not following Vedic traditions anymore. But race theory put them at par with Aryans when they're not.

There is no modern and old Vedas, they're the same throughout history. Vedic criteria is important because you used Vedas as a reference to your entire theory, i.e about Indo Aryans, Linguistics and what not. There is no mention of any of it, outside the subcontinent.

The region included today's Pakistan and it's called Aryavarta not Aryana. You simply inherited the land that used to be Aryavarta. Ethnicity has greatly influenced Indic languages for sure, later religion influenced it too, like Buddhism, Jainism, and Islam. To some extent, English too, language is constantly evolving.

Thanks for correcting me regarding indian definition of "aryan". I was not aware of Vedic criteria of who is an aryan and who is not.

Do realize that that's not how so many indians see the term "aryan". They see it like me, that is aryan as a race which in modern terms came from the following (as you already aware of):

The name aryans came from pre-persian term "Ariana" which I spelled wrong by the way as aryana (its been a while I had read anything on the topic so I forgot).

I was using the term ariana/aryana as in avestan (an old iranian language) and not as in Vedas.

The ancient iranian word, Ariana refers to the region between parts of Punjab where indus river lies to Iran and Afghanistan. It includes nearly 2/3 of current Pakistan in land area.

From Ariana meaning "land of aryans" or "land of arians", depending how you spell it, came the name Iran. The name Ariana came from an earlier iranian language. Most inhabitant of ariana originally came from the russian steppe and parts of central asia. They have nothing to do with india.

These arian people again I spell them as aryans, continued to settle down from other side of indus river to this side of indus river meaning rest of Punjab and sindh and Kashmir. Hence arian (or spelled differently "aryans") settled down in the rest of Pakistan. In other words Iranian settlements in Pakistan, That's what I was referring to as "Aryans" though there are direct settlements from Russian steppe and central asia to Pakistan without involving iran and via Afghanistan, which also are called Aryan settlements by European researchers since they are closely related to modern iranian people (and portions of Europeans too).

I was discussing in that context.

Europeans further define this term to be those additional settlers to Pakistan who came directly from russia via iran/afghanistan and settled down in parts of Pakistan They are related to Scythian people (also themselves a derivatives of euroasian tribes described sometimes by modern anthropologist as "aryans"). They themselves are related to modern chechen People and well as people of "ingushetia region" in russia. Hence Pakistan's racial connection to Chechnya and its people.

Some Scythians were related to Ethnic Greeks, some to Macedonian among others.

Meaning term scythians refers to a varying collection of euroasian tribes of various ethnicities and compositions at various times, some made it to pakistan and ruled the area, others ruled parts of europe and some went to middle east etc. Indo-greeks were also part of this mix.

However, NO scythians themselves ever left Pakistan and hence there are no ethnic scythians in india at all. They all stayed in Pakistan and were absorbed by the local population. They did rule nearby parts of india for a little while ONLY but that by forcing nearby indian rulers to pay annual fees to them. Meaning Scythains tribes themselves stayed and settled in Pakistan only.

NOTE VERY IMPORTANT regarding Scythians: its a very complex topic and i am oversimplifying here.

Anyway, I don't mean to disrespect any of your deeply held religious believes nor I question them, hence I'll skip all discussion related to Vedas. They are sacred for you and I respect that.

However do realize that most of your own indians don't use the vedic definition and use the above described modern theory of race. They use it in racial terms. Meaning when we speak to average indians, they claim that they are "aryans" implying that they too are from a region called "ariana" like so many Pakistanis. That's extreme exaggeration however, and largely false for overwhelming majority of indians.

I won't here on this form anymore so there is absolutely no need reply. Kindly let's end this.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

That's what indians and indian origin people believe claim or those whose knowledge comes from "vedas".

NO mainstream academia will say such a thing.

I quote an earlier post which was banned on this forum

"The only person in Pakistan who has his full genome tested is Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman who is 6th person in the world to have full human genome tested.

Out of 280,000, more than and I repeat more than 200,000 of his SNPs are western Europeans meaning Aryans. That is he has 71 percent of his genome from Europe and he is majority European. NOT indus. He is arayn like Most of Pakistanis by majority of his genes. Paper on him is available somewhere online.

Even though he was born in new dehli, he is originally punjabi. He is not white in skin color but has light brown skin yet majority of his genome is European. You can tell that because of his aryan skull and facial feature which are found in abundance in Pakistan but NOT in india"

Your academia has no merit clearly and lives in their delusions. Facts are facts. its as simple.

I personally don't care about Aryans or not Aryans. I only care about keeping ourselves away from indians. here is why:

This is because looking at indians in india, having love affairs (very common) and even marriages at times regardless of religion makes me worried as muslim. We don't want that in pakistan and wants to therefore keep indians away. I don't want my children tomorrow to believe this india-pakistan same nonsense and end up having "haram" relationship driven by false "idea of ethnic" affiliation with indians.

I even unfriended and stopped talking to a relative in UK on facebook who was having an affair with a Sikh lady. Indians live far away and they are having affairs or wanna have affairs with us. IF they live with us, what would happen then. So people like me want to reclaim our uniqueness, teach our children that so they are not drawn towards indians and so that we can preserve Islam.

Ethnicity is only things that works with indians. That is we use "ethnicity" as a tool to keep indians away from unwanted indian attention since no other reasoning such as nationalism, religion works on indians. They can only be pushed away using a ethnicity card where they are forced to accept our distinct ethnicities and identities. Most of us do look different and have our unique features and so why not use that if that works. Whatever works.

Indians are obsessed with Pakistan and internet is full of their obsession with Pakistani looks. its a fact. So they constantly want to believe and the feed themselves like this post above, with "alternative academic history" largely lead by "small number of racist Europeans or mostly indians themselves". Hence they ignore the fact the fact a large number of Pakistanis derive their heritage outside of india. Which is not true for indians.

Wherever we go indian relentlessly shower us with their unwanted attention "wanna be friends" or indian ladies "wanna be lovers" or whatever, telling us in their obsession that "we and they are same", again and again and again. it never ends. They don't listen that such relationships are haram in our way. According to indians, We are not even suppose to love or like other muslims from other countries, since supposedly indians have this right on us. In fact they try to instill hatred of other muslims nations so that they are only left that we can love.

Eventually people like me developed this defense mechanism where "truth" of our uniqueness is brought forward to tell them, "leave us alone, please".

You cannot even sit in park or in a train without some indian seeing you and sitting next to you and then forcing themselves upon you, the moment they realize you are from a "better" country Pakistan. There is no peaceful place where they leave us alone.

They justify their "enforced friendship" by constantly forcing us to accept their "alternative and debunked academic history" where they are exactly the same as Pakistanis.

This way they want to create a space where they feel accepted by the very people they unconsciously see as "superior" and not the same at all. Otherwise why not just ditch Pakistanis. Why so much chasing of Pakistanis. Why so much need to prove that they are the same as Pakistanis. We don't feel such need.

Pakistanis are NOT just those who have an appearance exactly like average indian. Though we accept them fully as one of our own. They are also Pakistan.

However, Pakistan also include people who have uniquely Pakistani appearance far more common in Pakistan then ever be in india, found in all four provinces and in mohajar community. More often than not, you can always tell when someone is Pakistani or not. that difference is always there. its just a reality. There is no need to feel uncomfortable about it.

Furthermore, half the Pakistan is made up of people ranging from Pashtuns to kashmiris whose origin lie in Iran or euro-Asian regions (the aryan people), which is a historic fact (read above my post half the pakistanis). That's nearly half the Pakistan excluding Punjab or sindh. That's also Pakistan for GOD sake. They don't need to "want to be aryans", They predominantly live in the region historically called "Ariana" or land of aryans. Later these people started moving across indus river settling down in punjab and sindh, intermingling at times , displacing them to india, or killing indigenous yet very SPARSE population in these areas. Hence the rise of aryan people and culture in Punjab and Sindh. Though there were also direct aryan or allied groups (e.g. Scythians) related settlements from russia such as in Taxila in Punjab etc from where they spread across Pakistan.

In 5 to 7 years full human genome test will be a routine. Again do note those so called current genetic tests are not genetic tests. They are haplogroup tests and do not tell us our current gene composition. Only one person Dr Atta-ur-Rahman who was the first south Asian have his full genome tested.

SO when full human genome tests will begin we will see that most Pakistanis are what we say we are.

Those dislike the idea of " aryan" probably are indigenous to india hence the irritation to concept of outside migration to Pakistan. Pakistan is largely a country of migrants. Some from india and a large number from outside of india. All united under islam. That does not means we should not use "ethnicity card" to keep indians away since that's the only reality unconsciously they seem to accept (though not consciously). What else we are suppose to do or tell them. There nothing else to tell.

You are welcome to cherry pick "your alternative academic history" from wherever you like. There is no point keep on arguing over same old. Truth will come out in few years when full genetic tests will be a common place.

Though not relevent, I do want to say those Indians who respect our uniqueness, I genuinly respect them and deal with them respectfully and in a friendly manner.

My desire is to have a future Pakistan and india where indians accept their uniqueness and let us live in our lives so that our children are not influenced by "their alternative history" and drawn in the name of race towards relationships and friendships with them, strictly prohibited by Quran. its about islam and not aryanhood. If the "fact" that they and we are largely different people works, so be it. We will use that.



The name aryans came from a region including iran, afghanistan and the Pakistan on the other side of Indus river, its 2/3 of Pakistan landmass. This regions is refered to as "Ariana" even in your vedas. People of this regions were called "aryans" or arya.

What your current vedas says, I won't comment on it.

Still I am happy NOT to satisfy "vedic criteria" of being aryan. As I said, I could not care less about race.

I am proudly muslim. That's enough for me.

P.S. I apologize to the OP for somewhat not sticking to the topic. but linguistic and ethnicity are interlinked. People who brought or influenced the languages cannot be ignored. Anyway I am out of this thread. It was a mistake, big one. NOT a post again on such threads.



You are absolutely right. They even tell that to local arab shop keepers here. Like literally I go to arab shops and there they tell arabs that British "sowed" this hatred of indians in us otherwise they are still the same as Pakistanis. That Pakistan should rejoin india as if historically we were one people by choice.

Every once a while an indian comes in, starts telling us, he wants to visit pakistan since his "supposed" Pakistani girlfriend is dying for him (yet not sponsoring him). Upon confrontation, that girl always turns out be "an indian" one.

They don't understand that due to bollywood influence, Pakistanis may initially like indians upon first meetings, or show even love for them. But it won't last for long. Overtime, Pakistanis will come back to Pakistan and hatred of indians will resurface after a while, whether in few months or in a year.

This obsession is actually harmful for indian themselves. Because they feed this "india-Pakistan" same nonsense to their children. Their girls have developed their own rather extreme obsession with pakistani men. Which is not healthy for indians in general. They need to segregate and separate themselves if they want to preserve their religions, and their way of life. By this way they'll be doing us a favor too.

Brother throughout my most without realizing, I used the wrong spelling aryana while the correct spelling were "Ariana" for the region bordering indus river from parts of Punjab to iran. since i won't be here, please do remember that Ariana meaning land of aryans it includes roughly 2/3 of Pakistan. Also large number of people settled from Ariana that is from other side of indus river to this side over the years as described above.

Great posts brother, glad to see another person knowledgeable on this subject.

 

[Progressive1]

Thanks for correcting me regarding indian definition of "aryan". I was not aware of Vedic criteria of who is an aryan and who is not.

Do realize that that's not how so many indians see the term "aryan". They see it like me, that is aryan as a race which in modern terms came from the following (as you already aware of):

The name aryans came from pre-persian term "Ariana" which I spelled wrong by the way as aryana (its been a while I had read anything on the topic so I forgot).

I was using the term ariana/aryana as in avestan (an old iranian language) and not as in Vedas.

The ancient iranian word, Ariana refers to the region between parts of Punjab where indus river lies to Iran and Afghanistan. It includes nearly 2/3 of current Pakistan in land area.

From Ariana meaning "land of aryans" or "land of arians", depending how you spell it, came the name Iran. The name Ariana came from an earlier iranian language. Most inhabitant of ariana originally came from the russian steppe and parts of central asia. They have nothing to do with india.

These arian people again I spell them as aryans, continued to settle down from other side of indus river to this side of indus river meaning rest of Punjab and sindh and Kashmir. Hence arian (or spelled differently "aryans") settled down in the rest of Pakistan. In other words Iranian settlements in Pakistan, That's what I was referring to as "Aryans" though there are direct settlements from Russian steppe and central asia to Pakistan without involving iran and via Afghanistan, which also are called Aryan settlements by European researchers since they are closely related to modern iranian people (and portions of Europeans too).

I was discussing in that context.

Europeans further define this term to be those additional settlers to Pakistan who came directly from russia via iran/afghanistan and settled down in parts of Pakistan They are related to Scythian people (also themselves a derivatives of euroasian tribes described sometimes by modern anthropologist as "aryans"). They themselves are related to modern chechen People and well as people of "ingushetia region" in russia. Hence Pakistan's racial connection to Chechnya and its people.

Some Scythians were related to Ethnic Greeks, some to Macedonian among others.

Meaning term scythians refers to a varying collection of euroasian tribes of various ethnicities and compositions at various times, some made it to pakistan and ruled the area, others ruled parts of europe and some went to middle east etc. Indo-greeks were also part of this mix.

However, NO scythians themselves ever left Pakistan and hence there are no ethnic scythians in india at all. They all stayed in Pakistan and were absorbed by the local population. They did rule nearby parts of india for a little while ONLY but that by forcing nearby indian rulers to pay annual fees to them. Meaning Scythains tribes themselves stayed and settled in Pakistan only.

NOTE VERY IMPORTANT regarding Scythians: its a very complex topic and i am oversimplifying here.

Anyway, I don't mean to disrespect any of your deeply held religious believes nor I question them, hence I'll skip all discussion related to Vedas. They are sacred for you and I respect that.

However do realize that most of your own indians don't use the vedic definition and use the above described modern theory of race. They use it in racial terms. Meaning when we speak to average indians, they claim that they are "aryans" implying that they too are from a region called "ariana" like so many Pakistanis. That's extreme exaggeration however, and largely false for overwhelming majority of indians.

I won't here on this form anymore so there is absolutely no need reply. Kindly let's end this.

Iranians have different genetics , they have lots of middle eastern and Turkish DNA as well , aryans genetics is most common among Afghan/Paskitsni/and North West Indian groups , many north west indian groups like jatts are very similar to pakistanis genetically, we cant deny them links to pakistan , if they feel closer to pakistan it is there rigth. Also there are high cast communities in india like brahmins who have origins in Pakistan. Though I agree it can get annoying when they say we are exactly the same people , but I would say 10-15 person pakistanis can look like most indians and 10-15 percent indians can look like most pakistanis and this is hella lot of people.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Thanks for correcting me regarding indian definition of "aryan". I was not aware of Vedic criteria of who is an aryan and who is not.

Do realize that that's not how so many indians see the term "aryan". They see it like me, that is aryan as a race which in modern terms came from the following (as you already aware of):

No probs, don't take my confrontational attitude to heart. It came after staying here for some time and discussing with people who are revising a written history to suit their narrative.

The people in India who claim they're Aryan, do not consider them as central asians or Eurasian. They associate with their caste, like say Brahman, or Kshatriya both are higher castes one being priest and other being warrior.
But caste is not race.

The name aryans came from pre-persian term "Ariana" which I spelled wrong by the way as aryana (its been a while I had read anything on the topic so I forgot).

That mean many things in pre persian vocabulary. But you can find something in common between Sanskrit and proto Iranian language that Aryan simply means person with good qualities. Race based on body features like Skin color is something that came from the Europeans.

I'm no expert in Avestan literature, but there is no mention of regions like Punjab, Kashmir, Sindh in any proto Iranian scripts. There is no evidence for presence of Zoroastrianism in these regions.

The ancient iranian word, Ariana refers to the region between parts of Punjab where indus river lies to Iran and Afghanistan. It includes nearly 2/3 of current Pakistan in land area.

Not according to Persians. Not even 1/5 of Pakistan. The main reason why you lack any significant Zoroastrian place of worship.

Like I said, most mention of regions in parts of Pakistan comes from Vedas. Avestan literature is not nearly enough to describe post harappan Pakistan. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

Europeans further define this term to be those additional settlers to Pakistan who came directly from russia via iran/afghanistan and settled down in parts of Pakistan They are related to Scythian people (also themselves a derivatives of euroasian tribes described sometimes by modern anthropologist as "aryans"). They themselves are related to modern chechen People and well as people of "ingushetia region" in russia. Hence Pakistan's racial connection to Chechnya and its people.

Scynthians came much much later. There is more than 1500 years difference between Synthians and the supposed Aryans. You're expanding a term that's not even a race or tribe to Scynthians and up until Europe. Which basically means Aryans are Europeans. That's what Hitler said, blue eyes - white skin.

However, NO scythians themselves ever left Pakistan and hence there are no ethnic scythians in india at all. They all stayed in Pakistan and were absorbed by the local population. They did rule nearby parts of india for a little while ONLY but that by forcing nearby indian rulers to pay annual fees to them. Meaning Scythains tribes themselves stayed and settled in Pakistan only.

Are you for real? You think Scynthians are Pakistan centric tribes? Please read about it in detail about Indo Scynthians.

Anyway, I don't mean to disrespect any of your deeply held religious believes nor I question them, hence I'll skip all discussion related to Vedas. They are sacred for you and I respect that.

However do realize that most of your own indians don't use the vedic definition and use the above described modern theory of race. They use it in racial terms. Meaning when we speak to average indians, they claim that they are "aryans" implying that they too are from a region called "ariana" like so many Pakistanis. That's extreme exaggeration however, and largely false for overwhelming majority of indians.

I won't here on this form anymore so there is absolutely no need reply. Kindly let's end this.

I'm not offended by someone quoting Vedas or disrespecting it, I'm agnostic in my beliefs and Vedas and Upanishads themselves encourage criticism of the concepts. I'm referring to Vedas for a historic account, to talk about the kingdoms in the region.

You keep saying most Indians use race theory and identify themselves as Aryan (central asian) people. Do you know, most Indians do not even accept the inward Aryan invasion/migration theory? They believe in the outward theory, that Vedic tribes originated in India and expanded outward.

I am compelled to reply when there is inaccurate statements. It's a habit. Good luck to you. Ciao.

 

[k s ahmed]

Oh no. I'm bored pointing out mistakes on your little project because it's not worth it and these mistakes are so dumb that, anyone can google it which you should've done before publishing the "research". In short you should read more first to have a discussion, or to point out any accuracies. Making mistakes in the first line is a turnoff to any discussion as it makes others feel they're discussing with an empty vessel.


You're applying modern day race theory to a civilization that identified it's people on rituals and customs unique to them. That's the fundamental flaw in your argument. Aryan simply means of one who has good qualities, there is no race and place of origin in it. If you don't follow the Vedic customs you're an outcast. That's why Kambojas who included Persians, originally Indo Aryans, were called Yona/Mlech because they were not following Vedic traditions anymore. But race theory put them at par with Aryans when they're not.

There is no modern and old Vedas, they're the same throughout history. Vedic criteria is important because you used Vedas as a reference to your entire theory, i.e about Indo Aryans, Linguistics and what not. There is no mention of any of it, outside the subcontinent.

The region included today's Pakistan and it's called Aryavarta not Aryana. You simply inherited the land that used to be Aryavarta. Ethnicity has greatly influenced Indic languages for sure, later religion influenced it too, like Buddhism, Jainism, and Islam. To some extent, English too, language is constantly evolving.

I can't believe you have done a lot of bla bla bla again and yet wrote nothing meaningful. Clearly , people like you just look for so called mistakes in others while accomplishing noting in life theirselves.
And secondlly, those mistakes might be the thjngs whicj contradict your beleifs / views which have been indoctrinated into you since you have been born by vedics etc. Sorry to hurt you but not sorry really. You must use yellow liquid to recover from this situation.
And don't write anything regarding this topic since you don't have any clue. Off you go!

And aren't you trying to twist history to suit your blaming inarrative by blaming it on others

Seriously , this beautiful thread has been totally ruined by baseless finger pointing

 

[Rafeh]

D

I'm no expert in Avestan literature, but there is no mention of regions like Punjab, Kashmir, Sindh in any proto Iranian scripts. There is no evidence for presence of Zoroastrianism in these regions.


.

Zoroastrian texts do mention upper reaches of the Indus that is areas north and west of the Punjab (Panjab meaning five waters in Persian) - i.e. present-day KP Province in Northern Pakistan, Northern Punjab and Kashmir. That does not means these people practiced Zoroastrianism. Though people in KP province did.


The Gâthâs, by Zarathustra are no different to Rigveda, hymns that were composed in Punjab. Whatever was practiced in punjab appears to be an evolution of Zoroastrianism. The following is copy past from somewhere since my knowledge of vedas is very poor: Vedic and Gathic languages have a common ancestor. Gathic ahura meant "divine lord"; Vedic asura meant "demon". While the Vedic word for "gods", deva, means "demons" in Gathic (daeva). It may be assumed that the two languages parted because of a religious dispute.

Also when Darius, the persian king anexed the area once again, during which time iranian tribes begin settling from across Indus river to this side once again. Those who seemed have worshiped versions of local as well as Zoroastrian gods. Kashmir for example worshiped gods such as Ash Muqam, Ash Pur, Ash Much named derived from Zoroastrian goddess Asi. Asha is a Zoroastrian concept. Similarly Hari Parbat, Harwan, Harwath is named after the sacred Zoroastrian mountain Hara. the list goes on.

In both kashmir and northern punjab connection to Zoroastrianism is substantiated by the place names, beliefs and rituals that still exists. Of the place names mention may be made of Mitar gom (the living place of Mitar- the Iranian divine being), Mir (Mihr) Aur and Akhur (Ahura). Anich Dur (Anahita Durra) etc. Other significant examples of Zoroastrian presence in Kashmir are belief in water deities, the popular festival frov after the Avestan frov and the ritual ot roohan posh. The pahari people of Punjab (i.e. Potohari punjabis) had similar connections. The list goes on.

The point is a lot that was found in Pakistan was continuing and/or evolution of iranian belief system brought by Iranian tribes in Pakistan with some influence coming directly from euro-asian region. Pakistanis are closely related to iranian people after all.

Do note that the historical records are extremely scarce and most rely on religious texts which are quite inaccurate and filled with conflicting descriptions.

whether zorastrian was mentioned or not, historically the other side of indus river that includes parts of punjab (NOTE only western part of punjab on the other side of indus river), KP province and baluchistan were part of ariana. They are extention of persian people. There are countleses research paper that mention westside of indus river as natural part of persia, historically, and people wise. That portion is majority of Pakistan's land mass. the east side of indus is smaller in landmass then what lies west of indus river.

Are you for real? You think Scynthians are Pakistan centric tribes? Please read about it in detail about Indo Scynthians.

I am compelled to reply when there is inaccurate statements. It's a habit. Good luck to you. Ciao.

I meant that actual settlement of people and NOT armies for a while conquering a certain regions. The indo-scythians did conquerd parts of north india up to Gujrat and mathura. but that' what their army did and that too by forming alliances with smaller local indian rulers as well as forcing some to pay Tribute payments. They did not properly settled on those areas but ONLY armies were kept.

As a result they were mostly small city empires, at least eventualy became as such. Even these armies were eventually defeated by indians themselves and were forced to retreat back westwards towards Pakistan, their main stronghold. Only Sakas (a version of indo-scythians), an arianian/iranian tribal alliance that ruled parts of northern india who eventually were defeated and return to modern day Pakistan. Rest of indo-scythian hardly ventured into india.

Do realize that wikipedia is not the proper source since its relies heavily on ancient indian descriptions which themselves differ on accounts. Plus indians themselvs edit it to their liking.

The only true settledments as in cities where these tribes settled and lived were in Pakistan such as Taxilla in punjab, Peshawar valley or Minnagara (i.e. Karachi) which was their main settlements. We have ample evidence of it. Please research it yourself in non-indian sourced journal papers and not wikipedia (since they are more impartial). I can't waste time on it and honestly neither should you. We are actually wasting each other's time now. I have spend a large portion of my free time on learning all this throughout my life and still details are not as clear as they should be. Reality is burried in history and we can't be certain. In fact if we ignore indian sources and rely on western sources (such as Indo-Greeks and Greeks), the only true settlement was Pakistan since Karachi was capital of the largest indo-scythian empire. Its now our choice who to believe then.

The other group belonging to indo-scythians such as Parthians of Iran founded Indo-Parthian empire on the borders of Kashmir, spreading over a vast area including Kandhar, Seistan/Baluchistan, Sindh, Gandhara (i.e. parts of punjab, and modern KP province as well as Kashmir) and the Kabul Valley. These indo-scythian groups were mainly Pakistan centric.

Kushans which were partly Turkish tribes themseves and had iranian tribes as well as europeans as part of their composition (some tribes were from from Greek and rest of europe) and spoke Greek language at least initially, themselves were closely related to indo-scythians due to their Turko-iranian and indo-european heritage. yes they did ventured into parts of northern india and ruled some but Pakistan and afghanisttan was their main heartland. Due to infighitng they seperated into several kingdoms and Later Guptas diffeated these and forced them back to their Pakistan and afghanistan mainland where they had far higher settlements as well as where they had deep cultural and historic affiliations.

The point is Pakistan was heart of indo-scythian empires. That' where they predominantly lived and settled. That can't be disputed.

Yes they did sent their armies from their stronghold which was mainland Pakistan and Afghanistan when a certain prince was sent on an exhibition to conqure a city say in Gujrat but that was their armies. NOT their tribal settlements.

Its possible that some armymen were left behind but but their tribal settements were in pakistan.

Pakistan had also scythian associated groups directly settling down from Russian. For example from caucasus region such as modern Chechnya. Settlers from these region probably introduced types of dance such type of dance displayed by people of Gilgit etc. Early Hindkowan dances were similar too, though I am not sure.

IN anyway this is absolutely my last post. We both can waste each other's time for ever. The best option is to wait for 5 to 7 years. Then we will have at home based Full DNA test, meaning actual genome tests (not talking about those ancestory or haplogroup tests which do not give us actual genome information). Those tests will estabilshed which people settled where and who actually belongs to whom.

We all humans and equal in everyway. Race is just an adaptation to local food and climate.
I actually feel bad constantly talking about race and this tribe and that tribe.

Countries matter though in my opinion and the identity they give us.

Also do realize that a lot historic details conflict one another. Therefore let the modern technolgy catch up and then we will have true scientific evidence rather than relying old religious texts as well as analysis by various analysts who themeselves argue over things and often rely on the same inaccurate religious/historic texts with widely varying and conflicting accounts. So I let the readers decide for themselves on their own research what is true or what is not.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You keep saying most Indians use race theory and identify themselves as Aryan (central asian) people. Do you know, most Indians do not even accept the inward Aryan invasion/migration theory? They believe in the outward theory, that Vedic tribes originated in India and expanded outward.

Sounds like a great theory that one. Might be difficult to prove though! Luckily, sanghis don't need proof to believe in their theories. This kind of bullcrap simply reaffirms the rights of sanghees to consider certain invasions as sacred gharwapsi and halal, while others - yknow the "M" word - as haram. You may as well make "mein kampf" a national text.

 

[SIPRA]

Sounds like a great theory that one. Might be difficult to prove though! ................ You may as well make "mein kampf" a national text.

No text, in the world, can match and compete, in make-believe fantasies, fabrications and speculations, with the literature, that has been produced by Hindu culture and civilization. Bollywood is in fact a continuation of the centuries old tradition.

 

[Rafeh]

Iranians have different genetics , they have lots of middle eastern and Turkish DNA as well , aryans genetics is most common among Afghan/Paskitsni/and North West Indian groups , many north west indian groups like jatts are very similar to pakistanis genetically, we cant deny them links to pakistan , if they feel closer to pakistan it is there rigth. Also there are high cast communities in india like brahmins who have origins in Pakistan. Though I agree it can get annoying when they say we are exactly the same people , but I would say 10-15 person pakistanis can look like most indians and 10-15 percent indians can look like most pakistanis and this is hella lot of people.

Different from 50 million Pashtuns, 12 millions Balochs, 20 million Kashmiris (12 in IOK, 5 in AJK rest spread accross punjab etc.), northern Pakistanis, 4 million Hinkowan punjabis who speak hindknowan and 4 million who no longer speak hindkowan making 8 millions in total? Different from them? They are genetically, and racially very very close to iran or middle east.
aryans are people from iran.

Aryan and iran is the same thing, aryans or arian means "from iran" (or literally from the land of ariana, the old name for Iran). Before coming to iran, forefathers of modern arian or aryans lived in Russian, Central asia (e.g. Turkish), Greek, Eastern Europe such as Macedonia and even as far as Germany (i.e. indo-germanic tribes), and later mixed with indigenous populations such those in Afghanistan or Iran or early Semitic people of arab world etc. (noting indus valley and pre-aryan iran is the same thing). Modern arayns are a collection of inter-related, racially intermixed people with various compositions, who came together to create various nations with different mixtures such as Iran, Pakistan, arabs etc. Their skin color adapted depending on which climate they settled in. Genetically they were all related regardless of looks or skin color.

What about roughly 20-30 million or so of pure or mixed punjabi-pashtuns in Punjab. Are they not iranic or middle eastern. absolutely they are. The KP and Baluchistan is in the region called "middle east" since region west of indus river is in the middle east region, and historically always was. These people even speak a language which is iranic or closely derived from iran. WHY rest of Pakistan disowns these people just so that we can pretend we have nothing to do with the middle east. These people are Half the Pakistan if not more.

Furthermore since when punjabis and sindhis so different from Iran. They are predominantly indo-aryan themselves. Read my other posts about aryans, indo-scythians etc. above to make sense of that please. Even a lot of mohajar (e.g. rohilla pashtuns, all those Mirza, agha, etc. are iranic, so many of them claim to have arab ancestory). Even some
Gujratis have their origin in earlier iranian traders.

Punjabi related jatts in india, yes they can be similar to Pakistan unless they are interracialy mixed with other indians which many are now, having lost their original genes due successive outside marriage as well as a phenomena called genetic drift. True Brahman are few and most are now heavily interracialy mixed. Since there was never a very large scale migration from pakistan (no real big settlements from Pakistan which declared themselves as Brahmans). Some are so mixed, they are now a different race. Some so called brahman are self declared fakes who when get rich, or power or just when move to a new area, declare themselves as Brahman. So it depends.

As you already pointed out and As I said before there is some overlapping sub-populations that are similar in india and Pakistan. But those are a minority group in both countries. Overall we are different people.


Coming back to iran, Pakistan has lot of deep historic, racial and cultural relationship with the middle east.

Coming back, Its that hindustani version of urdu changed our self perception over time as well as the fact that middle eastern do have that "uniquely different life style" that make them appear to be so foreign people.

Its important to realize that the Middle east, turkish and Iran all have their origin in early aryans or euroasian people. Aryan or euro-asian tribes moved from euro-asia and settled into middle east, iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan historically in waves. its a historic fact. Middle east are predominately euroasian people mixed with early semitic indigenous people and who happened to speak a non-euroasian language, namely semitic language such as arabic. Its because they have mixture from early semitic people on top of aryan or euroasian genes that gives arabs their unique looks plus the fact that they brought so many of african slaves etc. They still have their euroasian genes in them just like us. Its always a good idea to research a topic to find about rather than forming an opinion based on regions such as "middle east region". People move from region to the next.

Aryans and euroasian is the same thing since all ultimately came from Russia and parts of central asia as well as parts of europe (e.g. Greece etc.), before settling down to iran and then Pakistan, middle east etc.

We got most of our aryan and indus racial heritage from iran and afghanistan and so did much of middle east (though iranian farmers who later became indus valley people originated from middle east first). Yes we Pakistanis have greek genes, etc. but they also were in iran as well.

Aryan aka Persian settled as far as lebanon. We are all racially related, very deeply so. There is no such thing as racially independent middle east from Pakistan. Even indus people migrated from middle east to Pakistan via iran.

many Pakistani people can be darker than iran because we don't eat meat, live in very hot climate and hence gene expressions that gives "fair hue" are suppressed etc. One should rely on skull structure to determine race.

High consumption of meat as done by Pashtuns/Pakhtuns, Baloch, etc, by iranian people and middle eastern gives them more fairer color on average. So skin color does not count.

We do have our unique looks different from iran at times but that's because Pakistan is mixture of lot of people. we have unique looks because of that. It does not mean we don't have iranian/middle eastern blood in us.

Fair skin happens more in some regions since they eat meat a lot. Because high consuption of meat gives higher ratio of pheomelanon (the white pigment) to eumelanin (the brown skin pigment) which gives us whiter skin over few generations. Lack of high meat consumtion has led to darkening of skin in punjab and sindh in some sub-populations.

Does that means if indians started eating meat they will become fair too. NO, not at all unless they are punabis or oriential indians etc. YOu have to have genes that respond to high meat consumption that change the skin tone. NO genes and no change. Most indians have their own unique genes different from euroasian people. It takes several generation to change skin tone via meat though in people who have appropriate genes such as in euroasian people.

Its indian skull and facial features as well as their unique history and not their skin color that makes them separate people. Even fair skin indian when looked closely look different from Pakistanis. ONLY indian punjabi or Kashmir have mostly faces close what we call average Pakistani.

Also some indians did setteled in Pakistan during mughal times (such as dalits who converted to islam). They all look indians, their whole families do.

Middle east is the origin from both ways to modern Pakistan. Early indus valley people moved from midde east to iran and then to Pakistan. that's our first racial connection with Middle east. The second one comes that both of us related to euroasian migrants.

IN Pakistanis we depend on too much on skin color to define race. That's not the case in reality. Please do not miss my main point. which is WE DON"T have yet full human genome tests done on large scale (only handful of such tests have been done and only one person namely Dr Atta-ur-rahman" in whole of Pakistan has his full human gene tested". Please read that again. We will know ONLY about genetics when full human genome of large scale arab, iranian and Pakistani people are tested.

They will show things such as Dark Pakistanis will have same genes as fair or white Pakistanis or iranians but only that those "white skin" causing genes are less expressed (meaning turned on less of the time but still there) in dark individuals due to various reasons, but they are still there. Same genes are still there. ONLY they are silent most of the time.

Chinese for example have nine Blonde genes they inherited from their earlier euroasian heritage. Yet none of them have blond hair (at least not most). Those genes are just not expressed.They are still there and Chinese in that sense are close to europeans at least in hair color genes wise. Genetics is different things. its complex. It involves role of regularity genes which depends on our habits, thinking, food, climate etc. We may have the same genes but look different.

When I say indians are different people that's based on their history and the settlements of outsiders there as well as their skulls structure, facial features etc since these aspects do not easily change with climate or food. Skin color does. Most indians are indigenous to india. Many northern indians have lot of austro-asiatic population admixture. which we in Pakistan don't have at all.

Anyway, I would not say 10-15 indians say in maharashtara or UP look like most Pakistanis. May be 5%, a little more.If you visit Mumbai, you will see, its a world apart.There is nothing like Pakistan there. the culture, the people are all different. A lot indians took their fair skin from northern "chinese look alike" people or nepal etc. If you look closely at them and not on tv since in TV they seem same like us, they have their own subtle and not so subtle asian/oriential facial feature. The point is regardless of skin color, indians are different people. That is my main point. NOT their skin color.

Those aryan/iranian priests that migrated from Pakistan to india and formed their current religious practices were few. Even those few are heavily racially intermixed now with local indians. Most indians are indigenous to their land. Few Pakistani priests settling there don't make Pakistan same as india. Indians however believe no aryans existed and ever moved from Pakistan to india, ever. They don't believe aryan migration ever happened.

Those in main indian cities that you see in TV that look like average Pakistanis are mostly either currently or historically from Punjab, himachal pradesh (tiny state next to kashmir) and Kashmir etc. Most indians states are different people than Pakistan by all means. Also india puts mostly people with pakistani features on the screens for some strange reason. That's what's creates the "india-Pakistan" same obsession while creating delusion and doubts in Pakistani minds that may be we are closely related. When in reality we both have our largely separate origins.

Its actual the cultural similarity due to joint Mughal rule that creates this same delusion rather than people themselves.

Most Pakistanis have some relatives that looks, have facial features and have skin tone like our own movie or tv stars, even when they themselves look nothing like them. That's not the case for most indians.

Anyway this is not about looks. Its about our unique place in history that we are consist of largely immigrants sub-populations from around the world. And such have our unique place in this world.

I invite to look around at the rest of Pakistan, visit various villages in KP, northern Pakistan, Baluchistan, Punjab and Sindh. Look beyond skin color this time, just at facial features and skull. Even if you previously did, but this time looks closely at their faces, and see how diverse and still having that uniqueness that makes us different yet those middle eastern/iranian like faces keep turning up again and again in every town, village and city. Our culture is different from iran and its ends up hiding a lot of similarities with iran/middle east sometimes but it is always there if we look for it.
Yes every region has its unique distinguishing features (eg.e iranian look different from average Arabs) but if focus on similarities, that's what show us what is the same or similar.

Even in Pakistan on average we look different depending on where we are from yet we have a lot of commonality even facial one with each other.

All humans are humans at the end of the day and look "humans" hence very similar. But we are still all unique in our own way and sometimes that common uniqueness is useful tool in uniting us as a country.

 

[Progressive1]

Different from 50 million Pashtuns, 12 millions Balochs, 20 million Kashmiris (12 in IOK, 5 in AJK rest spread accross punjab etc.), northern Pakistanis, 4 million Hinkowan punjabis who speak hindknowan and 4 million who no longer speak hindkowan making 8 millions in total? Different from them? They are genetically, and racially very very close to iran or middle east.
aryans are people from iran.

Aryan and iran is the same thing, aryans or arian means "from iran" (or literally from the land of ariana, the old name for Iran). Before coming to iran, these arian or aryans lived in Russian, Central asia (e.g. Turkish), Greek, Eastern Europe such as Macedonia etc. (since its not a singe race but a collection of inter-related, racially intermixed people with various compositions). Their skin color adapted depending on which climate they settled in.

What about roughly 20-30 million or so of pure or mixed punjabi-pashtuns in Punjab. Are they not iranic or middle eastern. absolutely they are. The KP and Baluchistan is in the region called "middle east" since region west of indus river is in the middle east region, and historically always was. These people even speak a language which is iranic or closely derived from iran. WHY rest of Pakistan disowns these people just so that we can pretend we have nothing to do with the middle east. These people are Half the Pakistan if not more.

Furthermore since when punjabis and sindhis so different from Iran. They are predominantly indo-aryan themselves. Read my other posts about aryans, indo-scythians etc. above to make sense of that please. Even a lot of mohajar (e.g. rohilla pashtuns, all those Mirza, agha, etc. are iranic, so many of them claim to have arab ancestory). Even some
Gujratis have their origin in earlier iranian traders.

Punjabi related jatts in india, yes they can be similar to Pakistan unless they are interracialy mixed with other indians which many are now, having lost their original genes due successive outside marriage as well as a phenomena called genetic drift. True Brahman are few and most are now heavily interracialy mixed. Since there was never a very large scale migration from pakistan (no real big settlements from Pakistan). Some are so mixed, they are now a different race. Some so called brahman are self declared fakes who when get rich, or power or just when move to a new area, declare themselves as Brahman. So it depends.

As you already pointed out and As I said before there is some overlapping sub-populations that are similar in india and Pakistan. But those are a minority group in both countries. Overall we are different people.


Coming back to iran, Pakistan has lot of deep historic, racial and cultural relationship with the middle east.

Coming back, Its that hindustani version of urdu changed our self perception over time as well as the fact that middle eastern do have that "uniquely different life style" that make them appear to be so foreign people.

Its important to realize that the Middle east, turkish and Iran all have their origin in early aryans or euroasian people. Aryan or euro-asian tribes moved from euro-asia and settled into middle east, iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan historically in waves. its a historic fact. Middle east are predominately euroasian people mixed with early semitic indigenous people who happened to speak a non-euroasian language, namely semitic language such as arabic. Its always a good idea to research a topic to find about rather than forming an opinion based on regions such as "middle east region". People move from region to the next.

Aryans and euroasian is the same thing since all ultimately came from Russia and parts of central asia, before settling down to iran and then Pakistan, middle east etc.

We got most of our aryan and indus racial heritage from iran and afghanistan and so did much of middle east (though iranian farmers who later became indus valley people originated from middle east first). Yes we Pakistanis have greek genes, etc. but they also were in iran as well.

Aryan aka Persian settled as far as lebanon. We are all racially related, very deeply so. There is no such thing as racially independent middle east from Pakistan. Even indus people migrated from middle east to Pakistan via iran.

many Pakistani people can be darker than iran because we don't eat meat, live in very hot climate and hence gene expressions that gives "fair hue" are suppressed etc. One should rely on skull structure to determine race.

High consumption of meat as done by Pashtuns/Pakhtuns, Baloch, etc, by iranian people and middle eastern gives them more fairer color on average. So skin color does not count.

We do have our unique looks different from iran at times but that's because Pakistan is mixture of lot of people. we have unique looks because of that. It does not mean we don't have iranian/middle eastern blood in us.

Fair skin happens more in some regions since they eat meat a lot. Because high consuption of meat gives higher ratio of pheomelanon (the white pigment) to eumelanin (the brown skin pigment) which gives us whiter skin over few generations. Lack of high meat consumtion has led to darkening of skin in punjab and sindh in some sub-populations.

Does that means if indians started eating meat they will become fair too. NO, not at all unless they are punabis or oriential indians etc. YOu have to have genes that respond to high meat consumption that change the skin tone. NO genes and no change. Most indians have their own unique genes different from euroasian people. It takes several generation to change skin tone via meat though in people who have appropriate genes such as in euroasian people.

Its indian skull and facial features as well as their unique history and not their skin color that makes them separate people. Even fair skin indian when looked closely look different from Pakistanis. ONLY indian punjabi or Kashmir have mostly faces close what we call average Pakistani.

Also some indians did setteled in Pakistan during mughal times (such as dalits who converted to islam). They all look indians, whole families do.

Middle east is the origin from both ways to modern Pakistan. Early indus valley people moved from midde east to iran and then to Pakistan. that's our first racial connection with Middle east. The second one comes that both of us related to euroasian migrants.

IN Pakistanis we depend on too much on skin color to define race. That's not the case in reality. Please do not miss my main point. which is WE DON"T have yet full human genome tests done on large scale (only handful of such tests have been done and only one person namely Dr Atta-ur-rahman" in whole of Pakistan has his full human gene tested". Please read that again. We will know ONLY about genetics when full human genome of large scale arab, iranian and Pakistani people are tested.

They will show things such as Dark Pakistanis will have same genes as fair or white Pakistanis or iranians but only that those "white skin" causing genes are less expressed (meaning turned on less of the time but still there) in dark individuals due to various reasons, but they are still there. Same genes are still there. ONLY they are silent most of the time.

Chinese for example have nine Blonde genes they inherited from their earlier euroasian heritage. Yet none of them have bond hair (at least not most). Those genes are just not expressed.They are still there and Chinese in that sense are close to europeans at least in hair color genes wise. Genetics is different things. its complex. It involves role of regularity genes which depends on our habits, thinking, food, climate etc. We may have the same genes but look different.

When I say indians are different people that's based on their history and the settlements of outsiders there as well as their skulls structure, facial features etc since these aspects do not easily change with climate or food. Skin color does.

Anyway, I would not say 10-15 indians say in maharashtara or UP look like most Pakistanis. May be 5%. I visited Mumbai and believe me, its a world apart.There is nothing like Pakistan there. the culture, the people are all different. Many indians took their fair skin from northern "chinese look alike" people or nepal. If you look closely at them and not on tv, they have their own subtle and not so subtle asian/oriential facial feature. The point is regardles of skin color, indians are different people. That is my main point. NOT their skin color.

Those aryan/iranian priests that migrated from Pakistan to india and formed their current religious practices were few. Even those few are heavily racially intermixed now with local indians. Most indians are indigenous to their land. Few Pakistani priests settling there don't make Pakistan same as india. Indians however believe no aryans existed and ever moved from Pakistan to india, ever. They don't believe aryan migration ever happened.

Those in main indian cities that you see in TV that look like average Pakistanis are mostly either currently or historically from Punjab, himachal pradesh (tiny state next to kashmir) and Kashmir etc. Most indians states are different people than Pakistan by all means. Also india puts mostly people with pakistani features on the screens for some strange reason.

Most Pakistanis have some relatives that looks, have facial features and have skin tone like our own movie or tv stars, even when they themselves look nothing like them. That's not the case for most indians.

Anyway this is not about looks. Its about our unique place in history that we are consist of largely immigrants sub-populations from around the world. And such have our unique place in this world.

I invite to look around at the rest of Pakistan, visit various villages in KP, northern Pakistan, Baluchistan, Punjab and Sindh. Look beyond skin color this time, just at facial features and skull. Even if you previously did, but this time looks closely at their faces, and see how diverse and still having that uniqueness that makes us different yet those middle eastern/iranian like faces keep turning up again and again in every town, village and city. Our culture is different from iran and its ends up hiding a lot of similarities with iran/middle east sometimes but it is always there if we look for it.
Yes every region has its unique distinguishing features (eg.e iranian look different from average Arabs) but if focus on similarities, that's what show us what is the same or similar.

Even in Pakistan on average we look different depending on where we are from yet we have a lot of commonality even facial one with each other.

All humans are humans at the end of the day and look "humans" hence very similar. But we are still all unique in our own way and sometimes that common uniqueness is useful tool in uniting us as a country.

P.S. Kindly I will not log on again. Its takes just too much time to type stuff. Please don't mind any thing in the post. I absolutely meant no disrespect or any negativity. It was more like I was writing something as it came to my mind. .

well from my experience with most people in the west we are most similar to afghans and north indians , we dont have much in common with people of middle east, but i respect your opinion. Also there is a unique pakistani look as well , in a group of 10 i will never mistake a pakistani from anything arab or indian in west

 

[Rafeh]

well from my experience with most people in the west we are most similar to afghans and north indians , we dont have much in common with people of middle east, but i respect your opinion. Also there is a unique pakistani look as well , in a group of 10 i will never mistake a pakistani from anything arab or indian in west

You are right arabs do have their own unique looks. That's because they have same euroasian genetics like us as well as some additional genetic admixture from early semitic indigenous population unique to them, as described above in the some post. Do realize that arabs themselves different from region to region. They too look different from each other.

We still have a lot of genetic commonality with middle east under the hood. Just like we have with each other despite the fact that we Pakistanis look so different from each other, depending which regions we are from. This genetic commonality with middle east will be revealed when full human gene testing will be done as done for Dr Atta where he turned out to have 70% European SNPs (pretty much the same ratio that arabs likely to have). This will be so since we Pakistanis have actual majority ethnic compositions that originated in the same regions such as euroasia and came from regions that were historically closely inter-related with the rest of the middle east.

Our climate and food does changes our faces subtly over long periods. Hence we develop unique regional "subtle" features that help us tell who is who even though on a computer those differences may be miner. But brain is a lot sharper it can quickly tell us who is who and from where.

Plus skin color makes it easier or harder to differentiate. If we were all white, it would have been very hard to tell a lot of time who is who. In many cases it already is.

In any event, Lets wait for future when technology will enable us to test who is who. We will then see there are a lot middle easterner who don't share many genes with other middle easterners and so many Pakistanis share with them or vice versa. Since on many occasion Phenotype (that is how we look) is not the same as genotype (how our genes are).

Its not important who we are related to or not. I was describing a historic fact. Like a factual data. I was not implying anything. Since its part of our history and since its true and we should know about it. Not that I care or its matter in greater schemes of life.

That's all. I am tired and now just leaving. Today was my last day on PDF. So take care of good care of yourself. Bye for ever.

 

[ArainGang]

Was just skimming this thread and its devolved quite a bit. A few points.

In Vedic literature (especially the Rig Veda) Aryans distinguish themselves from non-Aryans by using appeals to both culture and race. So non-Aryans (basically the native Indians) are described as Mlecchas both due to their dark skin, and their indifference towards Vedic culture. By the time of the Mahabharata, the racial criteria is largely abandoned, likely because after centuries of mixing, the Vedic-Aryan descendants in North India are darker than many of the non-Vedic peoples in Punjab and West/Central Asia. Also, at some point between the Rig Veda and Mahabharata, most of the Aryans who stayed behind in Punjab rather than migrate east into UP reportedly abandoned the Vedic religion, are described as fallen Aryans in Vedic literature, and labeled as Shudras and Mlecchas.

So its true to say that after the Rig Vedic period to be Aryan is mostly a religious/cultural thing, but it was originally a racial thing as well, and the racial aspect was likely only minimized both because some Aryans "apostatized" from Vedic religion, and also because the descendants of the Vedic Aryans in UP became quite a bit darker than the Mleccha populations in Punjab and West/Central Asia.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Was just skimming this thread and its devolved quite a bit. A few points.

In Vedic literature (especially the Rig Veda) Aryans distinguish themselves from non-Aryans by using appeals to both culture and race. So non-Aryans (basically the native Indians) are described as Mlecchas both due to their dark skin, and their indifference towards Vedic culture. By the time of the Mahabharata, the racial criteria is largely abandoned, likely because after centuries of mixing, the Vedic-Aryan descendants in North India are darker than many of the non-Vedic peoples in Punjab and West/Central Asia. Also, at some point between the Rig Veda and Mahabharata, most of the Aryans who stayed behind in Punjab rather than migrate east into UP reportedly abandoned the Vedic religion, are described as fallen Aryans in Vedic literature, and labeled as Shudras and Mlecchas.

So its true to say that after the Rig Vedic period to be Aryan is mostly a religious/cultural thing, but it was originally a racial thing as well, and the racial aspect was likely only minimized both because some Aryans "apostatized" from Vedic religion, and also because the descendants of the Vedic Aryans in UP became quite a bit darker than the Mleccha populations in Punjab and West/Central Asia.

excellent ...The Earliest Upanishad (Brihadarayanaka ca 700 BCE but no later) has even a reverse gradation of skin colour and vedic knowledge

If you want for your son knowledge of one veda and fair skin ---then do so and so
If you want for your son knowledge of two vedas and medium skin---then do so and so
if you want for your son knowledge of three vedasd and dark skin---then do so and so
if you want a daughter then do so and so

Interestingly within these very passages the consumption of beef is mentioned