Pakistan is a distinct land, historically almost always seperate from India

[roadrunner]

Er....hundred years from now? Hello? Thats your argument?

I'm just pointing out that it's invalid to say that two regions are culturally similar and then to point out that this is evidence that that are not distinct regions. You have to look at why they are culturally similar, and the reason is that the two regions (India and Pakistan) were recently unified, else there would be absolutely no cultural similarity. If Pakistan was still part of the Persian Empire, no doubts Pakistani soccer would be much better than its cricket. It's just to point out that cultural stuff comes and goes. So it's not a very good criteria for two regions as being distinct or similar.

Really, from what I hear dowry is rampant in Pakistan too, irrespective of what Islam has to say on the issue:

Dowry — alive and kicking -DAWN - The Review; April 27, 2006

Well it's not dowry. In Pakistan, dowry is given to the woman, India (with Hindus), it's given to the man. That's the cause of the dowry problems. Some daft Paks might be getting dowrys from some Hindu in-laws or something, dunno, but it doesn't work like that in Pakistan.

But I get the drift of your arguments....you are implying that Pakistanis are superior to Indians in all aspects, and therfore don't deserve to be compared with these inferior people. Fine, whatever makes you happy.

lol, not at all. Hindus arent inferior or superior. Just another group of people believing what they want to. Nothing wrong with it. Believe what you want, if you want others to be sympathetic towards you.

Fact is, that Punjab, Haryana, Uttaranchal, UP and Pakistan are culturally more similar to each other than the South Indian states. Interestingly, there was no movement to separate India as North and South. Infact, much of South India remained Independent throughout history and even Mughal period.

Pakistan isn't similar to Uttarunchal or the other one, UP. Punjab perhaps has some similarity, Punjab was one unit after all, but culturally the two Punjabs are very different now. One Punjab is Hindu run, the other Muslim run. That is quite a big cultural difference. It's not to say that were all the Hindus in Indian Punjab to become Muslim (or the other way round with the Muslims in Pakistan), then the cultures would be the same. The current cultural sense isn't really much of an issue for me, as it can change. But Indian Punjab looks to have been overrun to me by South Indians. When I look at street scenes of the place, it looks like South India to me.

By the way, what is this obsession with Alexander? Does the introduction of the Alexander Factor suddenly make India and Pakistan irrecoverably different?

No, it doesn't. But you suggested that the Greek Empire's Eastern Satrapy (Pakistan) was somehow different to the rest of the Greek Empire. I just gave examples of some of the many Greek influences on Pakistan that prove it was much more than just an ignored Satrapy of the Greek Empire. In fact Alexander liked Afghanistan and Pakistan so much that he moved whole carriages of Greek people to the region. So begins the now proven genetic influence (a minor one, but is present) on some of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

What about the fact that those stupa designs originated from the east?

The stupa designs were not all originating from the East. Most of the stupas in Pakistan were built by Alexander. His influence on the region is acknowledged

"Taxila had attracted Alexander the great from Macedonia in 326 BC, with whom the influence of Greek culture came to this part of the world."
:: Buddhist Travel ::

Jandial Temple is a pure Greek temple in Pakistan.

What about the fact that buddhism itself arose in the east?

Buddha might have come from the East (Nepal), but he and his followers were persecuted in India, which is why he came to the Indus Valley. His teachings were built on further to create Mahayana Buddhism (arising in Gandhara), which was transmitted along the Silk Route to China, Japan etc.

Why would you give more weight to differences and ignore the similarities?

What similarities?

Sadly, Kashmiris have been influenced by Anti-India propaganda coming from pakistan and Religious fundamentalists.

Dude, this is denial. Kashmiris know that their ancestors are closer to Pakistani people and the Indus Valley, than to Indians and the Ganges. This is no propaganda. Don't treat Kashmiris as brainless, and tell them their ancestry arises out of India. They know it does not. One look at them and you can tell they look more like some Pakistanis than virtually any Indian groups.

Sikhs Rebelled? Go to Punjab now and say Khalistan...everyone will laugh at you.

Dude in the 80s Sikhs were rebelling all over the Punjab. I guess Amritsar never occurred!

Assamese ULFA is a caricature of an extremist organization. They don't have any mass movement and go around blasting bombs in schools....not a nice way to win public support.

They don't have public support, yet you can't defeat them. No resistance movement can survive without public support!

Tamils had movement? You are joking right? Ah...perhaps the language riots of the 60s....that was definitely not what you call a "freedom movement".

Fact is, that the current democratic govt. gives equal representation to all territories and culture. There is no dominating power in India by any ethnic group.

Read up about the history of the DMK party. An extremely popular Tamil secessionist movement that won the support of much of South India to seperate from North India.

 

[Flintlock]

I'm just pointing out that it's invalid to say that two regions are culturally similar and then to point out that this is evidence that that are not distinct regions. You have to look at why they are culturally similar, and the reason is that the two regions (India and Pakistan) were recently unified, else there would be absolutely no cultural similarity. If Pakistan was still part of the Persian Empire, no doubts Pakistani soccer would be much better than its cricket. It's just to point out that cultural stuff comes and goes. So it's not a very good criteria for two regions as being distinct or similar.

So what is? Culture is of prime importance when considering similarities, not long-forgotten greek monuments.

Well it's not dowry. In Pakistan, dowry is given to the woman, India (with Hindus), it's given to the man. That's the cause of the dowry problems. Some daft Paks might be getting dowrys from some Hindu in-laws or something, dunno, but it doesn't work like that in Pakistan.

?? Dowry is the same everywhere. "gift" given to the bride at the time of marriage.

Pakistan isn't similar to Uttarunchal or the other one, UP. Punjab perhaps has some similarity, Punjab was one unit after all, but culturally the two Punjabs are very different now. One Punjab is Hindu run, the other Muslim run. That is quite a big cultural difference. It's not to say that were all the Hindus in Indian Punjab to become Muslim (or the other way round with the Muslims in Pakistan), then the cultures would be the same. The current cultural sense isn't really much of an issue for me, as it can change. But Indian Punjab looks to have been overrun to me by South Indians. When I look at street scenes of the place, it looks like South India to me.

South Indians? Really? Which street scene did you examine? And why is skin-colour of such prime importance?

No, it doesn't. But you suggested that the Greek Empire's Eastern Satrapy (Pakistan) was somehow different to the rest of the Greek Empire. I just gave examples of some of the many Greek influences on Pakistan that prove it was much more than just an ignored Satrapy of the Greek Empire. In fact Alexander liked Afghanistan and Pakistan so much that he moved whole carriages of Greek people to the region. So begins the now proven genetic influence (a minor one, but is present) on some of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

So? What does that small genetic influence count for? As far as I can make out, nothing much.

The stupa designs were not all originating from the East. Most of the stupas in Pakistan were built by Alexander. His influence on the region is acknowledged

What about the fact that the idea of the stupa itself originated in the east?

Buddha might have come from the East (Nepal), but he and his followers were persecuted in India, which is why he came to the Indus Valley. His teachings were built on further to create Mahayana Buddhism (arising in Gandhara), which was transmitted along the Silk Route to China, Japan etc.

What? Random? Buddha never entered the region of Pakistan.
Also the allegations of persecution have never been proven by any historical evidence.

Dude, this is denial. Kashmiris know that their ancestors are closer to Pakistani people and the Indus Valley, than to Indians and the Ganges. This is no propaganda. Don't treat Kashmiris as brainless, and tell them their ancestry arises out of India. They know it does not. One look at them and you can tell they look more like some Pakistanis than virtually any Indian groups.

What does anything have to do with ancestry? Kashmir always played an important role in the history of India, including the development of buddhism and hinduism.
The fact that kashmiris were converted to Islam really doesn't change all that. Culturally Kashmiris have played a vital role throughout.

Dude in the 80s Sikhs were rebelling all over the Punjab. I guess Amritsar never occurred!

What about the present day?

They don't have public support, yet you can't defeat them. No resistance movement can survive without public support!

Lol...they are already defeated. They just like to make loud announcements and harass villagers. No effect on ground realities.

Read up about the history of the DMK party. An extremely popular Tamil secessionist movement that won the support of much of South India to seperate from North India.

Really? Then how is DMK party in power in Tamil Nadu today?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So what is? Culture is of prime importance when considering similarities, not long-forgotten greek monuments.

This has been pointed out before as well - Canada, the US, England, Australia and New Zealand are offer perhaps even more similarities and homogeneity in "culture", language, "race" (an Anglo saxon appearance if you will, if you consider the concept of race invalid) and values than the myriad peoples making up India and Pakistan. These countries and several others in Europe have equal, if not greater, similarities in culture and values, if not language - but no one is arguing that they are not distinct nations or people. With these nations as well, large swaths of land were at one time under one empire or the other, but "forced unification" does not then allow for building a case that all those nations cease to be distinct.

South Indians? Really? Which street scene did you examine? And why is skin-colour of such prime importance?

Since the concept of "race" is being debunked, there is validity in pointing out visible and distinct physical differences between peoples to illustrate genetic homogeneity of one set of people vs another - and that line of analysis can be used to study interactions, influences and ancestry between various sets of people, civilizations etc. You seem to be looking at it from an extremely negative mindset, but are you also going to suggest that we ignore the "skin color" of the Europeans, and perhaps build a case that they are "Indians" too? Or perhaps the Chinese or Japanese were "Indians"?

No one said anything about "inferior Indians" as you inferred from Scorpius's post. The discussion has been civil so far, lets not hijack it by inferring things people did not say.

So? What does that small genetic influence count for? As far as I can make out, nothing much.

All these various influences, small or large, make up a "distinct" identity.

What does anything have to do with ancestry? Kashmir always played an important role in the history of India, including the development of buddhism and hinduism.
The fact that kashmiris were converted to Islam really doesn't change all that. Culturally Kashmiris have played a vital role throughout.

First, we are referring to "India" in the sense of "Indian sub continent" a region and not a nation. In that case, it would be illogical to argue that the various states, kingdoms and peoples would not interact with each other. It would also be illogical to argue that Kashmir only influenced and interacted with the region that now makes up Bharat, and not with the peoples making up Pakistan. But its the same case with the countries in Europe, they all have interacted and influenced each other through history. Something other than mere "playing important roles", hardly exclusive to areas now making up Bharat, needs to be looked at to show "ancestry" or historical links.

Well then, I guess the shias and sunnis are just unlucky to get such bad religious leaders!!

The Shia's and Sunni's in SOME countries or regions are "unlucky to get such bad leaders". Lets not generalize across the board by looking at a few bad apples.

Also I said that "race", religion etc. make easy scapegoats, indicating that I do not believe any one of them is superior to another. When you argue that "there is no violence in Hinduism, but it exists in the Abrahamic religions", you are essentially implying that Hinduism is in some way "superior". Such a line of reasoning is of no use, since it can be easily shown that Islam does not condone needless violence either.

 

[roadrunner]

?? Dowry is the same everywhere. "gift" given to the bride at the time of marriage.

In India, that gift is given to the man..

Dowry (India)
The practice of a woman giving a "dowry" or gift to a man at *marriage is said to have had its origins in the system of streedhan
Dowry (India)

In Pakistan, that gift is given to the woman..

In Islam, in contrast, it is the man who pays the mahr (dower) to the woman.
IslamOnline - Family

To be honest, I havent got a clue how or why Pakistan is associated with this. I've never heard about it happening in Pakistan, and I don't see why it would happen given that money is paid to the bride in Pakistan. I can understand why it happens in India though.

South Indians? Really? Which street scene did you examine? And why is skin-colour of such prime importance?

I didn't mention color. You brought it up just now for the first time! This says Delhi. Don't you think it could easily pass for somewhere in South India. They don't look particularly Punjabi.

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/delhi-traffic.jpg

So? What does that small genetic influence count for? As far as I can make out, nothing much.

Dude, that's just the Greek influence. Alexander shipped masses of Greeks to populate cities he made in the region, but it only had a small genetic imprint. The influence of the Greeks is minimal. What isn't minimal is the original population of the Indus Valley. This is where the main genetic differences lie between the Indus Valley and India, Iran etc. People do look different there, and it does have its own identity.

What about the fact that the idea of the stupa itself originated in the east?

Noone knows where it originated I think. The theory is they were transmitted along the Silk Route from the Indus Valley to China along with Buddhism (Indus Valley = Pakistan, though is referred to as "India" oddly enough in many websites).

What? Random? Buddha never entered the region of Pakistan.
Also the allegations of persecution have never been proven by any historical evidence.

Pusyamitra?

What does anything have to do with ancestry? Kashmir always played an important role in the history of India, including the development of buddhism and hinduism.

It did play a part in the development of Buddhism, not Hinduism. Even if it did, so what? The Middle East played an important role in the development of Christianity, but I don't see France claiming the Middle Eastern lands because of this reason.

The fact that kashmiris were converted to Islam really doesn't change all that. Culturally Kashmiris have played a vital role throughout.

So let the Kashmiris decide. They're the ones who don't want to be part of India. I guess their genetic affinity to the Indus Valley is stronger than their love of having been the flagbearers of Buddhism, and wrongly Hinduism.

Really? Then how is DMK party in power in Tamil Nadu today?

DMK is just an example of what the Tamils really thing. You think this sentiment quietens down and that is the end of it. It's the way they feel. It'll resurface again when the time is right. Right now, they'll be perscuted if they do rebel, and they know it. But when the time is right, all these groups will want their bit of India.

 

[Flintlock]

To be honest, I havent got a clue how or why Pakistan is associated with this. I've never heard about it happening in Pakistan, and I don't see why it would happen given that money is paid to the bride in Pakistan. I can understand why it happens in India though.

Dowry is the same everywhere. The practice of "dower" is different. I am talking about dowry, which is quite prevalent in Pakistan. It has nothing to do with religion since its a cultural thing.

Can you enlighten us why it happens in india?

I didn't mention color. You brought it up just now for the first time! This says Delhi. Don't you think it could easily pass for somewhere in South India. They don't look particularly Punjabi.

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/delhi-traffic.jpg

Ah, so you don't use skin colour as a factor to judge who is punjabi and who isn't?

Also, Delhi isn't a part of Punjab.

And, no, the people in the picture are not south Indians. Infact, that place is old delhi, where majority of original muslim inhabitants of delhi live.

This is what Punjabis look like:

But I still don't get why appearance is so important.

Dude, that's just the Greek influence. Alexander shipped masses of Greeks to populate cities he made in the region, but it only had a small genetic imprint. The influence of the Greeks is minimal. What isn't minimal is the original population of the Indus Valley. This is where the main genetic differences lie between the Indus Valley and India, Iran etc. People do look different there, and it does have its own identity.

Even Maharashtrians look equally different from Biharis.

Noone knows where it originated I think. The theory is they were transmitted along the Silk Route from the Indus Valley to China along with Buddhism (Indus Valley = Pakistan, though is referred to as "India" oddly enough in many websites).

Ah,well I think I know where it originated, it originated when Ashoka built the first stupas on the eastern side of the modern border.

Pusyamitra?

There is no historical evidence to indicate that he ever had a "destroy buddhism" agenda.

It did play a part in the development of Buddhism, not Hinduism. Even if it did, so what? The Middle East played an important role in the development of Christianity, but I don't see France claiming the Middle Eastern lands because of this reason.

Well then why are you using ancient history to justify why Pakistan has nothing to do with India? I am doing the same. Fair?

Kashmir had famous ancient hindu cities and temples (later laid to ruin by islamic conquests)
Ashoka established a large city at Srinagar (Shrinagara) before the greeks arrived.
The word Kashmir itself comes from the Puranas.

DMK is just an example of what the Tamils really thing. You think this sentiment quietens down and that is the end of it. It's the way they feel. It'll resurface again when the time is right. Right now, they'll be perscuted if they do rebel, and they know it. But when the time is right, all these groups will want their bit of India.

What sentiment?
DMK is a regional political party like all the hundreds of other regional political parties.

P.S...dream on...

 

[roadrunner]

This is what Punjabis look like:

Lol, dude, these are SIKH Punjabis, the majority crossed over from Pakistan during Partition. Their ancestry is Eastern Pakistani Punjabi, not Indian Punjabi. The standard Indian Punjabi does not look like them. Aside from this, it is a carefully selected photo you've chosen to try and counter an average street scene photo from Delhi.

I'll come back to the rest later. That just caught my eye!

 

[Flintlock]

Lol, dude, these are SIKH Punjabis, the majority crossed over from Pakistan during Partition. Their ancestry is Eastern Pakistani Punjabi, not Indian Punjabi. The standard Indian Punjabi does not look like them. Aside from this, it is a carefully selected photo you've chosen to try and counter an average street scene photo from Delhi.

I'll come back to the rest later. That just caught my eye!

Er..most Indian Punjabis do look like this.

They crossed over after partition? Nonsense. They why is their holiest shrine in Amritsar?

And how many times do I have to repeat this....Delhi isn't a part of Punjab.

More lahore:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/32408029_0bfec3ec44_m.jpg
Being Photographed- Iqbal Park- Lahore- Pakistan on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Selling Baps and Snacks- Iqbal Park- Lahore- Pakistan on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I don't see how these people are racially any different from the average indian.

Here is Amritsar:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/405102316_9a84b7deca.jpg

 

[UnitedPak]

Stealth, are you a Punjabi? You seem to think you can come into a Pakistani forum where most people are Punjabi and tell them what they really look like.

I am Punjabi, and to me, Punjabis look like what my extended family looks like. I think thats a little bit more credible than taking your opinion.
Apart from my family, I know lots and lots of other people who are also Punjabi, and there is a real obvious difference between us and the Sikh populations here.

I would honestly like to know where you are getting your information. And please dont say Wikipedia.

 

[roadrunner]

Er..most Indian Punjabis do look like this.

LOL! That's crap. Indian Punjabis do not all look like those Sikhs, and who knows what other ethnic groups you have in there. Indian Punjabis look like this


(Panchkula)

{Delhi)


(Barnala..Hindus with standing Sikh for comparison).

(Barnala..Sikhs)

(somewhere in the Punjab).

There looks like a clear difference between Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Sikhs in stature. Wouldnt you agree? This is of course, that the Punjabi Sikhs come from across the border in Pakistan Punjab.

The stature difference is described here (on the right is a Sikh, the left is the standard Wedided Indian (central/North India).

http://img460.imageshack.us/my.php?image=weddidindid3chff4.jpg

They crossed over after partition? Nonsense. They why is their holiest shrine in Amritsar?

Sikhs have their ancestry in Pakistan. They were mainly concentrated in Lahore.

According to the 1941 census, Sikhs formed 20% of each Faislabad, Lahore and Sheikhpora, with the capital at Lahore which was run by Sikhs during colonial times.

Though wiki is biased, I've no doubt a Sikh wrote this quote:

"Nankana Sahib, also known as Raipur and Rai-Bhoi-di-Talwandi is a small town in the Pakistani province of Punjab with a population of almost 60,000 [1]. The town is located about 75 kilometres west of Lahore and is the most sacred pilgrimage site in the Sikh religion"

Gujranwala and several other sites are extremely important in Sikhism.

And how many times do I have to repeat this....Delhi isn't a part of Punjab.

Delhi, Harayana and Himachal form Indian Punjab.

More lahore:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/32408029_0bfec3ec44_m.jpg
Being Photographed- Iqbal Park- Lahore- Pakistan on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Selling Baps and Snacks- Iqbal Park- Lahore- Pakistan on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I don't see how these people are racially any different from the average indian.

Here is Amritsar:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/405102316_9a84b7deca.jpg

Picking and selecting those pictures of odd people that look slightly Indian is not very difficult. It's easy to pull out odd pictures of radically different Pakistanis and Indians, but it is averages that matter, and the average Indian Punjabi doesn't look like the average Pakistani Punjabi (Sikhs being classed as Pakistani Punjabi because many of them have their ancestry in Pakistan - ask a Sikh if you don't believe me). Anyhow, maps created prior to Partition reflect a huge difference in physical anthropolgy between India and Pakistan :

http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=indischersubkontinent7cjw0.jpg

As you can see, as soon as you get past Punjab the whole of India is a different racial anthropology . I would say that since these maps have been created Indian Punjab has changed. The Sikhs are the only people that have retained their original looks, this being because they migrated from Pakistan. They are a good example of the anthropological differences between Punjabi Pakistanis and Indians therefore.

 

[Scorpius]

I have to agree with roadrunner here, 9/10 I can easily tell the difference between a Pakistani punjabi and a Indian punjabi just by the way they look, ie facial structure, body type etc.

Colour doesn't even play a factor. I know many Pakistanis who are darker then some of the sikhs I know but still I can easily tell that the dark ones are Pakistanis just by there facial structure and body type.

And it was interesting that Stealth Assassin was the one who bought colour up.

Roadrunner is right about sikhs too, many (but not all) used to live in Pakistan and as such some sikhs look more like Pakistanis then Indians.

I was commenting to my friend earlier that it's very easy to tell apart Pakistanis and Indians just by there physical features. In a recent hospital visit to see my grandad there was 4 asian families in the ward. I could tell one family straightaway as being Pakistani, the other pathan and the other I could tell instantly was Indian, they were sikhs but very indian looking. The fourth family being mine.

 

[aryan2007]

I think this thread is similar to this one and can be merged??
http://www.defence.pk/forums/history-culture/8108-historical-background-pakistan-its-people.html

 

[Black Stone]

As an American and outsider, this is how I see the people of India and Pakistan.

I think they are the same people, only separated by the British.

Now, before I get hostile replies from people that might get offended by this, I want to clarify that is my understanding and history of the Indian and Pakistan people.

If my understanding is false, please explain and let me know, one again, no offences

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As an American and outsider, this is how I see the people of India and Pakistan.

I think they are the same people, only separated by the British.

Now, before I get hostile replies from people that might get offended by this, I want to clarify that is my understanding and history of the Indian and Pakistan people.

If my understanding is false, please explain and let me know, one again, no offences

Your understanding is false. India and Pakistan are two sovereign states - created in 1947 out of a unification of various provinces, peoples and cultures.

India historically referred to a region, as did the "orient" or "Asia" - just as you cannot say that "all Asians are the same people", or "Western Europeans are the same people", you cannot say that all those who belong to South Asia are the same people.

 

[Black Stone]

Your understanding is false. India and Pakistan are two sovereign states - created in 1947 out of a unification of various provinces, peoples and cultures.

India historically referred to a region, as did the "orient" or "Asia" - just as you cannot say that "all Asians are the same people", or "Western Europeans are the same people", you cannot say that all those who belong to South Asia are the same people.

I see, thanks for the explanation.

So what was the unification land called before the creation of India and Pakistan?

 

[aryan2007]

So what was the unification land called before the creation of India and Pakistan?

HIndustan, India, Hind, Bharat , in the words of some Paradise...

Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast,
Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast.

If there is a paradise on earth,
It is this, it is this, it is this


Adding to what Agnostic_Muslim said.. Pakistan doesn't have 1 culture neither does India.. and an ammalgmation of all these makes us what we are...