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

[aryan2007]

On a side note....do people here know that Jinnah was a Gujarati?

His mother tongue was Gujarati and his caste was Lohana...

 

[salman nedian]

....as far as Freedom Struggle is concerned, kindly tell me how many of the founders of Pakistan were involved protesting british rule?

Friend! Quaid-e-Azam was in Congress before joining Muslim league so you mean to say that congress didn’t protest ever against British rule?

 

[Scorpius]

can ya differentiate b/w an Irish, an english, a welsh or the scot by looking at the foto?? mannerisms are different.. subcultures are more pronounced..

Quite a few Scots have red hair and are more paler then English people. All these groups are similar but there are differences and can be distinguished.

By mannerisms you can... by physical differences nah mate.. go to any UNi's INTL society and see if you can tell apart Pakistanis from Indians....

I think you can tell, I know quite a few pakistani 'freshies' and yes they are different from there Indian counterparts. The only Indian freshies I know of are at university but damn you can tell from half a mile away what part of the woods they come from.

given
you guys are taller by how many inches?? are you as tall as a Dutch??
are fairer by how many shades?? are you as fair as even a Persian??
these are silly points to fight on..
in UK most of the Pakistanis are from Kashmir or Punjab and hence your view is skewed...

Well personally I am quite tall (6ft 3) and so was my great grandfather, grandmother and a number of first cousins and one of my uncles.

This is just my own family but generally speaking Pakistanis seem more taller to me. I don't go around measuring everyone I see but it's just based on my own personal experience. Well on average I would say Indian Punjabis and pak punjabis/azad kashmiris are of a similar skin color. With the Pakistani side having more fairer individuals, although there are quite a few Indian Sikhs I have encountered who share that skin color.

Your Burkha comment is just silly most pak women dont wear it.

Also an interesting point is that most pak women I come across (north punjab/azad kashmir) are fairer then there Indian punjabi counterparts, I would go so far as to say that alot of our women are better looking then bollywood actresses who are tarted up with tons of make up and god knows what else.

I mean every tall and fit guy will be Pakistani.. do you want me to believe that every Pakistani is a look alike of Amir Khan(the boxer)??

dude anamolies exist everywhere.. if you can tell apart because of height etc.. but the others cannot.. you are looking at a small sample go to Pakistan and India..

it is to do with genetics as well.. the avg height of a UK born Asian is higher than their subconti counterparts because of better nutrition and optimal utilisation of their growth potential....

No but in general from my experience I have noticed pakis are better built. Well im talking about uk born indians and pakis, so it should apply to the Indians too but ive saw very few tall indians.

a ha without meeting people from the biggest city of your country you have started judging...

Well im sure you havent saw bin laden or the taleban in person but you judge them dont you.

Its not that every Pakistani looks similar to each other... but for all practical purposes Pakistani Punjabis look similar to North Indians.. Sindhi Pakistanis look similar to Rajasthani and Gujarati Indians.. Pashtun Pakistanis look similar to Afghanistanis and Baloch Pakistanis look Similar to Baloch Iranians..

Yes similar but different as I have explaind to you countless times.

Sub race?
there are differences because of genetics.. a race means a common ancestor or a group of common ancestors .. rest is just genetics and addition of outside specimens etc..

Like for example.. you marry a fair light eyed kashmiri(not the Mirpuri 1).. your kids genes will be fundamentally altered,,, so your descendants at times may have the sudden appearance of some Kashmiri characterisitics etc.... or cousins marry amongst themselves etc.

that is why the jatts/tirkhans say we are not a caste but a race

I understand what you mean but my point stands. As for mirpuri women, most I have encountered are fair skinned. I should know this as both my grandmothers and great grandmother were from mirpur. As such alot of my female relatives are fair and in my experience many Pakistani women from north punjab/azad kashmir have similar skin colour.

If I prove it is practised by Muslims in south asia ???

We were talking about Uk asians..

proved yo self backwards.. heard of Bradford/Southall/Leicester?? been there?? one is a Muslim the other Sikh the third Hindu pieca crap.. except the food these are all shyt areas full of Backward people...

Backwards because we drink alcohol? What kind of nonsense are you on about.

Bham is nice.. a lot tougher than other areas, a friend was mugged,
Soho Road is crazy...

And does that mean im backwards?

different In their subculture, make 'em all sit in the same clothes and hair style and facial hair then they all ought to the look the same...

Not really, differences in genetics I would say.

Mate the thing is.. if a non desi can pik 'em out.. then we are different else we are same...

A valid point and like I said we are similar but I think theres enough differences that people should be able to distinguish based upon a wide enough sampling.

 

[niaz]

This is one the most interesting and engaging thread. This is the only thread where most of the posts have a basis.

IMO main reason for this is that the Indian Subcontinent is so huge and is home to so many different cultures, languages and people, that very few times in the history it has been truly one country.

Another problem is that most of the written records that we have today, including the famous Rajatrangini were really written in the 5th of 6th century AD. Previous records were mostly oral. Also very few times in the recorded history, the area what is now Pakistan, were part of India. To my knowledge it was during the Maurya's, Kushans, Guptas and Harshavardhana. Nearly all of these except Asoka ruled the area north of the Vindhyachall mountains, Krishna and Narbada rivers only. Whereas in Southern India there were different Kingdoms.

One thing is certain, there is no mention of the area now Baluchistan in any of the old Indian texts. Therefore one can assume that the area South and East of the river Indus and part of the NWFP can be called as India on historical basis.

This is also true that India is only the name given to the subcontinent by the Greeks and the Europeans, Muslims called it Hindustan and the locals called it Bhaarat.

So what is the problem. Are most Punjabis and Sindhis really indigenous Indians?; probably Yes. Are Pathans and Baluchs Indians? probably No.

 

[aryan2007]

This is one the most interesting and engaging thread. This is the only thread where most of the posts have a basis.

IMO main reason for this is that the Indian Subcontinent so huge and is home to so many different cultures, languages and people, that very few times in the history it has been truly one country.

I agree.. but there is a definete affinity of culture, demographics, languages, people..

Another problem is that most of the written record that we have today, including the famous Rajatrangini were really written in the 5th of 6th century AD. Previously records were mostly oral.

Read arrian..

Also very few times in the recorded history, the areas what is now Pakistan, were part of India. To my knowledge it was during the Maurya's, Kushans, Guptas and Harshavardhana. Nearly all of these except Asoka ruled the area north of the Vindhyachall mountains, Krishna and Narbada rivers only. Whereas in Southern India there were different Kingdoms.

Personally India as a country has existed for a small time.. the lands of Bihar have not been a part of India.. lands of Deccan Plateau have not been a part of India, Lands of gujarat and Sindh have not been a part of India..

so India is undefinable.. what is India.. it is not Bihar, Bengal, Rajasthan or Punjab... if all of them our united that is INdia.. and a United India incl. Pakistani lands has existed for a very short time on the timescale...

One thing is certain, there is no mention of the area now Baluchistan in any of the old Indian texts. Therefore one can assume that the area South and East of the river Indus and part of the NWFP can be called as India on historical basis.

Balochistan has been called by a variety of Names by the Indian texts IMO..
but anyways if we go by anthorpologists Pashtuns and Baloch have more in common in language and genes with Persians than Punjabis and Sindhis..

This is also true that India is only the name given to the subcontinent by the Greeaks and the Europeans, Muslims called it Hindustan and the locals called it Bhaarat.

Bharat?? I think Bharrat Varsha, Aryavarta were names used by scholars and mentioned in the PUranas..
India has always been an ammalgamation of nations.. and these people owed their allegiance to their small nation states and ethnicities.. for most of the time.. and called themselves as such..

acc. to the definition of Bharata from the Sanskrit text it includes India, Pakistan, East Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc.(Chandragupta Maurya's empire)

So what is the problem. Are most Punjabis and Sindhis really indigenous Indians?; probably Yes. Are Pathans and Baluchs Indians? probably No.

absolutely..
though Pashtuns and Baloch can be thought of as buffer people b/w India and Persia... and who have been ruled by both Indians and Persians..

My issue Niaz(sahab) is that why are Pakistanis ashamed to call themselves ethnically Indians?? I don't see Bangladeshis do that..
Jinnah was a not magician that he carved Pakistan out of those lands that were never part of India..
Many Indian states can as argued by Pakistanis have never been part of India... then what is India??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My issue Niaz(sahab) is that why are Pakistanis ashamed to call themselves ethnically Indians?? I don't see Bangladeshis do that..
Jinnah was a not magician that he carved Pakistan out of those lands that were never part of India..
Many Indian states can as argued by Pakistanis have never been part of India... then what is India??

Please don't attempt to tell me what my emotions are and what they are not!

We are not "ashamed" to call ourselves Indians - we are proud to call ourselves Pakistanis. I don't understand what basis you are using to suggest that we call ourselves Indians. It cannot be race, for there are several races in the Subcontinent, it cannot be culture - for there are several, it is obviously not nationality. What Indians need to do is dispense with this obsession to associate everything with "India". If there is truly a need to have an identifier for the people from South Asia - then simply "South Asian" will do - as "Asian" works fine for those from East Asia.

What is India? It is a nation created in 1947 - a combination of all those territories it is comprised of today. Why is that hard to understand? The US did not always consist of the territories it has today - a large part was captured from Mexico. But as a political entity today it consists of all those lands- the same with India.

There is a difference between describing a region by a name "the orient, Arabia etc". and referring to a country. While ancient travelers may have referred to the area in general as "India", why should that now be taken to imply that we are "Indians"? If anything, why should Pakistanis call themselves by a name given to the region by outsiders? If you want to thats your choice.

Going back to "control of territories" - we do not refer to the peoples under the Roman empire or Greek empire as Romans or Greeks still today, and more importantly- the fact that large parts of Europe were united under the banner of a single empire does not imply that somehow there is a case to be made that those who were a part of the empire are "the same people". The same with the "empires" that did rule over large parts of India - it does not take away form the singularity of all those peoples who were a part of those empires.

PS: If you do choose to respond, please try and do so in one or two paragraphs, instead of quoting line by line. It is very distracting and sometimes incoherent when you do that, and often times the point is made with the entire post as context, and you lose that in line by line answers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Aryan:

I am curious, are the Bengalis and/or South Indians as genetically similar to the Punjabis and Sindhis as you say are the Pashtun and Baluchis?

 

[aryan2007]

See sir,

The issue here is
I have not seen a response from across the border has to whether we are same/similar or not?
Pakistanis generally have an issue with India politically and then they bring in religion and cultures etc..

To me no one ethnicity, race, language, state, genetics etc. fits the bill of being India.. we are diverse and this is what India is.. all of these are important to define us..

People have migrated from India to Pakistan and vice versa will always be the most vocal supporters of similarity and at the same time some will always be the most antagonistic..

Pakistan as a land has had a very powerful connection with many Indian cultures, religions, people, history etc. and when the present habitants of Pakistan say we are dissimilar to India or Indians and that India/Indians are occupying Pakistani culture to me doesn't make sense.. I am not saying you are Indians.. but ethnically we are all the same/similar..(can be called Indians/Indo-Aryans, South Asian, whatever makes you happy) you cannot wish it away..and try to justify by saying Pakistan is a distinct land/culture etc.. which is not .. it has shaped a majority of Indians.. some more others less..


India will always try to assert its big brotherly/bully attitude towards Pakistan and Pakistanis will always try to counter that.. but lets honour our common heritage, struggles, peoples, culture, languages, religion.. and not involve these in Political battles...

To conclude I would like to quote the greatest South Asian King.. Ashoka the great who ruled over most of "South Asia" some MILLENIA back...

"Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds. But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this -- that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others.Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions."

Wisdom carries over the ages..
Desis Zindabad

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

See sir,

The issue here is
I have not seen a response from across the border has to whether we are same/similar or not?
Pakistanis generally have an issue with India politically and then they bring in religion and cultures etc..

To me no one ethnicity, race, language, state, genetics etc. fits the bill of being India.. we are diverse and this is what India is.. all of these are important to define us..

People have migrated from India to Pakistan and vice versa will always be the most vocal supporters of similarity and at the same time some will always be the most antagonistic..

Pakistan as a land has had a very powerful connection with many Indian cultures, religions, people, history etc. and when the present habitants of Pakistan say we are dissimilar to India or Indians and that India/Indians are occupying Pakistani culture to me doesn't make sense.. I am not saying you are Indians.. but ethnically we are all the same/similar..(can be called Indians/Indo-Aryans, South Asian, whatever makes you happy) you cannot wish it away..and try to justify by saying Pakistan is a distinct land/culture etc.. which is not .. it has shaped a majority of Indians.. some more others less..


India will always try to assert its big brotherly/bully attitude towards Pakistan and Pakistanis will always try to counter that.. but lets honour our common heritage, struggles, peoples, culture, languages, religion.. and not involve these in Political battles...

To conclude I would like to quote the greatest South Asian King.. Ashoka the great who ruled over most of "South Asia" some MILLENIA back...

Aryan,

I think it would be a lot easier to make that argument were people to completely drop the term "Indian" and use the term "South Asian". Once congress decided to go with "India" as the official name of the political entity created in 1947, it sort of doomed the usage of the term "Indian" as a common identifier. Couple that with the polarization that exists between the two countries, and you can see why Pakistanis choose not to identify with the term "Indian" - for me and quite a few others it is reflective (correctly or not) of a "akhand Bharat" type desire. Again, I am not suggesting that is true of all Indians, but the wounds are still too fresh, and there are plenty of Indians who still wishfully think of that "unified India" notion.

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the commonalities within the different cultures and peoples, and working towards common markets etc.but that has to be within the framework of "South Asia, South Asians and SAARC" and not "India, Indians and Indian Union".

 

[aryan2007]

Aryan,

I think it would be a lot easier to make that argument were people to completely drop the term "Indian" and use the term "South Asian". Once congress decided to go with "India" as the official name of the political entity created in 1947, it sort of doomed the usage of the term "Indian" as a common identifier.

I agree with that point..

Couple that with the polarization that exists between the two countries, and you can see why Pakistanis choose not to identify with the term "Indian" - for me and quite a few others it is reflective (correctly or not) of a "akhand Bharat" type desire.

Well what is Akhand Bharata?? I don't know how RSS crap reaches Pakistan but not a common Indian..

I mean if you have read extenisvely about "Our" countries you will realize Bharat/Aryavarta/Hindustan/India/Bharatvarsha etc. is not about people or land it is about culture and not about dominance or the desire to rule or conquer or ethnic cleansing etc...

As a kid I never supported Pakistan in cricket but my older cousin always supported Pakistan if it was not playing India.. and I used to call him ghaddaar but he said these guys are the most common to us... We should support them over Goray and Kalay..

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the commonalities within the different cultures and peoples, and working towards common markets etc.but that has to be within the framework of "South Asia, South Asians and SAARC" and not "India, Indians and Indian Union".

Yes but having India in the midst of things.. will always make detractors say it is about India/Hindus etc.

Again, I am not suggesting that is true of all Indians, but the wounds are still too fresh, and there are plenty of Indians who still wishfully think of that "unified India" notion.

Those Indians are miniscule in numbers now.. and mostly those who were affected by partition..

I don't think we can expect people from across for us to become a United country again though having greater tolerance, respect and friendliness is the call....

 

[roadrunner]

My issue Niaz(sahab) is that why are Pakistanis ashamed to call themselves ethnically Indians?? I don't see Bangladeshis do that..
Jinnah was a not magician that he carved Pakistan out of those lands that were never part of India..
Many Indian states can as argued by Pakistanis have never been part of India... then what is India??

Well, Bangladeshis are ethnically the same as Bengali Indians, who look to me to be the same as most other Indians. Pakistanis don't look Indians to me generally.

On the subject of Punjabis and Sindhis being India, I'd disagree. The two have clear genetic marker differences from the majority of Indians (Bharatis I should say). Pashtuns and Balochis don't really share much similiarity to Persians, or any other ethnic group in modern Asia. But none of these groups could be described as either Bharati or Persian. So we could say Pakistan is not similar to either modern India or Iran in ancestry. Good genetic evidence exists for this.

 

[aryan2007]

Well, Bangladeshis are ethnically the same as Bengali Indians, who look to me to be the same as most other Indians.

Fair enuff..

Pakistanis don't look Indians to me generally.

why not?? If you compare a Punjabi with a Tamil they will differ as well..

On the subject of Punjabis and Sindhis being India, I'd disagree. The two have clear genetic marker differences from the majority of Indians (Bharatis I should say).

It is a Bharatiya.. Bharati is a name..

Even Tamils are different from a majority of Indians,so are Malaylees, so are North eastern so are People from HIll states, so are Punjabsi so are Kashmiris, so are Gujaratis, so are Ghatis, so are Tribals from Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa,

Pashtuns and Balochis don't really share much similiarity to Persians, or any other ethnic group in modern Asia. But none of these groups could be described as either Bharati or Persian. So we could say Pakistan is not similar to either modern India or Iran in ancestry. Good genetic evidence exists for this.

Provide it please..

pashtuns and Baloch are Iranic people.. Persian/Aryans.. they have no similarity with Punjabis or Sindhis

Punjabi and Sindhis like all Indians above the tropic of cancer are Indo=ARyans.

 

[Flintlock]

Though I hate, absolutely hate discussing this topic, I'd like to point out that even Bengalis arent an ethnically homogenous group. Try looking at the differences between different castes in Bengal. Some Bengalis are very white, almost pale, whereas others are extremely dark.

 

[aryan2007]

Though I hate, absolutely hate discussing this topic, I'd like to point out that even Bengalis arent an ethnically homogenous group. Try looking at the differences between different castes in Bengal. Some Bengalis are very white, almost pale, whereas others are extremely dark.

Yes some are fairer incl Hindus and Muslims.. from higher castes and ashraful class..

Sharmila Tagore Susmita Sen Rakhi Gulzar Riya and Raima Sen Tanisha
Sharbani Mukherjee Moon moon Sen Nandana Sen Sourav Ganguly
Victor Banerjee Tapur and Tupur Chatterjee etc..

Btw check this bong out.. pale as a corpse

Bastardly Lady of the Day - Noreen - The Bastardly

 

[UnitedPak]

The concept of assigning entire ethnicities to two modern countries is flawed.

Sorry, Aryan, but what do you mean by Indian and Iranian people?

Indo-Aryan is a family of ethnicities which cannot be claimed by a modern country. This family of ethnicities is spread out from Afghanistan to central India. There are no specific borders in terms of poltical.

There is no "Indian" ethnicity. Pakistani people are different from Indians because they are different ethnicities. Yes there is Punjabis which are split between the 2 countries, but you can simply state that instead of using this link to make flawed statements like Pakistanis are Indian.
Punjabis account for around 2% of the Indian population, and even less of them are actually "same as Pakistanis".

Now I understand what you are doing here. You are using the fact that all ethnicities are related in some way. Well of course they are related. Every neighbouring ethnicity on this planet have things in common, but it doesnt make them "the same".

Pakistani people have some differences, and thats what makes them Pakistani. Yes, Pakistanis are similar to the people of every country surrounding them including Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asian states and India. But instead of using these countries as a reference, the term is Pakistani.