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

[Flintlock]

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

Yeah, I had this extremely pale Bong chick (even more than this one) in my class in school. On the other hand Bipasha Basu is an example of a very dark Bengali chick

 

[roadrunner]

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,

Well, it's not true. Indians are more or less the same as each other. The skin colour is more or less the same, the features again are more or less the same. What is fairly sure is that people to the West of Pakistan/Bharat border have a much higher proportion of Eurasian ancestry (some two levels at least). Those two levels contribute to different features (though I'm not deying there are plenty of Indian looking people in Sindh and Punjab (they are a minority).

Provide it please..

Iranians (Persians) share a common lineage with Anatolians. Pashtuns do no, and neither do Balochis. It's easily proveable. I'll find the proof for you if you keep reminding me for it. As for Punjabis and Sindhis being Bharati, again, this is not true under any genetic circumstances. I've already mentioned the two levels of higher Eurasian ancestry in Pakistan Punjabis and Sindhis versus Bharat. This is a researched genetic map. Again I'll get it.

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

Well, Persians being Aryan is highly debateable given the genetic evidence that their ancestry comes from Anatolia. Once again though you're confusing linguistics with genetics. Pashtuns might be Iranic-speaking people, but that is a linguistic definition, not an anthropological one. Just as Bharatis are Indo-European speaking people, this is a linguistic classification, not a genetic one. The majority of Bharat is Dravidian.

Pashtuns and Balochis are simply less Dravidianized than Punjabis and Sindhis. Balochis have a bit more Persian ancestry than Pashtuns, but ancestrally, there is a fair mixing of Pashtuns into Punjabis, Sindhis, and Baloch. However, I would say that also Pashtuns are a tribal people, and some are very unmixed.

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

Well, that's a LINIGUSITIC classification, not a genetic one. It means nothing. Say you speak Chinese, does this make you East Asian by ethnicity? No.

 

[aryan2007]

Yeah, I had this extremely pale Bong chick (even more than this one) in my class in school. On the other hand Bipasha Basu is an example of a very dark Bengali chick

look at Marathis Isha Koppikar, Urmila, Aditi Gowitrakar are all pale... whereas RajniKanth (yes he is a marathi) is dark...
Bhujbhal, Ritesh Deshmukh, Sharad pawar are wheatish..

 

[roadrunner]

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.

Bengalis are NOT pale! You might find one or two Bengalis that are lighter, but the MAJORITY of Bengalis are dark-skinned, just like the majority of Indians are! Quit this denial, it's getting annoying!

 

[roadrunner]

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

Look, why are you showing images of ONE or two pale Bengalis?!?!? What does this prove?!?!?! Have you heard of mixing? I can post some images of blue eyed Africans, but this does not have anything to do with what the MAJORITY of Africans looks like!

 

[roadrunner]

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.

Indo Aryan is a linguistic definition. Indo Aryans do not exist in India.

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.

True about the fringe mixing.

 

[Flintlock]

Bengalis are NOT pale! You might find one or two Bengalis that are lighter, but the MAJORITY of Bengalis are dark-skinned, just like the majority of Indians are! Quit this denial, it's getting annoying!

Well, sorry if its so annoying.

As I said, skin colour differs between castes. Its not like a couple of bengalis are light skinned. More accurate is that some bengali castes have light skin. Then some have extremely dark skin, almost as dark as south Indians.

As Aryan here pointed out, Rajnikanth, inspite of being Marathi, looks South Indian by skin colour.

 

[UnitedPak]

The problem here is that Indians see "India" as an influencing entity, which has influenced nearly half of Asia. And this so called influence allows them to declare everything and anything as "Indian".

I have been reading up on this and apparently South east Asian kingdoms are "Indianised", and another word for South East Asia is "Indo-China".

Its this fascination of referring to everything in terms of the bigger countries despite that these bigger countries have ntohing to do with the surrounding regions.

This "India" only came into existence with the British Invasion.
China never used to be as big as it is today. Most of it was independent Tibet, and the northern part was part of Turkmenistan. The rest was tiny and it was called "Sino".
Persia is the only empire with credibility since it had influence.

Its just their egos.

 

[aryan2007]

The problem here is that Indians see "India" as an influencing entity, which has influenced nearly half of Asia. And this so called influence allows them to declare everything and anything as "Indian".

an avg India is ignorant about Indian culture prevalent in SE Asia etc..

I was surprised myself to see how much Indian influence is visible in Thailand and Malaysia when I visited them..

I have been reading up on this and apparently South east Asian kingdoms are "Indianised", and another word for South East Asia is "Indo-China".

Bali Islands still follow Hinduism.. you might want to read upon SE Asia.. it is an accepted fact that SE Asia was a part of Indosphere..

Its this fascination of referring to everything in terms of the bigger countries despite that these bigger countries have ntohing to do with the surrounding regions.

ON the contrary SE Asia was ruled by Hindus for centuries..

This "India" only came into existence with the British Invasion.

What was the land under Chandragupta Maurya and Mughals called or what was the land described in millenia old Latin, Greek, Chinese, Prakrit and Sanskrit texts??

China never used to be as big as it is today. Most of it was independent Tibet, and the northern part was part of Turkmenistan. The rest was tiny and it was called "Sino".

Possible..

Persia is the only empire with credibility since it had influence.

Persia has whittled down in size really.. but they still have a 1mnsq km but just 60mn pop..

Its just their egos.

I think an avg India even educated India is ignorant about the cultural dominance of India .. Indian cultural dominance is quite evident even in some Sino districts if wiki is to be believed.. I haven't checked the source really...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

an avg India is ignorant about Indian culture prevalent in SE Asia etc..

I was surprised myself to see how much Indian influence is visible in Thailand and Malaysia when I visited them..



Bali Islands still follow Hinduism.. you might want to read upon SE Asia.. it is an accepted fact that SE Asia was a part of Indosphere..

What exactly is "indosphere"? What is meant by "part of indosphere"? Following Hinduism does not make people a part of "India" or the "Indic civilization" as I have heard it referred to by some people. By that logic, all Muslim countries are a part of the "Arabisphere" - In fact, India would be a major part of the "Arabosphere". Its silly. Its just that the religion and certain customs have traveled to different parts of the world and been adopted as interactions between peoples and cultures occurred.

ON the contrary SE Asia was ruled by Hindus for centuries..

And vast parts of the world were ruled by Muslims for centuries - does not make that part of the world an "Arabosphere". They are all still distinct nations and peoples with their own identities, though they may have absorbed some customs, culture and beliefs from their previous rulers.

What was the land under Chandragupta Maurya and Mughals called or what was the land described in millenia old Latin, Greek, Chinese, Prakrit and Sanskrit texts??

What did the Mughals and Maurya call it?

Their "empires" would have been the equivalent of the Persian, Ottoman or Greek empires - i.e some "autocrat" conquering a bunch of territory, comprised of different nations and peoples. What lends Maurya's or the Mughal empires any more legitimacy in being considered "one nation" than the aforementioned empires did?

I think an avg India even educated India is ignorant about the cultural dominance of India .. Indian cultural dominance is quite evident even in some Sino districts if wiki is to be believed.. I haven't checked the source really...

There is no such thing as "Indian cultural domination" - There is influence from Hinduism and other beliefs, that arose from the different nations and peoples of South Asia - but again, that argument is as bad as suggesting that there is "Arab cultural domination" in all the Muslim countries.

What could be considered "Indian cultural domination", in the contemporary sense, would be the popularity of Bollywood and its influence on culture the way Hollywood has done - but Bollywood itself is heavily influenced by Hollywood, especially today, so it could in fact be considered an indirect American cultural domination, rather than "Indian".

 

[aryan2007]

What exactly is "indosphere"? What is meant by "part of indosphere"? Following Hinduism does not make people a part of "India" or the "Indic civilization" as I have heard it referred to by some people. By that logic, all Muslim countries are a part of the "Arabisphere" - In fact, India would be a major part of the "Arabosphere". Its silly. Its just that the religion and certain customs have traveled to different parts of the world and been adopted as interactions between peoples and cultures occurred.

Most Muslim Majority countries are part of Islamic World...
Indosphere refers to areas which have been influenced by Indian culutre and religion and these lands have adopted Indian customs and adapted them...

And vast parts of the world were ruled by Muslims for centuries - does not make that part of the world an "Arabosphere". They are all still distinct nations and peoples with their own identities, though they may have absorbed some customs, culture and beliefs from their previous rulers.

Since Hinduism is not supposed to be propagated or followed in a particular way hence it cannot be compared with Islam..

therefore instead of calling it Hindu World or previously Hindu World it is called Indosphere as HInduism is less of a religion and more of a way of life.. certain customs of which have been adopted by SE Asia..

What did the Mughals and Maurya call it?

Hindustan and Aryavarta/Bharatvarsha I think...

Their "empires" would have been the equivalent of the Persian, Ottoman or Greek empires - i.e some "autocrat" conquering a bunch of territory, comprised of different nations and peoples. What lends Maurya's or the Mughal empires any more legitimacy in being considered "one nation" than the aforementioned empires did?

THe common chord at the time of Maurya was Buddhism and at the time of Akbar was Hinduism..

on the west the east and the north this land was bounded by mountains and in the south by the ocean..
this subcontinent.. had a different breed of people whom today we called south asians..
it is so called subcontinent because it was distinct from other lands..
and the culture that existed here was vastly different from what existed in its neighbours and with regional variations..

There is no such thing as "Indian cultural domination" - There is influence from Hinduism and other beliefs, that arose from the different nations and peoples of South Asia - but again, that argument is as bad as suggesting that there is "Arab cultural domination" in all the Muslim countries.

I agree... there is no domination but at the same time this culture is not relegated to the backside but is very visible and is now claimed as the culture of that country and not of India,. but is Indian in nature..

What ever domination happened, happened way back and today the culture there so followed is indic in nature as opposed to sino in nature..

Manas: Indian Diaspora, The Indic Presence in World Culture

JSOTR article anyone with Athens account lemme know and I'll give you the
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656(1968)7:3<318:IOAIH>2.0.CO;2-#
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00....0.CO;2-Z&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage


Bradley bases his analysis on an extended historical analysis, which distinguishes the traditional tolerance of diversity in the cultural “Indosphere” (Malaya, Cambodia, Indonesia) from the disregard of linguistic minorities and assimilating tradition of the “Sinosphere” (Japan, Korea, Vietnam), both these traditions going back well over two thousand years and being extremely rich culturally. (Burma and Thailand moved from the Sinosphere into the Indosphere about a millennium ago, reacting against Chinese expansion.)
Foundation For Endangered Languages. Home

What could be considered "Indian cultural domination", in the contemporary sense, would be the popularity of Bollywood and its influence on culture the way Hollywood has done - but Bollywood itself is heavily influenced by Hollywood, especially today, so it could in fact be considered an indirect American cultural domination, rather than "Indian".

this is soft power and denotes that India is the flavour of the season..
the rules of centuries of Indians over SE Asia had resulted in more Indic form of a culture in SE Asia..

 

[Logic note]

Angkor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ASIA SOCIETY: THE COLLECTION IN CONTEXT

 

[Awaaz]

In terms of?
Culturally, India and Pakistan are more or less similar. We speak more or less the same language, have similar family values and traditions, similar attitudes.

The only differences between the nations are political.

Only punjabis and sindhis of pakistan have similar culture language and traditions and family values as indians, rest of pakistan or shall i say north and northwest pakistan has no similarities with india. Puhsto and baloch language hardly resemble hindi or punjabi of india. Read about different groups of pakistan before you claim the similarities between the two nations.

 

[UnitedPak]

Only punjabis and sindhis of pakistan have similar culture language and traditions and family values as indians, rest of pakistan or shall i say north and northwest pakistan has no similarities with india. Puhsto and baloch language hardly resemble hindi or punjabi of india. Read about different groups of pakistan before you claim the similarities between the two nations.

Only Punjabis have have similar language with Indian Punjabis. Cultural...I doubt that.
Urdu is spoken all over Pakistan, its not the native language of Punjab or Sindh. It was developed by the Muslim invaders, so it belongs to Pakistan as a whole.

Indians are not one group of people so they cant even be compared to another group.

 

[KEWAN]

SORY IF I HERT ANY BODY BUT REALITY IS THIS THAT NONE OF YOU HAS LOOK AT PAST 1000 YRS. WHEN MUSLIMS CAME TO THIS LAND IT WAS UNDER DIFFERENT RAJAA'S HAVING THIER OWN KINGDOM. MUSLIMS UNIT THIS LAND AND ESTABLISH CENTRALIZED GOVT. DURING MUGHAL'S ERA ALL HINDUS AND MUSLIMS LIVE ALONG AND THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION IN ANY FIELD OF LIFE EXEPT RELIGION.
PRIORITY WAS GIVEN TO TALLENT AS YOU CAN SEE MANY HINDUS WERE IN MUGHAL'S CABNET.
AFTER 1700 EAST INDIA COMPANY ESTABLISH ITS BUSINESS IN THIS SUB-CONTINENT AND GAIN POWER BY DIVIDING THE PEOPLES ON RELIGION BASIS.
IN 1857 FREEDOM FIGHT WAS BROUGHT BY BOTH MUSLIMS AND HINDUS AND LOST MANY OF THIER LEADERSHIP. AFTER THAT RESHMI RUMAAL TEHREEK WAS BOUGHT BY MUSLIMS AND AFTERWARDS JUWAR LAL NEHRU ALSO JOINED THAT.

THE MAIN THING IS TO CONSIDER EVERY ONE HUMAN NOT LESS THAN OR MORE THAN YOURSELF. IF YOU STUDY MUSLIMS HISTORY THEY ALWAYS FOUGHT AGAINST UNGUSTICE AND CRUEL LEADERSHIP.
OUR PROPHET (PBUH) LETTER TO DIFFERNT KINGS ARE GREAT EXAMPLE OF THIS.

I SUGGUES YOU ALL TO READ THE BOOK COMPANY KI HAQOOMAT WRITTEN BY BARI ALEEG.