Pakistani women gives a great reply to India and Pakistani media

[INDIC]

I have read this book. There are many who challenge some of the basic assertions made by Denino while he quoted from certain studies that have selectively chosen a set of data to draw conclusions while ignoring the available data that proves them wrong. He also states that the reasons of celebrating Kumbh Mela at Triveni Sangam are only a matter of faith and therefore are suspect and wrong.

What available set of data.

 

[Nassr]

What available set of data.

Radioanalytical, geochemistry and composition, geomorphologic, paleo-climatic, geomorphic evolution, satellite image and buried channel flood plain data.

 

[INDIC]

Radioanalytical, geochemistry and composition, geomorphologic, paleo-climatic, geomorphic evolution, satellite image and buried channel flood plain data.

Tell me who did it. Prove me sources, I want to read it.

 

[Bang Galore]

This assertion that Sarsuti was Saraswati because the local people believed it to be such and that Ghagar is Sarasvati was reinvigorated by a certain group of people who discounted the age old Hindu belief of Sarasvati in a confluence at Triveni Sangam at Allahabad, and stated without scientific proof that as Ghagar was Sarasvati, therefore the Indus valley civilization is Sarasvati civilization and thus a claim of India. This is not correct. And the reinvigoration which was started in the 1980s by Hindutva aligned scholars was a measure towards this end.

The sangam bit is certainly post the Rg veda as is the importance of the ganges. The rg veda is considerably older than any such assertion. I'm not interested in whether the IVC is Sarasvati civilisation or not, the fact remains that nearly 600 sites are found on the banks of Ghaggar, far, far more than any found in Pakistan. Actually this point makes one wonder whether you are trying to reverse 200 years of scholarship that identifies the Sarasvati with the Gaggar-Hakra(pre-dates any India-Pakistan fight) simply because you think that this is a claim on the IVC? Hindus are interested in this river but not for the reasons you assume, that is only of interest to archaeologist & a few Hindu nationalists. The Rg veda says what it does & we will just have to accept that while you differ, no mainstream scholar of the Rg veda does.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Indo-European genetic admix that may have happened over a long period of time does not in anyway automatically confirm that because the people have Indo-European genes they have to be of Aryan race and that this may have happened due to Aryan Invasion Theory or Aryan Migration Theory. The Out of India theorists state the opposite and are equally aggressive in their approach.

All I am stating is that the genetic admix of majority of people in Pakistan is different from the genetic admix of people of India and that these are two different people. The Aryan Invasion Theory and the Aryan Migration Theory in the time frame that many relate to, is inappropriate.

Out of India theorists do not have genetic backing as far as I am aware. Genes & haplogroups are traced back to their source of origin, & the upper castes from the north western regions of the Sub-Continent contain lots of Indo-European DNA. Studies have shown the prevalence of male Indo-Aryan lineages, this points to the fact that their origin couldn't have been indigenous otherwise female lineages would be present to. The Indo-Aryans called themselves Aryans & their culture is similar to Andronovo culture. Pakistanis are indeed different from modern day Indians, & our genes prove it. The majority of Pakistani ethnicities are different linguistically, culturally, & genetically from India besides a few that overlap. Modern day India itself is an extremely diverse country harboring a variety of different ethnic groups.

The people of IVC, the Meluhhans did not disappear in thin air with the fading out of Indus Valley Civilization. The people remained whereas the civilization faded out. Many of these people migrated to Mesopotamia and thence on to Palestine – this is confirmed as a Kingdom of Meluhhans was historically recorded to have been present on Egyptian borders between 700-600 BC.

The parts of IVC which are in Iran, Afghanistan and India are there due to the modern borders drawn much later in history. However as the center point of emanation and the largest area of IVC spread lay in Pakistan, it is the heart of this civilization and not India.

The Harappans' race is generally considered to be Caucasoid & there are theories that suggest that they arrived from pre-Aryan Indo-European migrations. Unfortunately, we need to decrypt their script to understand their language & be certain of their origins. There are certain studies indicating that the IVC population may have arrived before the Indo-Aryans from eastern Anatolia which is the land often claimed to be the homeland of proto-Indo-Europeans.

Population genetics of Indus Valley populations

In striking contrast to the mtDNA data, there is no strong evidence in Pakistani populations of Y-chromosome signatures of the early inhabitants of the region following the African exodus (Qamar et al. 2002, Zerjal et al. 2002), with their Y-chromosomes largely replaced by subsequent migrations or gene flow. The Y-chromosome gene pool of Pakistani populations is mainly attributable to western Eurasian lineages, particularly from the Middle East (Qamar et al. 2002). Conversely, few traces of East Asian haplogroups are observed in the Indus Valley populations. One Y-chromosome haplogroup (L-M20) has a high mean frequency of 14% in Pakistan and so differs from all other haplogroups in its frequency distribution. L-M20 is also observed, although at lower frequencies, in neighbouring countries, such as India, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia. Both the frequency distribution and estimated expansion time (~7,000 YBP) of this lineage suggest that its spread in the Indus Valley may be associated with the expansion of local farming groups during the Neolithic period (Qamar et al. 2002).

The Indo-Aryans must have lived with the Harappans towards the civilization's end, & then later on claimed power & cultural dominance once the Harappans finished out.

Please refer to my previous posts, & focus on the sources of various genetic studies & other documentation that I have amply provided.

Posts to refer to are #210, #184, & #135.

There is no set place of Meluhha because that is a Sumerian name. Some sources point to the word Meluhha referring to the Indus Valley while other sources indicate it as a kingdom adjacent to Egypt. The word Meluhha most likely refers to the Harappan civilization though. The Sanskrit word "mleccha" for non-Aryan, barbarian, or foreigner is similar to the word Meluhha that is used by Sumerians. This indicates the possibility that the Harappans & Vedic Aryans weren't the same & some other sources agree with this. Regardless, the first civilization on the Indus is the Harappan civilization later on followed by the Vedic civilization.

India’s recent rejuvenated propagation of identifying river Sarasvati with the dried bed of river Ghagar and Hakra because a small nadi or a nullah called Sarsuti, which was a tributary of Ghagar is nothing more than manipulation of history to prove that IVC was an Indian civilization. Saraswati has been mentioned in Rig Veda as a great river that emanated from the glaciers of Himalayas and flowed to the sea. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt through recent studies that rivers Sarsuti or Ghagra never emanated from glaciers and were seasonal rivers which could not have flowed to sea. In Mahabharata and some other later scriptures it has been mentioned that it died in the desert. There is a Triveni Sangam at Allahabad in India where the famous Kumbh Mela is celebrated. Since thousands of years Indians visit the Triveni Sangam which Indian Hindus believe to be the the confluence of Ganges, Jamuna and mythical Sarasvati. Just because some English explorers related a probable connection with Ghagar Hakra rivers in 1800s and early 1900s and a misplaced recognition of the satellite imagery in 1970 (which also has been proven incorrect recognition), Sarsuti Ghagar Hakra have not been identified as Sarasvati river. Though hundreds of Indian web sites now pronounce Ghagar Hakra as Sarasvati river – this is highly suspect and is incorrect.

Therefore, there is only one civilization that existed in Pakistan with a spread in Iran, Afghanistan and India and the Indian pronouncement that IVC is Indus-Sarasvati Civilization is a wrong assumption. This is merely another Indian attempt to sneak in their claim of IVC through a Rig Vedic mythical river Sarasvati, which according to their own religious history flows underground towards Allahabad in India in exactly opposite direction of Ghagar Hakra and joins Ganges and Yamuna at Triven Sangam. If as the Indian Hindutva Brigade says that Sarasvati is Ghagar Hakra, then Kumbh Mela should not be celebrated as they have been doing since long.

Hindu nationalists do make false claims regarding their history. That is also why the idea that Indo-Aryans were migrants is despised by what we can assume is the majority of them. There are a variety of ideas pertaining to the location of the Sarasvati river.

Please read the quote below.

The Theory of Cultural Syntheses in Ancient India

Considering the importance that the Rig Veda accords the river Saraswathi as the epicenter of Vedic culture and considering how the river is used in relation to other geographical features in India in the Vedas, we are tempted to believe that this would connote a river within India. On the other hand, the river Saraswathi is also used to refer to the original homeland of the Aryans. This could perhaps refer to Afghanistan and Iran where rivers with similar sounding names like the Harahwaiti exist thus confirming the theory that there was more than one river Saraswathi and that the Aryans indeed migrated to India at some point in time.

At this point there are too many conflicting theories on the location of the Sarasvati river. I am not certain as to which theory should be believed entirely yet.

 

[Bang Galore]

Radioanalytical, geochemistry and composition, geomorphologic, paleo-climatic, geomorphic evolution, satellite image and buried channel flood plain data.

That doesn't prove anything. Funny how a supposedly rig vedic assertion of it flowing from the mountains is deemed important to discount the Ghaggar but the geographic location given is assumed wrong. We are discussing people who lived in the plains of Haryana, not in the mountains. Why would you dispute the main assertion on such flimsy logic. The science does not discount Ghaggar as Sarasvati, a supposed reference does but numerous references to the river are discounted? That would be more than a little cussed.

 

[Bang Galore]

At this point there are too many conflicting theories on the location of the Sarasvati river. I am not certain as to which theory should be believed entirely yet.

While you are entitled to your opinion & I respect your doubts, there is no reference to any original homeland where Sarasvati flowed. That is bunkum. The reference to Haraxvathi is interesting because that river(helmand) does not flow into the sea . Also more importantly the references to the Sarasvati is given as between the Yamuna & the Sutlej, those too will them have to be transferred there. Lastly the name Haraxvathi is derived from Sarasvati, not the reverse. It is accepted that linguistically S -> H, never the other way around.

As for what Hindu nationalists might say, I have opined that it is best to stick with the evidence as available, not bothering with the supposed motives of the person making any claim. After all, motive is never a one way street. I have, after all, argued with you on the merits of the posts itself, never on either your religious leaning or your nationality.

 

[Nassr]

The sangam bit is certainly post the Rg veda as is the importance of the ganges. The rg veda is considerably older than any such assertion. I'm not interested in whether the IVC is Sarasvati civilisation or not, the fact remains that nearly 600 sites are found on the banks of Ghaggar, far, far more than any found in Pakistan. Actually this point makes one wonder whether you are trying to reverse 200 years of scholarship that identifies the Sarasvati with the Gaggar-Hakra(pre-dates any India-Pakistan fight) simply because you think that this is a claim on the IVC? Hindus are interested in this river but not for the reasons you assume, that is only of interest to archaeologist & a few Hindu nationalists. The Rg veda says what it does & we will just have to accept that while you differ, no mainstream scholar of the Rg veda does.

I replied to you earlier as well that the Rig Veda or its edicts are not being challenged at all. The Rig Veda states that there was a river called Sarasvati between Jamuna and Sutlej – this is not being doubted. The Rig Veda however does not state whether the river flowed west to east or east to west and also does not state its exact location as there are many other rivers that also exist between the Jamuna and Sutlej. Were they flowing during the time of Rig Veda – no one knows. Also, the epic Mahabharata and a couple of other scriptures state that Sarasvati dried up in desert. And there are those who believe that Saravati joins the Ganges and Jamuna at Triveni Sangam in Allahabad.

There are those who are naming Sarsuti and Ghagar Hakra as Rig Vedic Sarasvati flowing from north to south south west. It is this assertion, which in my opinion is wrong and which is being challenged. Now, making this assertion akin to challenging of Rig Veda is certainly preposterous to say the least.

That doesn't prove anything. Funny how a supposedly rig vedic assertion of it flowing from the mountains is deemed important to discount the Ghaggar but the geographic location given is assumed wrong. We are discussing people who lived in the plains of Haryana, not in the mountains. Why would you dispute the main assertion on such flimsy logic. The science does not discount Ghaggar as Sarasvati, a supposed reference does but numerous references to the river are discounted? That would be more than a little cussed.

My reply to the gentleman was contextual. I am sure you can understand that.

 

[Nassr]

While you are entitled to your opinion & I respect your doubts, there is no reference to any original homeland where Sarasvati flowed. That is bunkum. The reference to Haraxvathi is interesting because that river(helmand) does not flow into the sea . Also more importantly the references to the Sarasvati is given as between the Yamuna & the Sutlej, those too will them have to be transferred there. Lastly the name Haraxvathi is derived from Sarasvati, not the reverse. It is accepted that linguistically S -> H, never the other way around.

As for what Hindu nationalists might say, I have opined that it is best to stick with the evidence as available, not bothering with the supposed motives of the person making any claim. After all, motive is never a one way street. I have, after all, argued with you on the merits of the posts itself, never on either your religious leaning or your nationality.

The mention in Rig Veda that Sarasvati originated from high mountains is unimportant to you with regard to discounting the theory of it being Ghagar Hakra (referring to your earlier posts). And to discount the theory of Haraxvathi being Sarasvati, you mention Rig Vedic edict that Haraxvathi does not flow to the sea, is oxymoron.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

While you are entitled to your opinion & I respect your doubts, there is no reference to any original homeland where Sarasvati flowed. That is bunkum.

The claim being made by some sources is that the word Sarasvati is also used to refer to their old homeland, most likely regions of Afghanistan.

The reference to Haraxvathi is interesting because that river(helmand) does not flow into the sea . Also more importantly the references to the Sarasvati is given as between the Yamuna & the Sutlej, those too will them have to be transferred there. Lastly the name Haraxvathi is derived from Sarasvati, not the reverse. It is accepted that linguistically S -> H, never the other way around.

The word used in my sources is "Harahwaiti" not "Haraxvathi". In any case I am still reading on the issue & I am quite confused due to the varying sources, all of which seem to make good points. As for the linguistically "S" to "H", I am not sure about that in regards to Sanskrit, & linguistic evidence would be required from credible linguistics. In any case, I did read the posts on the Sarasvati thread, & will try & acquire more information regarding it. The possibility of there being more landmarks called Sarasvati is still quite high, & some sources agree with it.

By the way, I just searched the word "Haraxvathi" on Google & got a link for a Sharavathi river in India, that too sounds like Sarasvati, but I won't comment on that because I don't know the etymology of its name.

In any case, whatever that conclusion turns out to be, the Indo-Aryan migrations have been confirmed by genetic studies, not Max Mueller's Indo-Aryan invasion. According to some sources I am giving more credence to the possibility that the Harappans themselves were some sort of Caucasian people if not pre-Aryan Indo-European settlers who simply did not refer to themselves as Aryans.

As for what Hindu nationalists might say, I have opined that it is best to stick with the evidence as available, not bothering with the supposed motives of the person making any claim. After all, motive is never a one way street. I have, after all, argued with you on the merits of the posts itself, never on either your religious leaning or your nationality.

I am trying to be as objective as possible, & am supporting the most likely possibility based on genetic, linguistic, historical, & societal evidence provided by other civilizations. It's true that people often have ulterior motives for their support of certain causes, & they need to be called out on that. Hindu nationalists however are vehemently against the idea of an Aryan migration because of what seems to hatred towards the British colonialism, & the desire to form unity by denying existing differences among the ethnic groups of the Sub-Continent. While I have noticed some bias in your posts, my comments regarding Hindu nationalists weren't aimed at you. I do not backbite, & any complaints I have against other people are brought up by me in front of them.

 

[Bang Galore]

The mention in Rig Veda that Sarasvati originated from high mountains is unimportant to you with regard to discounting the theory of it being Ghagar Hakra (referring to your earlier posts). And to discount the theory of Haraxvathi being Sarasvati, you mention Rig Vedic edict that Haraxvathi does not flow to the sea, is oxymoron.

Valid point, just that no geographic location points to Afghanistan. The converse is also true, the Sarasvati needs to be completely correct in every respect to the mentions in the Rg veda but no such requirement is made for different hypothesis.

 

[Bang Galore]

The claim being made by some sources is that the word Sarasvati is also used to refer to their old homeland, most likely regions of Afghanistan.

That is why I called it bunkum, no such mention is made anywhere in the Rg veda.

The word used in my sources is "Harahwaiti" not "Haraxvathi". In any case I am still reading on the issue & I am quite confused due to the varying sources, all of which seem to make good points. As for the linguistically "S" to "H", I am not sure about that in regards to Sanskrit, & linguistic evidence would be required from credible linguistics. In any case, I did read the posts on the Sarasvati thread, & will try & acquire more information regarding it. The possibility of there being more landmarks called Sarasvati is still quite high, & some sources agree with it.

Both are accepted, it is the Iranianian cognate of Sarasvati. The point of S->H is not disputed though that does not prove anything by otself. The mentions in the Rg veda do however make it clear in many instances that the Sarasvati that is spoken of is a river in India.

In any case, whatever that conclusion turns out to be, the Indo-Aryan migrations have been confirmed by genetic studies, not Max Mueller's Indo-Aryan invasion. According to some sources I am giving more credence to the possibility that the Harappans themselves were some sort of Caucasian people if not pre-Aryan Indo-European settlers who simply did not refer to themselves as Aryans.

Er...no such study proves it. If accepted, no one would be having any debate. I did give you a link to genetic studies that were carried out suggesting two ancestral populations. It remains an open question at the very least.

While I have noticed some bias in your posts, my comments regarding Hindu nationalists weren't aimed at you. I do not backbite, & any complaints I have against other people are brought up by me in front of them

I'm not religious minded in the least, so any bias you might have seen are likely to be a heavier than necessary reading of my comments. I offer a reasoning behind any assertion being made, I certainly do not fight this in cultural purity grounds. I argue the case that is available on the evidence that is available.You would have seen I offer up no alternate to the AIT, I do not ,because I simply don't see any evidence available that would support it. I merely point out that the AIT has no backing of archaeologists, doesn't have any backing in the Rg veda itself and is purely speculative based on a an obvious linguistic connection. That connection remains un explained which does merit keeping an open mind but no unambiguous evidence exists to prove any theory of migration or invasion.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

That is why I called it bunkum, no such mention is made anywhere in the Rg veda.

Both are accepted, it is the Iranianian cognate of Sarasvati. The point of S->H is not disputed though that does not prove anything by otself. The mentions in the Rg veda do however make it clear in many instances that the Sarasvati that is spoken of is a river in India.

The Vedic text doesn't specifically mention the existence of more than one Sarasvati river, but the use of the term Sarasvati according to some sources implies a reference to another homeland. I am not an expert in the Sanskrit language or in the Vedic text, & unless you are an expert, I doubt we could prove the Sarasvati river's location on our own beyond any reasonable doubt.

So Harahwaiti is an Iranian cognate of the Sanskrit word Sarasvati? Does the Avestan text mention mention more than one Sarasvati or uses it as a reference for a common homeland? Please provide a valid source for any answer to this. In any case, I already mentioned that some research based on the Vedas points to an earlier homeland so you may want to reread my earlier posts.

Er...no such study proves it. If accepted, no one would be having any debate. I did give you a link to genetic studies that were carried out suggesting two ancestral populations. It remains an open question at the very least.

Max Mueller's Aryan invasion theory is discredited, but genetic study has already proven Indo-European DNA in the upper castes or those ethnicities traditionally considered to have Indo-Aryan ancestry. You cannot deny genetic evidence. More research already indicates that Indo-Aryans were predominantly male & married with the indigenous females, they are said to have arrived via migration in the later era of the Harappan civilization. All those genetic studies made by experts prove it, & there is no point arguing this further. As I said earlier, genes do not lie, & more research is being carried out as we speak.

I'm not religious minded in the least, so any bias you might have seen are likely to be a heavier than necessary reading of my comments. I offer a reasoning behind any assertion being made, I certainly do not fight this in cultural purity grounds. I argue the case that is available on the evidence that is available.You would have seen I offer up no alternate to the AIT, I do not ,because I simply don't see any evidence available that would support it. I merely point out that the AIT has no backing of archaeologists, doesn't have any backing in the Rg veda itself and is purely speculative based on a an obvious linguistic connection. That connection remains un explained which does merit keeping an open mind but no unambiguous evidence exists to prove any theory of migration or invasion.

No, I am not getting annoyed by your comments, but I am annoyed at your refusal to accept genetic studies that have been carried out by experts. I have provided you plenty of proof from historical, genetic, & linguistic claims. You chose to deny them all. We aren't discussing the Aryan Invasion, but at this point we are discussing an Aryan migration. Sources I referred to earlier explain possible causes of missing archaeological evidence in spite of the presence of genetic evidence, one of them being the nomadic life style some Indo-Aryans had.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

The mention in Rig Veda that Sarasvati originated from high mountains is unimportant to you with regard to discounting the theory of it being Ghagar Hakra (referring to your earlier posts). And to discount the theory of Haraxvathi being Sarasvati, you mention Rig Vedic edict that Haraxvathi does not flow to the sea, is oxymoron.

You literary spanked him.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Can anyone explain me why even so far away Bengalis Brahmins have less ASI genes on average compared to local population?

Bengalis | Harappa Ancestry Project