Questions!

[notsuperstitious]

^^^ Right! You posted all unknown people!!!

Besides the point is, sindhis do not look like pashtuns, so? Two quami nazariya? So you support Sindhudesh?

Nobody here is disappointed, the point i'm making is that nation states have nothing to do with looks. Thats the most bigoted definition of nationhood there even can be.

Here's india's football captain to add to the confusion in your head

 

[Omar1984]

^ Most Indians dont look like him. As I said there are always exceptions, but there is an Indian look that most Indians have such as Gandhi and Pranab Mukherjee have and there is a Pakistani look that Prime Minister of Pakistan Gilani has.

I've lived in UK and US I've seen how a typical Indian looks like and how a typical Pakistani looks like.

 

[Elmo]

And then women are accused of being obsessed with looks!!!!!

Okay so this thread has taken an interesting turn...

@ Airboss: Agreed, Urdu and Hindi are different. Or at least shudh hindi and saleekh urdu are. Urdu was known as the language of the lashkars (armies) and draws its vocabularies from many languages especially Hindi. After Partition and because of PTV and Radio Pakistan as our media, what we the masses pass off as Urdu vocabulary is more like Farsi than Hindi.

I disagree with the Punjabi bit, its just the variation in dialects. Like Faisalabadi Punjabi is different from that spoken in Bahawalpur or in areas of Abbottabad. That's quite expected given the size of the region. The structure is the same, the words differ.
The same holds true for Pashto spoken in Quetta and Peshawar and as you go further up north (e.g. there are many Pathans who pronounce Pe-sh-awar as Pa-kh-awar).
If you listen to taith Punjabi(that's the pure unadulterated version, not heard in the cities of the India and Pakistan [those are heavily influenced by Hindi and Urdu], you'll realise that the language is the same more or less).

Also, their claim that Pakistanis & Indians are the same people...

Regional variability and genetics. Like there were no Pathans or Balochs in Kerala and the same is true vice versa. Plus, yes the way we dress is also different.
Someone mentioned something about us not being Dravidians, sorry that's wrong. A lot of us here in Pakistan are Dravidians genetically (you should read up more on how races are divided: there are caucasoids, negroids, aborigines, mongoloids, dravids etc etc). I'll see if I can find the link and post it here.

 

[Omar1984]

And then women are accused of being obsessed with looks!!!!!

Okay so this thread has taken an interesting turn...

@ Airboss: Agreed, Urdu and Hindi are different. Or at least shudh hindi and saleekh urdu are. Urdu was known as the language of the lashkars (armies) and draws its vocabularies from many languages especially Hindi. After Partition and because of PTV and Radio Pakistan as our media, what we the masses pass off as Urdu vocabulary is more like Farsi than Hindi.

I disagree with the Punjabi bit, its just the variation in dialects. Like Faisalabadi Punjabi is different from that spoken in Bahawalpur or in areas of Abbottabad. That's quite expected given the size of the region. The structure is the same, the words differ.
The same holds true for Pashto spoken in Quetta and Peshawar and as you go further up north (e.g. there are many Pathans who pronounce Pe-sh-awar as Pa-kh-awar).
If you listen to taith Punjabi(that's the pure unadulterated version, not heard in the cities of the India and Pakistan [those are heavily influenced by Hindi and Urdu], you'll realise that the language is the same more or less).

Also, their claim that Pakistanis & Indians are the same people...

Regional variability and genetics. Like there were no Pathans or Balochs in Kerala and the same is true vice versa. Plus, yes the way we dress is also different.
Someone mentioned something about us not being Dravidians, sorry that's wrong. A lot of us here in Pakistan are Dravidians genetically (you should read up more on how races are divided: there are caucasoids, negroids, aborigines, mongoloids, dravids etc etc). I'll see if I can find the link and post it here.

Yes Pakistanis have lots of variety. You will find people with blonde hair and blue eyes in the north and even black skin and negroid features in the Makran coast but majority of Pakistanis are not Dravadians.

 

[Gabbar]

Pakistani Boys:

The six Pakistani boys, who strayed into India, being interrogated by Indian and Pakistani officials in New Delhi on Friday. Indian government agreed to send them back to Pakistan. — PTI photos

Indian boys:

 

[Gabbar]

Not all Indian are same as Pakistanies. I can't on behalf of other ethnesities but I definetly know that Punabies on both sides share same build and even genetics. Look at the last names, you will find many last names same on both sides.

 

[Omar1984]

^ Well I did say there's always exceptions. Why do Indians always have a hard time facing the fact that Pakistanis and Indians are two different people?

Yes some Punjabis are similar with one another but still are not the same, but Pakistanis are not similar to the vast majority of India's population.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Most Indian are not really interested in promoting any theories about Pakistanis being the same people as Indians.

Yet, there is a point that can be made about the Urdu language, particularly the verbs used in Urdu. Verbs are the most important words in a language, in fact they are considered the core of a language.

I am reproducing the opinions of two linguistic experts below:

Excerpts from an article by M. Hashim Kidwai

In the stock of Urdu vocabulary while most of the nouns are Persio-Arabic, all verbs are of Sanskrit origin. Words like aana (to come), jana (to go), chalna (to walk), bolna (to speak), maarna (to kill or beat), marna (to die), khana (to eat), pina (to drink), karna (to do), uthna (to rise), likhna (to write), parhna (to read), dena (to give), lena (to take) are of purely Indian origin. All prepositions such as se (from), tak (to), per (at), on (upon) and men (in, into) and most adverbs of time, place and manner such as idhar (hither), kidhar (whither), yahaan (here), wahaan (there), ab (now), kab (when), kahaan (where), kaise (how), aisa (thus) are fully adopted in Urdu. Words of non-Indian origin like jungle (forest), maal (wealth), maidan (field or ground), makan (house), kaghaz (paper), pull (bridge), sal (year), tamasha (fun), station, ticket, engine, bus, car, school, college, university, sarkar (government), shikar (game or hunt), are such that one would find difficult to avoid.

It has been computed that out of total 55960 words in the Urdu dictionary only 13625, i.e., less than 25 per cent are of Persio-Arabic origin and not less than 21600 are purely of Sanskrit origin, and the remaining belong to other sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Verbal Deficiency!


One of the structural weaknesses of Urdu is its very small base of verbs compared to a very large base of nouns. This seems to have resulted from wholesale adoption of nouns from other languages like Farsi, Arabic, English, and so on, while not importing verbs from any of these languages. For example, we have a word like ‘darkhwast’ (request [noun]/application), borrowed from Farsi, but no corresponding verb to go with it. As a result we end up with verb-equivalents like ‘darkhwast-dena’ or ‘darkhwast-karna’. To understand the difference, consider the scenario where there was no way in English to say ‘he requested’, or ‘he applied’; instead one had to use ‘he sent a request’, or ‘he submitted an application’, every time one wanted to convey the message. Verbs ’sent’ and ’submitted’ acting as props for the nouns ‘request’ and ‘application’. Ability to say ‘he applied’ opens many more options of expression and adds to fluency of the language. Even the borrowed verbs like ‘drive’ from English only come into Urdu as nouns, since to convert them into verb we need a standard prop like ‘-karna’, as in ‘drive-karna’ or ‘drive-kia’. Something that would literally translate back into English as ‘to do drive’ rather than ‘to drive’.

All of the native standalone verbs in Urdu seem to come out of Hindi and Sanskrit origins. For example, ‘dekhna’, ‘pakaRna’, ‘aana’, ‘bhagna’, ‘palatna’, ‘jhagaRna’, etc. None of these need any props to facilitate expression.

In comparison, Arabic and English seem very rich in verbs. It would be curious to study what impact this shortage of verbs leaves on the culture that builds around the Urdu language.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

^ Most Indians dont look like him. As I said there are always exceptions, but there is an Indian look that most Indians have such as Gandhi and Pranab Mukherjee have and there is a Pakistani look that Prime Minister of Pakistan Gilani has.

I've lived in UK and US I've seen how a typical Indian looks like and how a typical Pakistani looks like.

Omar, you must be a genius to have figured out how the average Indians and Pakistani looks by living in the UK and the US!!

 

[Omar1984]

^ Indians cant even read Urdu. Go to a Pakistani grocery store and pick up an Urdu newspaper, you'll be lost and Pakistanis cant read Hindi.

Also search for Allama Iqbal's Udu poetry on youtube. Let me know if you can understand any of it.

 

[toxic_pus]

What about the genetic marker M124, which is common to the entire subcontinent.

R2 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup characterized by genetic marker M124, and is rarely found outside India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern Central Asia. It is sometimes classified as haplogroup R1b2.

Source

Looks can be deceiving. Looks are the direct result of natural selection and depend on the environment one lives in. Thus, just because two people look differently doesn't mean, that they are genetically different. Similarly, two similar looking people need not have the same genetic composition.

Any one can easily identify a person from Europe, India/Pakistan or China. Thats because they are more different than they are similar. While, for most of us, it will be very difficult to distinguish between a Chinese and a Korean. Thats because they are more similar that they are different.

When people say that Indians and Pakistanis are similar, what they mean is that they are more similar than different.

 

[Omar1984]

Omar, you must be a genius to have figured out how the average Indians and Pakistani looks by living in the UK and the US!!

When you travel the world, meet different kinds of people, talk to people from different countries you will understand.

We Pakistanis can usually tell a Pakistani apart from an Indian but as I said for 70th time theres always exceptions.

 

[Omar1984]

What about the genetic marker M124, which is common to the entire subcontinent.

Source

Looks can be deceiving. Looks are the direct result of natural selection and depend on the environment one lives in. Thus, just because two people look differently doesn't mean, that they are genetically different. Similarly, two similar looking people need not have the same genetic composition.

Any one can easily identify a person from Europe, India/Pakistan or China. Thats because they are more different than they are similar. While, for most of us, it will be very difficult to distinguish between a Chinese and a Korean. Thats because they are more similar that they are different.

When people say that Indians and Pakistanis are similar, what they mean is that they are more similar than different.

Not really. Pashtuns, Baloch, and Kalash share no similarities with Indians. Some Sindhis might be similar to the Hindu Sindhis who migrated to India after partition but they make less than 1% of India's population. Some Punjabis maybe similar to some Punjabis of India but they make less than 3% of India's population.

Pakistanis are their own people. I think Indians are more similar to Bangladeshis than Pakistanis.

 

[notsuperstitious]

This is really getting weird. Omar, yes people are different from district to district. not just here, it happens all across the word. its nurture and nature mixed.

You are saying 'pakistanis' are different, hey what is pakistan? its also a mix of different people like india. it was religion that was the supposed differentiator in 1947 and looks like after 1971 its the 'looks'

genetically atleast 75% pakistani population if of indic stock, the rest iranic and turkic.

are we different in terms of customs, food, dressing etc, yes that changes every few hundred kilometers, so yes we are. its what u r looking at. we are different and we are similar, what do u want to look at depends on your political stand.

Probably 15 years back pakistan had the issue of an independent image. after 9/11 however pakistan has managed to create a firm image in world's eyes. so no need to work on 'how we are different' so fervently, nobody's taking you for indians.

 

[notsuperstitious]

^ Most Indians dont look like him. As I said there are always exceptions, but there is an Indian look that most Indians have such as Gandhi and Pranab Mukherjee have and there is a Pakistani look that Prime Minister of Pakistan Gilani has.

I've lived in UK and US I've seen how a typical Indian looks like and how a typical Pakistani looks like.

But tell me you don't feel love for indians when you look at that picture... almost chinese