Saudi Arabian looted in Mumbai; gang targeted 44 Arabs

[Nilgiri]

You did not get the point. The average Arab would obviously stick out in Southern India. I don't even know why this is necessary to point out. Even more so if that person is a tourist.

Simiarily in Pakistan and it has nothing to do with skin color but facial features, you being an apparent tourist etc. Also thank God, I have not light hair, eyes or skin as I consider those features to be ugly. But I am actually 194 cm tall. In shoes, lol. You guessed that.

Do you think that I would blend in, in say Peshawar as a tourist visiting for the first time? Would a Pakistani blend in, in some village in Southern KSA? You already have your answer and the answer is no in both places.

You will stick out almost anywhere in India. Arabs look quite different to most Indians.

But South Indians will find you more intriguing and be friendly in curious sort of way....whereas north indians may be more snobby or rude (of course just a minority of them). If you stick to the major tourist circuits etc.... anywhere and pay attention to the common sense of touring developing countries....you should be fine.

Do a read up on the travel warnings of all the areas you plan to visit. Plenty of youtube videos and internet articles out there.

 

[Sargon of Akkad]

My apologies Sargon, don't know why but I read "Suriname" instead of "Senegal".

Anyways, Senegal is colored very dark in the map. So no, nothing you said contradicts the map.

What? Look at your 76 year old nonsense map, made by God knows who using God knows which "data", again. Senegal has even a lighter color than Yemen!

Half of Northern Sudan, including Darfur, has the same skin color as half of Arabia (80% of Saudi Arabia) and 50% of Iran (Southern Iran). This is just another new example I found.

Shall I try with Darfur this time around to make my point very clear?

Darfur people:



Those people are apparently twice as light-skinned as neighboring people of Chad.

People of Chad.



Please help me out here but I cannot see any difference.

You are free to google all the photos that I have used. I don't have to tell you to Google the Rio Olympic Parade photos, I assume.

I really think that you should take a close look at the map that you have used and take a look at a world map.

Anyway I could not care less about skin color, I am just countering obvious nonsense. Can't help myself.

Lastly here is an video of two Emirati Arab girls (natives) visiting South India. They look like your average Emirati/Arabian women.

Are you going to tell me, like that Pashtun clown, that they would not look apart in South India?

Here is another example:

I know that some of you are biased towards Arabs for whatever reason, but this is beyond belief.

Lastly I find some Black people (Habesha people) to be much better looking than many Europeans, Arabs, South Asians, Middle Easterners etc. So I am by no means trying to insult Black people here.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Sargon of Akkad

Lets get back to the topic bro....ignore the people disputing this skin colour/looks thing.

Arabs would for most part stick out in India, Pakistan etc....case closed.

I find it funny that a very racist demeaning guy (who has posted all kinds of racist garbage against Indians) is arguing with you earlier about all kinds of things....best to ignore him bro.

 

[Maira La]

What? Look at your 76 year old nonsense map..

Yup, it's nonsense because it's an old map. Great logic.

Half of Northern Sudan, including Darfur, has the same skin color as half of Arabia (80% of Saudi Arabia) and 50% of Iran (Southern Iran). This is just another new example I found.

Shall I try with Darfur this time around to make my point very clear?

Darfur people:



Those people are apparently twice as light-skinned as neighboring people of Chad.

People of Chad.

You can fill the entire forum with pictures of the darkest Africans, but the fact is no two African tribes look exactly the same with the same skin color.

The author of the map had access to surveys of real people all over the globe and chose not to rely on random pictures like our friend here.

Anyways, I don't think we'll agree on this as long as you refuse to absorb new knowledge with an open mind. So let's call it a day.

 

[Tergon18]

First of all you know absolutely nothing about Arabs, the history of the Arab world or Semites. All those ancient groups of people that you mentioned are all Semitic peoples native to the Arab world and closely related. As proven by genetics, geography, history and linguistic closeness. Aside from common sense.

I believe that I already had a similar discussion with you where you embarrassed yourself once again. I proved you wrong by posting actual DNA tests, a world map of skin colors etc. and by educating you on something called Afro-Arabs which are overrepresented in the Saudi Arabian army.

Don't worry all Muslims are called that term. I believe that your type of people are called that ALONGSIDE the term Gypsy. So you have it twice as bad. But you seem to identity with those ignorants?

Of course a Saudi Arabian/Arab would not stick out in South Asia in particular among such compatriots of yours like those below or in particular Southern Indians.

As for your photos, the first photo contains 2 Saudi Arabians. The rest people of almost exclusively Yemeni ancestry. Did you know that OBL was half Yemeni (Hadhrami) and half Syrian? No you did not. As for the rest of your photos, there is nothing remotely South Asian or Indian among them.

Pak army:



Where is the difference here DESPITE an overrepresentation of Afro-Arabs in your examples?

Saudi Arabian army (non Afro-Arabs)



And Santa Claus lives in Chad.

Now get lost with your pathetic nonsense trolling, Pashtun.

There is little point in posting pictures, as it almost always leads to cherry-picking.

This is what the Saudi royal family looked like when they were still spending most of their time in the deserts.

Stick to actual maps of skin colour and not photo spam, as it proves little.

On average, I would agree that the typical Peninsular Hejazi Arab look is different to Pakistani looks. However, your average Hejazi Peninsular Arab can't pass in Southern Europe or is interchangeable with Southern Europeans, Latinos or even Levantines as you seem to believe.

 

[Sargon of Akkad]

Yup, it;s nonsense because it's an old map. Great logic.

You are all over the place. That map is useless because the data on it is useless as any informed person would know. Nor do we know anything about the data behind. My examples speaks for themselves and no Senegalese, Ivorians, people of Togo, Darfur, Chad etc. are by no means even remotely related or have even remotely the same skin color as people of Yemen, half of Arabia and half of Iran. I don't even want to waste more seconds of my life on arguing why that is.

Your nonsense of African tribes being diverse is useless nonsense as everyone knows that all Sub-Saharan Africans, expect Horners (who have Middle Eastern ancestry as confirmed by DNA and their physical features and appearances) look very much alike in terms of skin color. In particular West Africans.

Next thing you will tell me is that Bangladeshis are lighter than people of Arabia and that South Indians are lighter skinned than people of Sham.

Look, I could not care less about skin color but when ignorants here are writing nonsense about my people (Arabs) and try to propagandize nonsense, I will react like any other sane people.

I would act similarly if a clown here or elsewhere would claim that Arabs on average looked like this:





@Tergon18

You are cherry-picking being well aware of that. I posted representative photos of South Asian athletes during the Rio 2016 Olympics Parade and the Saudi Arabian athletes. I posted large group photos of Saudi Arabians as well. None looked/look like your average South Asian. Lighter skin color and much different facial features (West Asian).

Our geography, history and genetics (we are more closely related to neighboring Southern Europeans than you South Asians) which DNA also confirms.

The 2 athletes in the furthest row (the ones in the middle) are Afro-Arabs yet they appear lighter.


This is what racist Europeans had to say when they described he races of the world.

Physical appearance

The Arabid race was distinguished from the West-Mediterranean race by some minor characteristic facial traits. These include almond-shaped eyes, very dark hair color, the Semitic smile (conditioned by unusually deep Fossa canina), untanned skin color tending to a pale olive, and often but not always a narrow or a broad aquiline nose.

This physical type had in earlier times a broader-formed Syrid subtype, which was found among the farmers of the Fertile Crescent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race

Your map is nonsense as I already proved. People of Niger, Chad, Mali etc. have the same skin tone as Arabia, 1/3 of Iran and all of Iraq. Makes perfect sense in a parallel universe I guess. Please don't make me laugh.

Hijazi Arabs are more or less genetically identical to neighboring Levantines. Take a look at any DNA test.

Are you now going to use Black and White photos?

House of Saud family members are not Black. Their skin tone is that of your average Middle Eastern person. You can have pale members (as Arabs) such as King Abdullah and you can have more olive skin ones such as King Salman. None of them resemble any Africans let alone South Asians.



Try harder.

As for Hijazis, native Hijazi Arabs look like members of the Hashemite dynasty:



I also suggest you to take a look at how Prophet Muhammad (saws) and the majority of the Sahaba were described by contemporary sources. Ansar too.

Anyway if genetics, history, ground realities, proving 76 year old nonsense maps (how was that nonsense data collected, who created it etc. ?) wrong for everyone to see, posting photos of ordinary Saudi Arabians (women as men, athletes competing during the Olympics this year) etc. is not enough, I guess nobody will ever be.

Yes, Afro-Arabs are Arabs and Saudi Arabians but they make up around 5% of all Arabs worldwide (if not much less) and in the case of KSA 10% of the population. They are not native people. Using them as the dominating sample makes as much sense as those maps that were posted.

People in KSA/Arabia/Arab World who are not affiliated with an Arab clan/tribe are more often than not, not of Arab origin either but a diverse origin.

As for your last photo, those are not Saudi Arabians but foreign workers who are protesting. I googled your photo.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-bid-to-boost-job-prospects-for-locals.html

Try harder next time.

@Sargon of Akkad

Lets get back to the topic bro....ignore the people disputing this skin colour/looks thing.

Arabs would for most part stick out in India, Pakistan etc....case closed.

I find it funny that a very racist demeaning guy (who has posted all kinds of racist garbage against Indians) is arguing with you earlier about all kinds of things....best to ignore him bro.

Exactly which is the point here. I will do so however I cannot stop myself from countering obvious nonsense maps or false accusations about my people from invidiuals who have no knowledge about the topics that they are discussing. They have likely never encountered an single native Saudi Arabian or Arab in person (those people living in South Asia). Meanwhile we, the GCC, host the largest South Asian diaspora in the world. I have been surrounded by South Asians my entire life. I know how the average person from Kerala, Bangladesh, Punjab, Pashtun, Baloch, Nepalese etc. looks like. Just as I know how the average West African, Horner, South East Asian person looks like. Simply because I see them everywhere. We all do. There are millions of them here in the GCC.

They don't understand that skin color is secondary here. I simply said that Arabs will stand out in South India. As will most Arabs in South Asia and vice versa. I also recall writing that the average Arab is lighter than the average South Asian although both populations are comparable and that Arabs will have an easier time blending in than say Westerners or say East Asians but that we will still be seen as separate people.

Anyway if that Bangladeshi is trying to convince me of the opposite being the case based on some nonsense maps that I have disproven in matter of seconds, then so be it. Also I have no idea where he got his "light-skinned" Arabs nonsense from. As I already wrote we are people (natives) of Western Asia and North Africa. Our skin tones vary but the most widespread is a olive skin tone. We are proud of that and anyone who knows anything about Arabic poetry will know that we even have poems about the beauty of the olive skin. Also I am not sure why he seems to be hateful/ashamed of darker skinned people or features. Why is it that I see South Asians often discussing skin color but not Arabs unless I am dragged into discussions here? Be confident in your own skin. And yes, I will counter clowns/trolls/ignorant people who try to make the 10% Afro-Arab community in KSA representative of Saudi Arabians or the 5% of Afro-Arabs representative of all 450 million Arabs worldwide. It would be no different if I claimed that all South Asians are 100% Dravidians.

As far as goes for Black people, I find Semitic-Speaking peoples of Ethiopia such as Habesha (half Middle Eastern and half Sub-Saharan people) as some of the most beautiful women. More often than not much better looking than people of the ME, South Asia etc. Likewise mixed women from Cuba and other parts of Latin America. As I wrote I have olive skin myself and I look Middle Eastern. Nor do I find pale, blond people beautiful or desirable rather the opposite. Maybe those people do hence such type of discussions, I do not know. But anyway if I can stop reading posts of ignorant trolls I will tell them that Arabs indeed look like the average person from Senegal, Ivory Coast, Togo, Darfur. Back to topic.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Sargon of Akkad

Can you share what kind of tourism and activities you prefer? i.e do you like more cultural, entertainment, history, natural scenery?

Kerala definitely has a good variety of all of this, so do other states in the South. I can help you decide a potential safest more rewarding tourism route for you in India dependent on how much time you see yourself spending there.

 

[Sargon of Akkad]

@Sargon of Akkad

Can you share what kind of tourism and activities you prefer? i.e do you like more cultural, entertainment, history, natural scenery?

Kerala definitely has a good variety of all of this, so do other states in the South. I can help you decide a potential safest more rewarding tourism route for you in India dependent on how much time you see yourself spending there.

I value cultural (everything from local cuisine to local entertainment) and historical sights the most along with natural scenery. Holidays at some all-inclusive resorts can occasionally be an attractive thing but I would never spend 3 weeks on some resort and doing nothing than sitting on a nearby beach or swimming pool.
I prefer more active holidays. Especially more "authentic" ones where I am able to interact with locals. Meaning being less reliant on a stay at some resort and guided tours although I know that some of them are great. I have experienced both good and bad ones.

Since I am yet to visit South Asia in person I would like to experience as much as possible. So 1 week at some resort in Kerala/Goa I can live with as long as the two other weeks will be used on personal exploration of cultural (interacting with the ordinary man and woman would be a plus) and historical sites along with natural scenery.

The only thing that I "demand" is that my life and that of my loved ones or friends will not be in danger or that I will not face too many hazards that might make a possible visit unpleasant. As far as luxury goes I do not need much of that but of course certain standards should be met not to make life overly difficult.

Anyway what I might essentially be looking for in those 2 weeks time is some kind of semi-backpacker experience. Can you feel me?

Also out of Hyderabad, Chennai and Bangalore which city would you recommend me to visit? I know that those cities are not located in Kerala or Goa but as I wrote some pages ago, I would like to see other parts of South India when I am there. 2 weeks should be enough to at least see one of those big cities.

It has to be said that I have not done overly much research on my own yet and nothing is obviously decided however I welcome every advice as I will probably end up visiting India one day. Certainly South Asia whether it will be Pakistan first, Sri Lanka or Nepal etc. is to be seen.

However from what I have seen (everything considered) I am more hooked on South India as the first try at least. It is already a known, somewhat popular destination, for Arabs from the GCC so it would be a good start.

Anyway large and hectic crowds do not bother me, nor chaotic traffic (KSA has nothing to envy in this regard). I am less prone to accepting lack of cleanness but I hear that South India is doing good on this front.

Preferably I would love to do some tour across South Asia from Pakistan to South India and from there to Burma but I do not know if such a thing will ever materialize.

 

[livingdead]

@Sargon of Akkad I would suggest that you not to be be afraid of north India.... if you have been to south/central america, you have been to the worse places already. North Indians are aggressive people, only in relative sense, but it does not mean they are out to kill you.
You will very unlikely to be mugged in India, even in the dodgiest looking places, knife crime is very low and gun crimes practically does not exist(that you need to worry about, you wont be visiting those areas anyway).


Vast majority of tourists(the white ones at least) go to north India... because thats where many beautiful monuments lie. Taj mahal is in north India. Are you saying you are more likely to be targeted than a white dude/girl? Very unlikely if you are wearing jeans/tshirt and look like a normal guy.
The iranians can easily pass off as north Indian.. arabs cant may be due to facial feature, not skin color(sharp tall nose). The average iranian might not look like average Indian, but there are enough Indians with such feature for people to wonder.. 'ah may be he is somewhere from north'... as long as you dont open your mouth, you can use that confusion in your favor. Also you speak English, thats very useful in India.

For 3 weeks travel I would suggest:
1. Land in goa, stay for few days, use it to acclimatize yourself to heat, culture, people etc. Meet foreigners there. Ask them stuff they have done.
2. Go to kerala by train. Pick a day train so that you can see the changing landscape.
3. Fly to Delhi. See delhi(2 days)... agra(1 day, dont stay there), jaipur(1 or 2 day).

Do not insult people, do not shout at people(you will want to, India will test you to your limit) and dont give money to beggars. Maintain poker face in urban centers so that tauts wont hassle you.. wear black shades if that helps.
do read indiamike... its pretty funny and informative. ask your questions in the forums if you want.

if you hate dirty places/people.. you will have really hard time in India.... you will hate it to your guts, you wont wait when you can fly out.. I would suggest you make up your mind.. india is dirty/filthy.

 

[Levina]

Next thing you will tell me is that Bangladeshis are lighter than people of Arabia and that South Indians are lighter skinned than people of Sham.

Since I am yet to visit South Asia in person I would like to experience as much as possible. So 1 week at some resort in Kerala/Goa I can live with as long as the two other weeks will be used on personal exploration of cultural (interacting with the ordinary man and woman would be a plus) and historical sites along with natural scenery.

I recognise you.
Lol

The ring, which operated in mostly in south Mumbai, is suspected to have targeted 44 Arab visitors in the past few years.
The arrests came after the mugging of 70-year-old Saudi Hussain Ali Mubarak, whose tour of prominent locations turned into a nightmare.

When in India, you gotta be street smart.

 

[Tergon18]

@Sargon of Akkad I do agree with your assertion that Hejazi Peninsular Arabs and Pakistanis have different phenotypes and looks. However you simply cannot paint a very diverse region like South Asia all with a same brush.
If you want to keep on peddling that photo of Olympic teams, then here:

Pakistani football team

Saudi football team

There is a great diversity in looks in both the regions.

Your assertion that average Peninsular Hejazi Arab can pass in Southern Europe, is simply not correct. You do realize that there is a difference between genotype and phenotype and, on average, the phenotype of Levantines is different than Gulf Arabs and Peninsular Arabs, being more East Med influenced.

Look at this study from DNA tribes,

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...of51WzxTFggnc6yaA&sig2=TsNms8Oupat0gt7PotZFqQ

The Arabian peninsula, historically hasnt had much European influence.

If you want to go by what 20th century British anthropologists used to say, then Rigley (1915) said this about the 'Indo-Aryan' race of North-West India and Pakistan:

Morphological Features: Skin Colour-Fair Complexion; Head Hair-Brown to Black
Colour and Hair Form-Wavy to Curly; Head Form – Long (Dolichocephalic); Eyes-Dark
Colour; Nose Form -Long, Narrow and prominent; Stature-Tall.

Eickstedt and Coon (1958), referred to the Nord-Indids as being a sub-type of the Mediterrenean race.

The map more or less accurately depicts skin colour distribution. The closest to the Southern Europeans would be Kabyle Berbers not Hejazi Arabs. On all such maps of skin colour, Hejazi or Gulf Arabs are placed as pretty the same in this one.

My picture was black and white since if you want to see the Saudi royal family when the still used to live and spend most of their time in the desert, you would have to see them through a black and white camera since coloured cameras werent there back then. I was trying to make a point about them when they were living in the desert, and not palaces like they do today.

And if you want to take your kings as proxy for your population, heck we can do the same with our politicians.
Chaudhry Sher Ali Khan:

As I have said, I agree with you that Saudis and Pakistanis have a different phenotype but you cant ignore the diversity of Saudi Arabia with all the Bedouins etc. and neither is average Hejazi/Gulf Arab phenotype same as the Levantine, Southern European or East Med one.

 

[livingdead]

@Sargon of Akkad there is little or nothing to see in hyderabad, bangalore, chennai. or mumbai.. these are big urban centers... people will hate me for saying this and will list you things to see there. but you got 3 weeks not 3 months..
why not pick things that you like, places of natural beauty or places of history...

 

[Sargon of Akkad]

@Sargon of Akkad I would suggest that you dont be afraid of north India.... if you have been to south/central america, you have been to the worse places already. North Indians are aggressive people, only in relative sense, but it does not mean they are out to kill you.
You will very unlikely to be mugged in India, even in the dodgiest looking places, knife crime is very low and gun crimes practically does not exist(that you need to worry about, you wont be visiting those areas anyway).


Vast majority of tourists(the white ones at least) go to north India... because thats where many beautiful monuments lie. Taj mahal is in north India. Are you saying you are more likely to be targeted than a white dude/girl? Very unlikely if you are wearing jeans/tshirt and look like a normal guy.
The iranians can easily pass off as north Indian.. arabs cant may be due to facial feature, not skin color(sharp tall nose). The average iranian might not look like average Indian, but there are enough Indians with such feature for people to wonder.. 'ah may be he is somewhere from north'... as long as you dont open your mouth, you can use that confusion in your favor. Also you speak English, thats very useful in India.

For 3 weeks travel I would suggest:
1. Land in goa, stay for few days, use it to acclimatize yourself to heat, culture, people etc. Meet foreigners there. Ask them stuff they have done.
2. Go to kerala by train. Pick a day train so that you can see the changing landscape.
3. Fly to Delhi. See delhi(2 days)... agra(1 day, dont stay there), jaipur(1 or 2 day).

Do not insult people, do not shout at people(you will want to, India will test you to your limit) and dont give money to beggars. Maintain poker face in urban centers so that tauts wont hassle you.. wear black shades if that helps.
do read indiamike... its pretty funny and informative. ask your questions in the forums if you want.

I am not afraid of visiting Northern India and people cannot possibly be more aggressive than Arabs of all people! I have been to Yemen during unrest/unstable times. I simply have to start somewhere and South India looks more accessible. It looks as an interesting destination to visit. Besides most Indians that I know and who are my friends are from Southern India.

Let Westerners do what they want to do. We Arabs do our business differently when we travel, lol. I am not saying anything about me or Arabs being targeted I am simply asking questions.

I believe that quite a few Arabs could pass as Northern Indians rather easily but tourists can be spotted from miles away. As soon as they open their mouth if not much earlier. Locals know how to spot tourists normally whether they are fellow Indians/Arabs/foreigners etc. That is my experience wherever I have been.

Besides I would like to interact with some locals and not "hide myself".

I always try to be respectful of the local culture and customs. As for beggars I try to give them a few cents if they insist and if I can see that they are in a miserable condition but if you say that this should be avoided in India, I will have that in mind.

How common is it for Indians to invite foreigners (tourists) into their homes for some lunch or during a overnight stay? For instance in many Arab and Middle Eastern countries, especially in the countryside, this is quite common. Or at least used to be. I mean such a thing would be what I call an authentic experience.

Also if I were to be traveling with females (I have 3 sisters) should I be particular cautious? I mean you hear about all those rapes. Sorry for bringing it up but how common is it for tourists, that venture out of their resort, tourists hotspots etc. to experience something like that? For example if I walked from a tourist attraction to a nearby restaurant?

Anyway thank you for your recommendations. However if I go to India, I will probably visit South India. But I will have your recommendations in mind.

@Tergon18

See, you are doing the mistake of an uniformed person here. You are showing a photo of the Saudi Arabian national football team and try to pass of that as representative without knowing that 85% of all footballers are Afro-Arabs.

Do you think that this is representative of all 65 million Frenchmen?



Again, Afro-French people are dominating their football team as well.

As for your accusations, almost everything that you are writing is not something I have ever written. I have never written that all South Asians look the same but merely that the average Arab is lighter than the average South Asian. Excluding Afro-Arabs.

If you take a look at almost every DNA test you will realize that Arabs, Saudi Arabians included, share significant DNA with nearby Southern Europeans. In fact much of the DNA of Southern European is purely Middle Eastern/West Asian. Something that South Asians have very little of. There is nothing strange about this considering that most Southern Europeans (less than 10.000 years ago) migrated from West Asia. This has actually been proven by DNA.

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/euro...-eyed-farmers-and-blue-eyed-hunter-gatherers/

Similarly our facial features are Mediterranean which European racialists themselves attested to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race

Also Hijazi Arabs are one out of many, many Arab communities in KSA let alone Arabia as a whole. People of Northern KSA for instance are identical to people of Sham (Levant). Same tribes, clans and families live across those 100 year old borders.

Speaking about DNA, this should be clear:



Middle Easterners, ALL Middle Easterners, cluster much closer to neighboring Europeans, in particular Southern Europeans. There is nothing strange about that when you factor in geography, history, human migration etc.

Not different than South Asians, in particular people from Pakistan, clustering more with Central Asians than people of the ME.

Ok, the point was merely that House of Saud are not Africans and they do not remotely look like Africans. They look like your average Middle Eastern people in terms of skin color.

As far as Bedouins goes, who are merely pastoral nomads that are more archaic, they indeed look more rugged/swarthy but that is due to them being exposed to the sun every single day.
However even among those populations you can find everything from blue eyed somewhat pale looking Bedouins to Afro-Arab Bedouins and everything in between. Not any different from the nomadic peoples of Pakistan whether those in Northern Kashmir or Sindh/Balochistan/Southern Punjab and everything in between. There are also that large community of Pashtun nomads that live in Afghanistan and quite possibly Pakistan too. Their name has escaped my mind. Those people are simply more exposed to the sun for obvious reasons.

Anyway let us forget skin color all together and look at facial features alone. People from the Middle East, Arabs included, have different facial features by large than most South Asians. This is a fact that we cannot simply ignore hence most Arabs will look different even the darkest ones of us. So yes, I do not believe that the average Arab can just blend in South Asia let alone if he is a tourist. Whether this is South India, Nepal, Bangladesh or elsewhere. What I mean by that is the majority here. You will always have exceptions, some large some small.

I agree that it would be easiest in Pakistan but that also depends where in Pakistan. All I was saying. Some people here turned this into some short of "who is lighter" competition. Not interested in that really. But when people here write obvious nonsense, such as claiming that the average Yemeni has the same skin color as the average Ivorian, I obviously find it hard not to comment on such nonsense. Nothing to do with skin color as I would say so as well if a user was claiming that Arabs resembled East Asians.

 

[Nilgiri]

I value cultural (everything from local cuisine to local entertainment) and historical sights the most along with natural scenery. Holidays at some all-inclusive resorts can occasionally be an attractive thing but I would never spend 3 weeks on some resort and doing nothing than sitting on a nearby beach or swimming pool.
I prefer more active holidays. Especially more "authentic" ones where I am able to interact with locals. Meaning being less reliant on a stay at some resort and guided tours although I know that some of them are great. I have experienced both good and bad ones.

Since I am yet to visit South Asia in person I would like to experience as much as possible. So 1 week at some resort in Kerala/Goa I can live with as long as the two other weeks will be used on personal exploration of cultural (interacting with the ordinary man and woman would be a plus) and historical sites along with natural scenery.

The only thing that I "demand" is that my life and that of my loved ones or friends will not be in danger or that I will not face too many hazards that might make a possible visit unpleasant. As far as luxury goes I do not need much of that but of course certain standards should be met not to make life overly difficult.

Anyway what I might essentially be looking for in those 2 weeks time is some kind of semi-backpacker experience. Can you feel me?

Also out of Hyderabad, Chennai and Bangalore which city would you recommend me to visit? I know that those cities are not located in Kerala or Goa but as I wrote some pages ago, I would like to see other parts of South India when I am there. 2 weeks should be enough to at least see one of those big cities.

It has to be said that I have not done overly much research on my own yet and nothing is obviously decided however I welcome every advice as I will probably end up visiting India one day. Certainly South Asia whether it will be Pakistan first, Sri Lanka or Nepal etc. is to be seen.

However from what I have seen (everything considered) I am more hooked on South Asia as the first try at least.

Anyway large and hectic crowds do not bother me, nor chaotic traffic. I am less prone to accepting lack of cleanness but I hear that South India is doing good on this front.

Ok great....now I get what you are more into.

Yes a Kerala - Goa west coast theme sounds really good. Be sure to stop by Mangalore on the way between Kerala and Goa at some point.

Of the major cities you suggest in south....each one has pros and cons...but I think for your format of travel...Bangalore would probably be the easiest to visit since its closest to the west coast region you are already touring and you can easily take a train or bus to it from say calicut in northern kerala (kozhikode as its called now). You can even stop by the historic city of Mysore (the famed Tipu Sultan's capital) in a circuit back to the west coast. Let me give you a map of what I mean:

So you can do your thing in Kerala....very well developed boat based and cultural tourism in many areas.

@Levina can give you some input on what is best for there in say a week of spending time.

Then if you swing through Coimbatore (my hometown) (en route to Bangalore)...you can check out the Nilgiri hills for a cpl days or so which is a mountainous scenic area (with lots of old british houses and such) with its own special heritage railway steam train:

After which you can proceed on to Bangalore (Bengaluru these days) which I can give some details about later (after you have a more firm overall plan in mind after reading this)

From Bangalore you can then go to Mysore (Mysuru) which has plenty of cultural things to see (Mysore palace, tipus summer palace, lots of temples and historic buildings and various parks and gardens etc etc)

Then you can swing back to west coast to Mangalore and proceed on to Goa and finish your time there.

This second leg of the journey I think can cover one whole week...and can extend it to two if you want a bit more leisure unrushed travel etc.

For strict 2 week travel I might suggest skipping the internal detour and just keep it a west coast affair for simplicity sake so you are not rushed in finding more places to stay while you are touring etc (i.e just connect to mangalore directly from calicut and skip out the bangalore thing)....you can add just mysore to it as a semi-compromise since its actually quite a nice cultural place.

 

[Levina]

@Levina can give you some input on what is best for there in say a week of spending time.

Regrettably, I do not have much knowledge on this as I wasnt born and brought up in Kerala. Every year i get just 2-3 weeks to spend in my state, which is spent visiting my near and dear ones.
@nair would be the right person to contact, as he has a good knowledge of different tourist places across Kerala.