LaBong
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,506
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
British Indian borders were man made. In fact they had to conquer 600 territories to create their Indian empire. Your theory of a united India once again ignores the countless of languages, cultures and people that are in the subcontinent.
And how people living in those territories were different than each other? And why you're comparing the culture and languages of today's India and Pakistan with that of IVC? Makes no sense, does it? With all the differences indic languages have it has been proven without any doubt that all of the north-indic languages have a common source, which, yet again as the countless times I had to point it out, is totally different from that of Pashto and Kahsmir.
The "Iranic border" claim is also ignorant. There is less difference between a Pashtun and a Punjabi than there is between a Punjabi and a Tamil or Assamese. There are many culture and language borders in the subcontinent, but you are simply promoting one to justify your Ancient Indian nation. Not to mention you are promoting yet another migration theory for Pashtuns to claim their history.
Not sure why you keep adding the mass-migration theory to my arsenal when I have no wish to use it at all. Without and certain genetic marks of IVC people, and proofs of mass-migration and lack thereof, we have to stick to what we have in hand. That is the linguistic and cultural evidence. There's no cultural and linguistic resemblance of what was followed in IVC and Takshashila with Afghans. Period.