We Are All Harappans

[Suriya]

All that matters to us is that unpure black hindus from ganga land dont try to co opt or connect themselves with the heritage and land of Pakistan

This is Pak sarzameen, land of the pure

Dont talk about the history ir heritage of this land and people

There is 100% chance that i'am lighter skinned than you . But that is beside the matter , u carry on BS.

 

[hussain0216]

There is 100% chance that i'am lighter skinned than you . But that is beside the matter , u carry on BS.

Im from Kashmir, you look like a chimpanzee compared to me

People of the IVC looked like the Pakistanis of today, the same tribes, the same people, just go back a few thousand years

Im not sure where you jungle people come from

 

[Jaanbaz]

Is this argument still going on?

 

[Suriya]

Im from Kashmir, you look like a chimpanzee compared to me

People of the IVC looked like the Pakistanis of today, the same tribes, the same people, just go back a few thousand years

Moron , There are enough Tamil especially Brahmin who look Kashmiris while i'm a north Indian brahmin . So don't give me that kashmiri look shit . You carry on ur BS . Bye .

 

[Hamza913]

And there was an eastern migration, as proven with the settlements(and genes...) increasingly going from west to east. With the beginning mixture forming ASI at the extreme frontier going west to east. So with the beginning genes forming the Indus vally civ people's starting at Iran not even that long ago, what makes you they didnt go past Pakistan? Should even be a question, because it did.

I've already told you, give me evidence that the people from IVC migrated further eastward during or after the civilisation took place.

Moron , There are enough Tamil especially Brahmin who look Kashmiris

Who's the moron again?

There is 100% chance that i'am lighter skinned than you

Considering he's in the UK and you're in Hindustan, I doubt it. But it's irrelevant either way, you get light skinned monkeys too you know.

 

[Peshwa]

Did they takes slaves? Yes, that's pretty evident in the history books.

Did they commit mass rape? No, there is no evidence of that. You're making the claim, so the onus of proof is on you, because as per historical sources from the time, most of the sex that went on was with consent from both parties involved.

Consent how? Did the slaves consent to sex?
For that matter, can mass rapes ever be proven in medieval conquests?

No invasion during that time was bereft of rape, it’s the oldest tool of war.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

I've already told you, give me evidence that the people from IVC migrated further eastward during or after the civilisation took place.

It's like saying give me proof of an incursion of ANI happening into India after ICV. There's real no proof on the ground what-so-ever. But if ANI is missing from the samples during the Indus vally period, but strong in modern times it must have happened after the sample.

Just like if the formation of the ASI gene group, mixture started in Eastern Iran not that long ago, AND not far off from beginnings of the Indus Valley period. And there was settlement trend moving from West to East(this is actually proof on the ground) with some of the largest cities outside Pakistan itself. And today the ASI gene populating all of S. Asian, strongest among the low caste, tribal population. You can come to the conclusion there was movement eastward. Not only that, there was some sort of subjugation in the form of the caste system on to the ASI group.

 

[Hamza913]

Consent how? Did the slaves consent to sex?
For that matter, can mass rapes ever be proven in medieval conquests?

No invasion during that time was bereft of rape, it’s the oldest tool of war.

Yes they clearly did, there is no evidence of large numbers of them ever rebelling against their captors or complaining about being forced into intercourse.

They can be proven as historical documents will display individuals bragging about it (e.g Genghis Khan), or you will find documentation of large amounts of individuals complaining about it.

The biggest pieces of evidence against your claim are the fact that rape is haram and punished pretty severely in Islam, and the fact that there is an absence of evidence of individuals complaining about being raped or bragging about raping others.

It's like saying give me proof of an incursion of ANI happening into India after ICV.

No it's not, because I can quite easily give you proof of such an event occurring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

Can you do the same for your claim of people from IVC migrating eastwards in mass numbers?

 

[Water Car Engineer]

No it's not, because I can quite easily give you proof of such an event occurring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

Can you do the same for your claim of people from IVC migrating eastwards in mass numbers?

You gave me a wiki page, thanks. Language and religion arent everything. Most of the Muslim world arent Arab.

It was this sample that proved that an incursion happened soon after, because it lacked any ANI strand at a specific point.

Now, ASI mixture formed not long before the Indus period in E. Iran to begin with. Today's Eastern Iran lacks this mixture. So there was a movement west to east as genetics show among people. During which settlements starting at the west. At the mature state, large sophisticated and populated settlements were at the eastern frontier. So, movement there is actually shown on the ground. After this came the decay, and ANI incursion. With the ANI incursion, further movement probably happened eastward, with the genetic relation of the Indus vally's people among people's outside the region of the civ itself.

 

[Peshwa]

Yes they clearly did, there is no evidence of large numbers of them ever rebelling against their captors or complaining about being forced into intercourse.

They can be proven as historical documents will display individuals bragging about it (e.g Genghis Khan), or you will find documentation of large amounts of individuals complaining about it.

The biggest pieces of evidence against your claim are the fact that rape is haram and punished pretty severely in Islam, and the fact that there is an absence of evidence of individuals complaining about being raped or bragging about raping others.

The act of slavery itself is against the will of the person, and here you’re claiming that slaves weren’t abused!

There are several Indian accounts of women committing “jauhar” to avoid rapes from Islamic invasions of India.

Regarding the highlighted, no religion or society condones rape, so it being “haram” is not evidence of such incidents not happening during invasions. That’s a weak argument to begin with.

 

[Hamza913]

The act of slavery itself is against the will of the person, and here you’re claiming that slaves weren’t abused!

There are several Indian accounts of women committing “jauhar” to avoid rapes from Islamic invasions of India.

Regarding the highlighted, no religion or society condones rape, so it being “haram” is not evidence of such incidents not happening during invasions. That’s a weak argument to begin with.

I'm claiming they weren't raped, because I know for a fact there is no historical evidence for it. I'm not sure about other forms of abuse though (but that's haram too).

No, they burnt themselves because they couldn't handle the humiliation of being defeated, they often even dragged their families in with them. It's completely barbaric. Islam coming to this region was a damn blessing, and is one of the major reasons practices like this one died out in the region (Muslim rulers banned it, and the British then followed in our footsteps).

No it's not, because of a lot of these invaders were pretty religious, it's hard to believe they would do something like this.

You gave me a wiki page, thanks.

Check the citations if you consider Wikipedia unreliable.

I'm still waiting for you to give me proof of your claims.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Check the citations if you consider Wikipedia unreliable.

I'm still waiting for you to give me proof of your claims.

Go re-read, bud. And no, before the sample, there was no proof on the ground, period.

 

[Hamza913]

Go re-read, bud.

I have, there's still no source.

Don't make claims you can't support.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

I have, there's still no source.

Don't make claims you can't support.

So you dont think there's a eastern movement after ward when ASI mixture happened not long before the early Indus valley period in E. Iran? And this mixture is lacking in modern E. Iran? And the early settlements starting in that region and eventually moved west to east, actual proof on the ground, btw. All you see is a mass movement east ward.

It's pretty obvious a shift happened, because the mixture isnt that old, ASI is the first major S. Asian population group and is associated with the ICV. Formed not long before the early ICV settlments, and it's all over S. Asia, strongest among low caste, tribals. Yeah, a migration eastward is what's being pointed at, bud.

Dont let pride get in the way. With limited resource we have settlement movement from Iran to India, we have genetic movement from Iran(lacking today) to India(emass), we have dating of the mixture happening not long before the early Indus period. All it shows is an eastern migration.

 

[Hamza913]

So you dont think there's a eastern movement after ward when ASI mixture happened not long before the early Indus valley period in E. Iran?

No, I don't think a major eastern movement of ASI people occurred from IVC further into Hindustan. There were almost certainly major eastern migrations of ASI people before IVC, but certainly not during or after it. In fact, during the civilisation I'd expect the opposite to be true (i.e a westward migration of people into IVC from uncivilised Hindustan).