Or if you meant Iranic speakers, Afganistan and Tajikistan have a majority of Iranic speakers.

Actually, Greater Iran would probably encompass the regions that were all under the Sassanian Empire, so Iraq, parts of Anatolia (Kurdistan), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan would all be included.

 

 

 

As far as Turan is concerned, why not, I think that it would also be a good addition to the Steppe and central Asia forum.

 

Afghanistan would be Sogdiana (although Sogdiana  encompasses parts of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and Bactria (Balkh is Bactra, if I know my history).

 

I also don't feel a section should be called, "Turan", this is because the term is often blurred. Turkestan is historically more correct, the term was used for centuries.

 

Zagros explains the situation well:

 

 

In addition to this, the term "Ancient Iran" would be better and avoid confusion.

 

 

 

Do you understand what i mean now?

 

You can see the extent of it here:

 

http://www.peakbagger.com/range.aspx?rid=43 - http://www.peakbagger.com/range.aspx?rid=43

Just a few things:

 

first off about this map, these are the Iranic linguistic groups but I was wondering why it showed the Ormuri people(s) enclave found in Pakistan as they are considered more Turkic in Pakistan and not a Persian group?  Also, many of these Iranic groups are heavily populated in areas outside of their traditional homeland.  In Pakistan, for examply, there are now some 4 million plus Pashtuns in the city of Karachi (not including the estimated 1 million plus Afghans which include a sizeable Tajik contribution).  There are numerous Baloch enclaves in Sindh.   Also, the city of Lahore has an estimated 1.5 million Iranic people(s)(Persian, Pashtun, Tajik).  Multan, a major city in central east Pakistan has for centuries been home to several notable Persian families and saints.  The current Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani and his tribe hail from this city.  Im sure a similar situation must exist on other parts the world shown on this map.  Which is why I believe this map may not be the best example of the lands representing Greater Iran.

Originally posted by Aussiedude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iranian_languages_distribution.png"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iranian_languages_distribution.png -

 

I have met a few Iran Zamin enthusiasts here in Pakistan on several occasions, but unfortunately for them, the last 100 and some odd years have worked against what they are striving more, from the abolishment of Persian as the lingua franca (by the British in the late 19th century), and more recently, with the cultural invasion from South Asia, Persian influence is probably at its lowest in Pakistani history.  Interestingly enough, I have not seen any major attempt on a government scale from any of the countries mentioned to help promote and re-kindle this spirit of Greater Iran.

Many of these enthusiasts (Iran Zamin) have called for the re-instution of Persian as the national language in the place of Urdu(The national language for the past 60 years) but mother tongue of less than 5%(mainly a refugee language) of Pakistani.

Im sure a similar process is also taking place in other parts of the former ''Greater Iran'' like in Central Asia, Iraq, Turkey.  How do those proposing this Iran Zamin, hope to tackle this very important cultural and linguistic decline from these regions as from the looks of it, the Colonialist and modern day politics seem to have succeeded in reducing (physically, culturally) the borders of Greater Iran.  

At least here in Pakistan, despite all evidence to the contrary the people are more often then not quite complacent about their history, most of the country's ancient sites, manuscripts, texts were written in Persian, in fact even until the 1930's, most of the property papers and marriage certificates were written in Persian until its abolishment with Urdu which was found by the British to be more effective in reducing the historical influence of Persia and Central Asia on Pakistan, and would prove better in having a common native language throughtout all of its holdings in South Asia (British Raj).  British enacted several policies to in order to alter the identity, culture and language that the ramifications of these policies are still felt today in Pakistan and even Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Zagros I am not aware of any people promoting a concept of greater Iran, I thought this was just a discussion of the geographic "Greater Iran" and whether the term for the subforum was appropriate.

 

That's because there is no 'greater Iran' movement. The only thing i can think of which is remotely 'pan-Iranic' are the recent proposals by the government's of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan to launch a joint Persian-language satellite channel which will broadcast news and other items in Persian on those 3 countries.

It would ruin Iran if we were to merge with Afghanistan politically or if the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Turkey were merged into Iran - I've never met another Iranian who would want this minus a couple of over-zealous and misguided kids on the net. The only area of Afghanistan i would support being reunited with Iran would be Herat because that is actually an Iranian city occupied by the Afghans in the 18th century. One of the blunders of the Qajar era was to sign it away to Afghanistan for good at the end of the Anglo-Persian war.

 

Originally posted by MarcoPolo I have met a few Iran Zamin enthusiasts here in Pakistan on several occasions, but unfortunately for them, the last 100 and some odd years have worked against what they are striving more, from the abolishment of Persian as the lingua franca (by the British in the late 19th century), and more recently, with the cultural invasion from South Asia, Persian influence is probably at its lowest in Pakistani history.

 

Huh?? What??..... 'Iranzamin enthusiasts' from PAKISTAN?? Sorry but lmao....

Now if you're trying to imply that Persian should be the national language of Pakistan, i think dude you are either trying to be more Iranian than Iranians or you are suffering from some kind of inferiority complex. You say that Britain imposed Urdu on what is now Pakistan in place of Persian yet the Moghals (again foreigners to your part of the World) were the ones who imposed Persian on the Indian subcontinent. So how is Persian any better than Urdu as your national language? Persian isnt your language, lol.... Why dont you stop being a wannabe Persian and change your national language to something actually spoken in Pakistan or native to your provinces? Because Persian certainly isnt either of those and your post reeks of an inferiority complex towards Iranians, which is kinda pitiful. You're a Pakistani, and... Pakistanis are overwhelmingly of a different race, culture and civilization to Iranians. What you share with Iranic peoples like the Pashtuns or the Baluch is tiny when compared to what you share in terms of languages, culture, mannerisms, cuisine, physical looks, history, society etc etc etc etc etc etc with Indians, Sri Lankans and so on.

Sorry, but i've met many Pakistanis and Indians in my life and you are very close to eachother, so please, cut your BS out about being under the "historical influence of Persia and Central Asia' and that there is some kind of "South Asian onslaught" on your country - I mean you are a friggen South Asian, lol - Dude, you ever met or seen an Uzbek or a Kazakh or Turkmen in your life?? Clearly not i suspect - There is absolutely no resemblance between them and a Pakistani - Even Tajiks who are largely Iranic are totally different to a Pakistani guy from some Lahore or Karachi or whatever. And believe me the only Iranians you'll find who have any overlap with Pakistanis are a few Baluchis who are like 2% of Iran and differ from the rest of Iranians more than anyone else in the country.

 

No offence, but, your post was extremely hilarious and.... deluded to say the least. Altho its nice that you hold Persian language in such a high regard that if it were up to you you'd re-impose it on your people - See if Iranians also thought like that about Persian then our language would not have slumped far behind other Global languages or started to decay even in Iran itself,

Originally posted by Suren Pakistanis are something between Middle Eastern and South Asians.

 

No they're not. They're purely South Asians except for some of the ethnic minorities on their western and northern borderlands. I dont understand and neither do i care why some of them keep denying this and claiming otherwise on forums such as this one. Its as absurd as some Turks claiming to be Europeans or some pan-Africanists claiming that the Pharaohs of Egypt were all Black.

 

As for the Middle East, its a recently defined political zone that was drawn up by the British, and nothing more. The peoples who inhabit what is now known as the "Middle East" are very diverse and have very diverse origins, histories and cultures. This is quite different from South Asians who largely have common historical, linguistic, cultural and racial roots with eacother. The only major difference there seems to be a north - south divide on linguistics - but that doesn't affect their social, cultural or racial bonds, unlike in the Middle East where there are very diverse racial origins, languages and cultures within the region.

 

Iran share's a lot more with countries like Tajikistan and Afghanistan than it does with Saudi Arabia or Egypt, yet the former are not apart of the Middle East whereas the latter are. Its just one example of how the Middle East is a region that has nothing to do with historical or cultural definitions but is solely a political construct of the Western world. Even geographically, the Middle East comprises of several distinct zones, unlike other parts of Asia.

 

So for you to make a claim that so & so is something between whatever and "the Middle East" is kinda ridiculous since there is absolutely no uniformity among all peoples and nations deemed to be apart of the Middle East. What does it mean to be 'Middle Eastern'? Absolutely nothing... Maybe for some Arabs its something, but generally not for Iranians, or even Turks.

 

And i disagree with you. We have nothing in common with Pakistanis.

Shows how little you know about Iranians - and about your ignorance over the fact that a large minority of Iran's population is Turkic and Turkish-speaking - That includes Azeris, Qashqais and Turcomans.

Yes, your loss.

 

 

 

 

I am still waiting to tell me what, I share with a Sinhalese or Tamil, Bengali, or Nepali, or Gujjar, or Kumaon, or Gujarati.

 

The lad doth protests too much methinks.

 

 

 

 

I presumed you meant the territory of the N Areas. Which the above gentleman was from.

 

Other Pakistanis look like

 

 

 

A Makrani boy from the South coast.

 

 

Others look like

 

Gen Musa Khan, CinC Pakistan Army, 1965 War, later Gov of Balochistan.

 

Point of the above being? Pakistanis come in all shapes, sizes and colours all of the above and everything in between. This is the most diverse area on earth. So stop saying what we like.

 

Personally I think we look.........Pakistani.

Originally posted by Emil_Diniyev What the hell? Azerbaijan as greater Iran? Azerbaijan Republic is located at Caucasus region and are Caucasian nation, has nothing to do with Iran or Iranians. Hell, no. I m Caucasian and dont look any Iranian or something like that. Closest peopls to me is my neighbour Georgian and Dagestanis.

Azerbaijan Republic has nothing to do with Iran or Iranians? Look, if it wasnt for the Russians you wouldnt even be a 'nation' - That land had been apart of Iran for much of the past 2000 years. Anyway, you can consider yourself to be closer to Georgians and Dagestanis or whatever - That isnt an issue for most Iranians at all, because we know the real history of that land - Not the one the Russians and insecure communist-leaning Azari leaders made up.

Originally posted by Sparten I am still waiting to tell me what, I share with a Sinhalese or Tamil, Bengali, or Nepali, or Gujjar, or Kumaon, or Gujarati.

 

Peoples of the Indian subcontinent share their history, roots and civilization with eachother. The north-south divide on linguistics is not a divide on race, society or culture. I have had a Y-DNA SNP test done and have read about haplogroup types. There are 3 or 4 haplogroup types common to all modern-day nations and regions in the subcontinent - but are very rarely found outside of it. From the top of my head these were something like L, H and R2. They're found among all of your linguistic and "caste" communities in that part of the World from Pakistan to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to varying degrees. So its pretty obvious that you all belong to a common civilization and that there have been frequent internal migrations within the subcontinent throughout history, but very rare and limited migrations outside or into it. The geography and isolation of that region no doubt attests to that as does the structure and nature of your societies, which are all largely 'caste' based and sedentary - rural and agricultural. Your diets, languages and other cultural and societal traits are all further indications of a common civilization. Not to mention what foreign invaders to your countries had observed and written about you all being of one common type (under such names like Hendu, Hendustani, Indian).

 

Whatever distinctions you have among yourselves are minor and superficial when compared to what commonalities you all have.

 

Originally posted by Kerimoglu Emil, you may eb Caucasian. It may be considered your race. Azerbaijanis are not considered to be Caucasian, in order for u to know.

 

Yeah, but dont remind them of that because truth can hurt sometimes - when you dont want to believe it :P

Originally posted by Conservative Peoples of the Indian subcontinent share their history, roots and civilization with eachother. The north-south divide on linguistics is not a divide on race, society or culture. I have had a Y-DNA SNP test done and have read about haplogroup types. There are 3 or 4 haplogroup types common to all modern-day nations and regions in the subcontinent - but are very rarely found outside of it. From the top of my head these were something like L, H and R2. They're found among all of your linguistic and "caste" communities in that part of the World from Pakistan to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to varying degrees. So its pretty obvious that you all belong to a common civilization and that there have been frequent internal migrations within the subcontinent throughout history, but very rare and limited migrations outside or into it. The geography and isolation of that region no doubt attests to that as does the structure and nature of your societies, which are all largely 'caste' based and sedentary - rural and agricultural. Your diets, languages and other cultural and societal traits are all further indications of a common civilization. Not to mention what foreign invaders to your countries had observed and written about you all being of one common type (under such names like Hendu, Hendustani, Indian).   Whatever distinctions you have among yourselves are minor and superficial when compared to what commonalities you all have.

 

1) I would very much like a link or a cite. From a reputable source. Because what you are saying gose against the accepted grain. Or less politely; is bullshit.

 

2) Geography and isolation and little external migration? Lets see of the top of my head, you had the Turks, the Persians, (many times), Africans, Central Asians of every stripe, the Mongols, the Greeks, the Scythians. I don't know whose history you are talking about, but its not of this place.

 

3) Sedentary ,rural and agricultural? Definatly some areas. Other however are anything but. Balochis and Sindhis are not sedentary, they are desert people, however when settled they are very urban. The Punjab region or the region east of Khyber generally is very urban, Kashmir is mountainous, Bengal is urban, as is all of N India, Rajestan is desert, the C India is rainforest, the South east is more intune with East Asia than with S Asia.

 

4) Caste based? Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Bengalis, Jats, Rajputs etc, don't have a caste. As for diet, it is completely different, the Punjabis and Pashtuns and Balochis are heavy meat eaters, Kashmiris and Bengalis rice eaters, C India vegetarian and S India fish. The staple food in Bengal is rice, here is bread.

 

 

5) By the way, Hindu, Indian etc. Are not "local" words. They all means generally; "lands across the Indus". Since lands across the Indus extend all the way to Japan, well next you will be saying that they are like Japanese.

 

 

It is clear you have no idea not even an abstract one about what you are saying.

 

 

Originally posted by Sparten 1) I would very much like a link or a cite. From a reputable source. Because what you are saying gose against the accepted grain. Or less politely; is bullshit.   2) Geography and isolation and little external migration? Lets see of the top of my head, you had the Turks, the Persians, (many times), Africans, Central Asians of every stripe, the Mongols, the Greeks, the Scythians. I don't know whose history you are talking about, but its not of this place.   3) Sedentary ,rural and agricultural? Definatly some areas. Other however are anything but. Balochis and Sindhis are not sedentary, they are desert people, however when settled they are very urban. The Punjab region or the region east of Khyber generally is very urban, Kashmir is mountainous, Bengal is urban, as is all of N India, Rajestan is desert, the C India is rainforest, the South east is more intune with East Asia than with S Asia.   4) Caste based? Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Bengalis, Jats, Rajputs etc, don't have a caste. As for diet, it is completely different, the Punjabis and Pashtuns and Balochis are heavy meat eaters, Kashmiris and Bengalis rice eaters, C India vegetarian and S India fish. The staple food in Bengal is rice, here is bread.     5) By the way, Hindu, Indian etc. Are not "local" words. They all means generally; "lands across the Indus". Since lands across the Indus extend all the way to Japan, well next you will be saying that they are like Japanese.     It is clear you have no idea not even an abstract one about what you are saying.

 

In relation to Y-DNA haplogroup types i've read from a number of journals and online articles, including from companies themselves like Genebase, Family Tree DNA and so on. I dont save them as its not a topic of any significant interest to me and had found them via Google as sidetracks when researching on Iranian peoples - So you can do the same for haplogroup types common to the peoples of the Indian subcontinent - Google it if you really want to know. I personally dont give a crap enough to go back and find all these abstracts and studies.

 

As for Baluchis, they're one of the minorities in Pakistan i was referring to in a previous post that overall arent culturally or historically related to Indic peoples and neither is Baluchestan apart of the subcontinent geographically. Its a mountainous desert wasteland for the most part on the edge of the Iranian plateau and is only sparsely populated (and has only been sparsely populated throughout history). I have no doubts that some Baluchis, especially those in Pakistan's province that live closer to Indic peoples like Sindis/Punjabs etc are only culturally Baluch but are racially related to Indic peoples - But overall Baluchis live a way of life that is totally different from Indic peoples and their language also has no relationship to Indian languages like Urdu, Punjab, Sindu or whatever else are spoken by the majority of Pakistanis.

 

Now you listed a bunch of peoples that invaded your part of the World - However i was talking about human settlements and migrations - Not invasions - Big difference. Invading armies dont change the demographics of places they invade or leave any significant demographic alterations unless they totally annihilate a population like the massacres of Iranic peoples in Central Asia by Genghis Khan and Turkic tribes. We ruled much of Mesopotamia for centuries which is on our door-step yet the people have never been displaced by Persians or Iranian peoples. They're the same semetic peoples they have always been. Much like how Egypt has endured centuries upon centuries of occupation - from Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Turks - Yet Egyptians, genetically, are still as they always were thousands of years ago. The same is even more true for the Indian subcontinent which has natural geographic barriers making invading it from land one of the most difficult places to invade in the World (altho it has been successfully done before due largely to the military inferiority and weakness of the peoples of Pakistan/India), and which like Mesopotamia and Egypt has always been able to support huge populations due to your geography, rivers, climate etc.

 

And you obviously missed the point i made about words like Hendu etc being applied to all South Asians by invaders to your part of the World. But i disagree with you that these are words that were used for "all lands east of the Indus to Japan" - I dont know where you pulled that one of out, but we had different words for Chinese and other East Asians in our language. Only modern-day Pakistanis (not including Baluch - who were known as Baluch) Indians, Sri Lankans etc were known as Hendus in Persian.

 

Finally on the caste and diet stuff im sure there is a great deal of variety of foods in the subcontinent but again you are trying to hide what things there are in common too in all your cuisines. And yes Pashtuns and Baluchis dont have caste-based societies because they're not apart of the Indian civilization and were only much latter arrivals to the provinces they now inhabit in Pakistan. Baluchis began migrating east around the 13th century and Afghans began making incursions and settlements across the Khyber pass even later. I think the difference there was that Baluchis seemed to have assimilated some of the Indians living in the region into their fold but the Afghans continually kidnapped, killed or drove away the Indians from places like the Peshawar valley(?) which then eventually became Afghan dominated. 

 

The rest of those peoples you mentioned all no doubt have caste based societies. Whether or not you want to admit that is irrelevant to me. Anyone can just pick up a book on Indian history or just Google it to find out.

 

Originally posted by Sparten Obviously point was missed. The three example I gave were 1) Iranic/C Asian, 2) Black African, 3) Mongol. Pakistan has people from all these areas. So to say that Pakistanis are like x or y, is dead wrong

 

Yeah, but they're all tiny minorities when compared to the Indic element that makes up your country. That's why Pakistan is considered a purely South Asian country even though your largest province area wise is on the Iranian plateau. And Baluchis themselves are very distinct from other Iranians - perhaps the most distinct minority in Iran in terms of their appearance and how they live - so i can imagine how even more different they must be the further east you go. I guess some are quite similar to Afghans from Qandahar and Helmand, and a few of them to the rest of Pakistanis. It just reflects the mutli-racial character of those tribes.

Originally posted by Kerimoglu Dear Conservative,   I am sorry, but your post is very likely lack of arguments and facts. Let me explain my answer.   We would be "nation" and keep our identity, even if there were not any Russians. I do not know what you had in your mind when you wrote this, but I'd like to remind you that after 9-11 centuries, we owe our existence to Oghuz Tribes, rather than to Persia. After that time Iran, as an Identity did not belog to Persians untill early 20th century. Please to not pring up so called "Pan-Turkish" statements, but untill Abbas the 1st, 17th century, Azerbaijan has already a stable society, with lots of minorities.   I want to remind you that Saffavids official language was turkish during the reign of Ismail, Tehmasib and his grandsons.   Therefore, Iran, even though played an important role in the history of Caucasus before Turks and even After Turks, this role was not decisive among 10-17th centuries.   During the reign of Afshars, Gajars, Iran was not ruled by Persians, and its politics, society was massively influenced by Turks. Therefore I do not accept it that Iran was something else than a close-cultural neighbour. If you know the history of the Khanates Period, beginning from 1740's ending at first Persio-Russian war, you can understand it easily.   That is correct that Soviet Rejime hurt Azerbaijan and made up fake historians, politicians and so on. But Azerbaijani society, keeping its language, culture, religion, moral traditions, was able to keep its identity as well. I do not think, not being under Soviets, but under Iran, we would lose the things I counted above.   Look to South Azerbaijan-Northern Iran, where more than 20 million Azerbaijnis of Turkish etnicity live there.   Nijat

 

 
Iranian Azeris havent lost their language or traditions and are certainly not marjinalized in Iran if that is what you were implying in your last paragraph. Do you know that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is himself an Azeri from Tabriz? Azeris are some of the biggest supporters of the Islamic Republic in Iran - Maybe you are mistaking Iranian Azeri's identification with Islam and Islamic Republic over their ethnic identity as a sign of them 'losing' their culture but i can tell you that is all largely voluntary on their part and has nothing to do with them being apart of the larger Iranian nation.
 
As for Turkish being the official language under the Safavids i think you are again mistaken. The actual Safavid dynasty was Turkish-speaking but the administrative language of the Safavid realm was Persian. This is reflected by the fact that Safavid currency was all marked in Persian not to mention the patronage of Persian language and literature, communication with the Ottoman and Moghal courts in Persian, and so on. Also the civilian and administrative positions of the Safavid court were largely made up by Persians. It was the army during the early and middle periods that were made up mainly of Qezelbash confederation.
 
Another point to mention about the Safavids is that it was only by consent of the Persian people that they were able to rule Iran without risk of overthrow and rebellion from the Persian population. For this, the Safavids had to adopt Persian court customs and patronize the language, literature and culture of Persians - and utilize Persians in the court and administration. This is why the Safavids are considered an Iranian empire, not a Turkish one. Their court combined both Turk and 'Tajik' (Persian) into military and civilian roles.
 
Its similar with Nader Shah - He was an Afshar Turcoman from Khorassan. But before he could take the title of 'Shah' he had to play a long game of calling the shots from behind the scenes of power so as not to alienate the Persian population. He did that by recognizing the authority of puppet Kings claiming a continuation of the Safavid dynasty. When Nader Shah finally came out in the open and declared himself Shah he again took Persian titles and was influenced by Persian court customs. Likewise by the time Nader Shah consolidated his rule over Iran and began his assaults on the Ottomans, Afghans, Uzbeks and Moghals his army was multi-ethnic - The single largest contingent in numbers were Persians-Tajiks - Turcomans, Kurds/Lurs and later defeated and captured Afghans, Uzbeks and Turkmen made up the rest. I believe at one point there was also an Arab contingent in his army, buy they later switched sides and backstabbed him.

 

Altho one thing to mention about Nader Shah is that yes he was self-conscious about his Turkic ethnicity and spoke Turkish where he could. His life 'on the road' and on horseback was also reflective of his identification with the old ways of the steppe nomads.
 
But overall your comments - "After that time Iran, as an Identity did not belog to Persians untill early 20th century" & "During the reign of Afshars, Gajars, Iran was not ruled by Persians, and its politics, society was massively influenced by Turks" - are quite mistaken. Altho yes Turks did play a big role in Iranian politics, much like Iranian Azeris do now. But this was not in isolation or without the acceptance and support of Persians and other Iranians - who played equally important roles in the functioning of the Safavid and later era's.

 

 

MarcPolo is right when he says there are IranZamin enthusiasts in Pakistan because i know my father used to go to their meetings regularly .

 

I think I can shed some light on this issue having spent 9 years of my golden years in Pakistan after my family left Iran.  I also spent a few years in Turkey/india but i remember my times spent in Pakistan as a good one, some of the best times that my family ever had plus i made lots of friends there & hope to return their one day to pay a visit as it was a 2nd home to me.

 

Plus to say that Pakistani's &indians are the same is very naive, rude &disrespective, you know what your saying, i dont like it when people compare me to arabs, not that i have anything against them, and ya, to an outsider who doesnt know he may confuse the two, but people deserve to be respected for what they are.  I have met many Pakistani's and indians, there is a big difference, perhaps if u took the time to meet Pakistani's(i.e. real one's-non-urdu) you wouldnt think the same. your trying to generalize & say something u know will hurt them, thats just being mean and is innapropriate.

 

when we were in pakstan, We found the people very friendly, hospitable &very similar to Iranians both in looks, customs and even language,,the best way to explain it would be to think of being in ''another'' country but still feeling an ''iranian'' flavour to it... it wasnt iran, but wasnt complete different either like turkey,india or sweden.. Pakistan still had a faimliar and comforting feel to it as if you were close to home..i think it took me only 4-5 months to learn how to speak the pakistani language, i became fluent and can still speak it.  I also remember seeing some Pakistani's that were very fair skinned with blue eyes &colored hair, it was only in Karachi where we saw some of the more darker south asian looking people but most of the time people looked very much iranian, sure there are some mixed types but for the most part they look like us, i've even met fellow iranians that look very dark & wouldnt even pass for pakistani for that matter. so i think your comparison is unfair

 

We used to do a lot of sightseeing when we were in pakistan & were surprised to see most of the wrtings on ancient buildings were written in Persian!! I consider myself very well versed in ancient persian history as my parents used to tell us stories about ancient persia & even I know that Pakistan was once part of the Persian empire, plus having lived there, you can see it in their looks, language, culture & all the old persian monuments in the country. 

 

  it seems Conservative has something against Pakistan---  Im thinking Conservative is another ''Indian'' as he always writes negatively about Pakistan in many posts and pumps up india quite consistently; i had a guy(viajay) in another post try to convince me that india&iran are the same people and that pakistan, a country that shares a border,history/culture with us does not lol!! cant understand the logic there!

 

 it is true that the provinces that make up Pakistan today, used to use Persian as the national language until the British invaded who had a well thought out plan to chop the influence/sphere of persia in the olden dayz.  they have manuscripts & its a known fact that persian was ''officially'' removed from Pakistan by the british, im surprised you were not aware of that!

 

I dont see whats wrong with Pakistani's choosing Persian as the national language, it would be good for Iran, make for better relations, they could stick it to the British colonizers, reclaim their history and im pretty sure they could learn very easily since they already know half the vocabulary, the only thing they might need to work on is their accent which is will take some time!!lol!! ( i hope they dont start speaking it like afghans lol!!, sorry, but i had to say that!!)  so i dont think Marcpolo is off when he says that, they would basically be re-affirming their persian heritage, would work in Iran's favour which i think we should encourage them to do!:) if anything, i think Persians should re-claim Pakistan and be more active in soldifying Pakistan within the Persian sphere of influence where she belongs.

 

so cudoos to you Marcpolo  , i agree with your post, what u suggested is good idea & wud be great for the region as a whole.

 

 

 

Where have i ever 'pumped up India' ? lol...

 

I hardly give a toss about either of your two countries.

 

And judging from your post, using your logic - you're a blatant Pakistani posing as an Iranian online. lmao...

 

Originally posted by angara I am pakistani and both conservative and areshir are correct. paksitan is land made of 4 mojor people. Punjabis (50%) pashtuns (25%) sindhis & muhajirs(15%) and balochis(7%) and other smaller tribes like kalash make up around 3% of the population. Now Punjabis, Sindhis, muhajirs which make up 65% of the population of pakistan are definatly much close to North indians, but the the other 35% pashtuns,balochis, and other smaller tribes are iranic people, they dont speak persian but are iranic, they are more closer to persians. Persian was indeed spoken in much of baluchistan before british came, but that does not mean that much of pakistani land spoke persian, so the final answer is no pakistan should not have persian as the main language because majority is still more close to north indians

 

When you say that Pashtuns and Baluchis are much closer to Persians (than presumably to north Indians) what do you exactly mean by this? Please explain.... If you mean linguistically, then yes, their languages are from the same language tree as Persians so from that very one dimensional perspective, they're closer to Persians. Racially speaking, its arguable. But culturally speaking id disagree with you. Pashtuns and Baluchis differ from Persians in culture as much as they differ from Indians and Pakistan's Indic majority.

 

Baluchis and Pashtuns should not be looked at as being peoples that are either "closer to Persians or to Indians" but are in fact their own distinct socio-cultural groups and should be recognized as such.

 

Actually, among Iranians i've never even seen this raised as an issue before, because it really isnt one. It seems to be only a problem or complex of South Asians to look at Afghans/Pashtuns and Baluchis as being something in-between or a mixture of Persian and Indian - Whereas for Iranians we just see them for what they are, and that is something different from both Persians and from Indians.