Pakistanis and Indians same?

Originally posted by MarcoPolo Originally posted by maqsad Pakistanis and neighbouring "Indians" are the same genetically and linguistically.     Kashmiri's are for all intents and purpose a non-indian people currently under subjugation and occupied by india hence the insurgency that has been going on their, the heavy presence of indian troops in the area, and ever mounting death toll and casualities not to mention the continued nuclear standoff in South Asia that has the world watching in horror.  Again, had they been an ''indian'' group, the opposition to indian rule wouldnt be so complete.  Infact, many hindu Kashmiri's have also joined in the seperatist movement.  This is not abt religion, but rather, of genetic, culture, ethnicity and identity.  They may be ''close'' to South Asia but they have never been considered an ''indian'' people.

Before 64 years there was neither India nor Pakistan.

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 Now there was this program on oyutube called "In the footsteps" of Alexander. When  the host came ot Multan for Alexander's battle with the Mils he kept on calling the people of ancient  Multan as Indians, it just really burned me up and angered me. If he couldn't call the people of ancient Multan Mutanis or Mils at l;eat call them Pakistanis but no true o0t most foreigners ignorance he kept on calling them Indians. Really what relevance does a Multani has to a Keralan. It is completely absurd and very offensive as if the present day Pakistanis have no ancient counterpart. Really it has to be said that European understanding of the culture they study sivery very poor. I will discuss all this topic at length in the thread "Why i am wrong about the Aryan Invasion Theory"

Have to agree with bilalis, that Ancient Indus Valley Civilization people have far much more in common with modern day Pakis than with Bengalis.

However he fails to use his brain in understand that Pakistan was the real India and owns the name "India".

Zindaabad means "abode of the Sindhis".

Pakistan used to be a land of Hindus, the very word Hindu itself derives from the name of the region around the Indus river/valley.

Sindh - Sapta Sindhu / Indus - Indica - India / Al-Hind - Hindustan

Indh/Hind/Sindh/Zind all originally referred to the Indus region and the people living there and their religion.

Originally posted by MarcoPolo To say they are the ''same'' is a false generalization and is the twisting of the truth and actual facts.  In fact, many would find such a statement offensive, insulting, hurtful and an outright fabrication and distortion of truth that are often promoted by extremist, nationalistic, hardline indian groups.  I think the moderators should warn maqsad or anyone else from making such insensitive statements.

lmao so much for Muslim brotherliness.

Originally posted by MarcoPolo That a minority of indian ''Panjabi's''-(a very small ethnic minority in india representing <5 % of the population)-particularly the refugees who fled from Pakistan share some similar genetic and linguistic(Landa panjabi)  traits with their counterparts in Pakistan, but for the most part, ''Panjabi'' is also more of a cultural, linguistic and historical trait that has imprinted itself on various people(s) that inhabited the 5 river plains and eventually formed into a common panjabi identity over time distinct from that of the rest of South Asia. Panjabi's in india often consider themselves as being ''non-indian'' from an ethnic stand-point (dont confuse this with nationality) and are often treated as such by other indians. They have also been agitating for an independent nation (''Khalistan'') where they can retain and maintain their own identity which they feel is under threat there.

Partially correct. Punjabis wish to be distinguished but at the same time are one of the most fiercely Indocentric Indians. Most Punjabi Indians would want Paki Punjab to join India. And Khalistan was proposed by some Sikhs.

Punjabis in India are no minorities, for a state of its size its quite populous. The problem with Punjab is its breeding trends and it has to change fast. The undesirable South and East parts breed more due to their racial make up.

On a side note they are one of the most overly represented Indians and hence the most often indentified regional Indian groups along with Tamils.

Originally posted by MarcoPolo the ''Mohajir'' (or ''Urdu-speaker'') ethnic group in Pakistan is similar to indians though they represent only 5% of Pakistan and are a slight majority in only one city, Karachi( at @ 60%).  There mother tongue is Urdu.  They are often treated as such(outsiders) in Pakistan, something they(rightly) often take offence to this as many claim to be partial or full decendents of Arab, Pashtun, Mughal and other foreign invaders/traders/dignatiaries who conquered/arrived to south asia.  This difference and sense of foreign feeling is what led to the civil war in the 80's between indigenous Pakistani's (Pashtun, Sindhi and Panjabi's) and refugees (Mohajir's).  Had they been similar, this would not have happened to the extent it did.  In recent years, there has been a small yet vocal demand from several cultural organizations representing the interests of many native Pakistani's who believe that some of the refugee's (sindhi/panjabi non-muslim refugees who fled Pakistan) should be allowed to return to their homeland and that the indian muslim mohaji (refugees) should be repatriated back to their native india.

lol no thanks. You can keep them. And they look like pariahs, which is what they are.

Originally posted by MarcoPolo Kashmiri's are for all intents and purpose a non-indian people currently under subjugation and occupied by india hence the insurgency that has been going on their, the heavy presence of indian troops in the area, and ever mounting death toll and casualities not to mention the continued nuclear standoff in South Asia that has the world watching in horror.  Again, had they been an ''indian'' group, the opposition to indian rule wouldnt be so complete.  Infact, many hindu Kashmiri's have also joined in the seperatist movement.  This is not abt religion, but rather, of genetic, culture, ethnicity and identity.  They may be ''close'' to South Asia but they have never been considered an ''indian'' people.

Complete and utter bullshit. Kashmiri Hindus are murdered mercilessly everyday by Muslim Kashmiris by receiving military aid from Pakis in trying to stir discord in India. And being "Indian" does'nt mean that different Indians go around mixing freely. Kashmiris won't mix with other Indians just because they are nationally recognized as Indians. And for that matter, every other Indian groups stick to themselves.

Kashmir belongs to Hindustan. Kashmir is Hindustan, for now and forever.

You can take your Muslims to Pakistan. But Kashmir belongs to Hindus. The land is ours.

Originally posted by MarcoPolo Conversely, india share's a border with other countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh with whom they look completely indistinguishable from and it would almost be imposible to differentiate someone from bangladesh, sri lanka and india.  In fact the similarity here is almost a 100% and the argument that indians and bangali's and even sri lankans are the same is probably a genuinely true one, but again, in the interest of respecting a people(s) identity such harsh generalizations are not used. its interesting that such an association is never raised though??

LOL only pariah South Indians resemble Sinhalese and pariah East Indians resemble Bengalis.

Its been proven that genetically North West Indians are closer to Pakis than to South and East Indians.

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 Hindkos are mainly Punjabis at least Indo-Aryan, Dardics are also Indo-Aryans including Kashmiris, Brushuso are also largely Indo-Aryan as Indo-Aryan has much in common with Brushuski, the Chitpuvan Brahmins of Maharashtra who immigrated from the Afghan boderlands also physically ressemble people from that region. Indo-Aryans as well as Pakhtuns and Balochs come in many shapes and to say that all of them are the same is definetly an over genralization.

Chitpavan Brahmins are Brahmins not some musalamans. They pratice the religion of their ancestors. So watch your words. Chitpavan Brahmins just preserved their blood more than some other South Indian/Pancha Dravida Brahmins and besides they are'nt much different from other South Indian Brahmins in terms of features.

All Brahmins migrated from Helmand river.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 30-Nov-2009 at 13:06

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by baniyas ^ lets begin with culture and values, because of islam pakistani and indian cultures are far a apart. Pakistanis dont do any of the hindu cultural practices... .   Try looking at an Indian's wedding alblum and the wedding alblum of a Pakistani. Unless the Pakisitanis are wearing head scarves or there are visible Hindu statues etc, it is difficult to tell the two wedding photo alblums apart.

Originally posted by MarcoPolo Originally posted by maqsad Pakistanis and neighbouring "Indians" are the same genetically and linguistically.   To say they are the ''same'' is a false generalization and is the twisting of the truth and actual facts.  In fact, many would find such a statement offensive, insulting, hurtful and an outright fabrication and distortion of truth that are often promoted by extremist, nationalistic, hardline indian groups.  I think the moderators should warn maqsad or anyone else from making such insensitive statements.

Cool down, my good fellow. To say that neighbouring countries with the same history (up until 60 years ago) and linguistic heritage are similar in genetic make up is hardly an extremist insult. The only problem i have with it is that there is no such thing as 'Indian', or 'Pakistani' for that matter. Both the Punjab and NW India area and Baluchistan area were close to each other, and the ancient empires did not differentiate between none existant borders. Rajputana encompassed both NW India and the Indus delta in Pakistan. Greek Scythian, Persian, and Muslim kingdoms ruled both, and had impacts on the areas.

But of course there are differences as well, Pakistan is of course Muslim, and has been in part for almost 1000 years, since some of the Rajput kingdoms there converted. But then so were the Ghorids and Mughals, and they conquered not only Pakistan but North India as well. West Pakistan has many tribal ethnicities such as the Pashtuns which are not found in India.

But it is equally foolish to say that all similarities end at the virtual 50 year old border (not even a human lifespan, so hardly a judge for genetic make up), as it is to say that Pakistan and India are the same country for all but political purposes, as there are marked differences. The fact of the matter is, countries and faiths are rarely anything to do with ethnic groups and the area's history on the whole, and where such a huge country as India is concerned, there can be no solid border to define this question, one thing just gradually fades into the other the further you go away.

And if you think we are going to aquiese in the breakup of our country then you have another thing coming.

Originally posted by Sparten Pashtunistan of Afghan nationalists is a pipe dream. Pakistan is a reality.   NWFP people are not particularly fond of their "brethern" as it is. Even a nationalist party the ones "True" Afghan  has so many hopes in, want the Afghans out   http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=105795   Incidentally, National ID Card is silent on a persons ethnicity. And those "Punjabi" soldiers you hate so much and whose death you cheer were not Punjabi at all. The were from a Pakhtun regiment. Here is another brave Pakhtun who gave his life for Pakistan against terror.     http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=13404