Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Pakistanis and Indians same? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 5> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||
maqsad 
General 
Joined: 25-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 928 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Pakistanis and Indians same?Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 02:42 |
||
|
Pakistanis and neighbouring "Indians" are the same genetically and linguistically. But the further south you go and the further east you go in "India" the more different they start to look and sound from Pakistanis. Pakistani Punjabis resemble Indian Punjabis. Pakistani Kashmiris resemble Indian Kashmiris. Pakistani Sindhis may resemble Indian Gujratis too perhaps.
Then you have a striking diversity of appearance within Pakistan too. Pakistani Punjabis and Pakistani Pathans tend to look somewhat different too. There is a higher prevelence of the "Afghan look" in many Pakistanis in Balochistan and NWFP/Kashmir near the Afghan border. When you go further into Afghanistan you also come across a lot of diversity in appearance. Going northeast the people take on a more Eurasian appearance than in the Southeast and border areas. But to say that everyone in Pakistan looks indistinguishable from anyone anywhere within India is quite innacurate a generalization. |
|||
 |
|||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 18:37 |
||
|
^ but 30% of Pashtuns in Pakistan are totally different. 30% is a huge chuck of pakistani population
|
|||
|
|||
|
maqsad
General
Joined: 25-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 928 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 19:31 |
||
What do you mean by but? Can you be a bit more coherent? |
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 19:46 |
||
|
^ well there are almost no pashtuns found in India, so Pashtuns are totally different from Indian population. And they make up 30% of Pakistans population
|
|||
|
|||
|
maqsad
General
Joined: 25-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 928 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 19:59 |
||
|
Why did you use the word "but" when replying to my first post, as if you were disagreeing with all or part of it?
|
|||
|
|||
|
bilal_ali_2000
Baron 
Joined: 03-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 08:34 |
||
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.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jalair
Janissary 
Joined: 06-Nov-2007 Location: Kenya Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 20:06 |
||
There is a considerable number of Pattans in India I do not have any figure about their population. Indian Pattans are Pashtun and most or all of them speak Urdu/Hindi. Physical features of some Pashtuns are similar to that of Indians and Pakistanis. This could be due to Pashtunization or intermarriage. |
|||
|
Zarra
|
|||
|
|||
|
MarcoPolo
Pretorian 
Joined: 05-Jul-2007 Location: Planet Earth Online Status: Offline Posts: 190 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 05:44 |
||
are you serious?? you shouldnt be making such incorrect statements. Pakistan is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country that is unique in its own right. It share's ethnic and genetic influences from all the surrounding regions be they Afghanistan, Iran, india, Central Asia as well as distinct ethnic/linguistic groups indigenous and unique to Pakistan itself only.
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.
a more accurate statement to say is:
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.
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.
Sindhis' are a distinct ethnic group different from Gujrati's. They are distinct ethnic groups in their own right with unique histories and different languages and phenotypic expressions. Also, Pashtun's are very strong on direct, verifiable blood lines as well as the maintainance of traditional customs and the speaking of their respective pashto dialects; as such it can almost be said with certainty that they are no ''real'' pushtuns in india who were more often than not converted from low class hindu's trying to evade the caste systems misery and wanted to improve their stature socially by concocting ''noble'' backgrounds, admittedly, many were possibly also forcefully converted as Afghan's were a bit overzeolous in preaching their religious views. Pashtun's inhabit a specific stretch of territory stretching from South & Eastern Afghanistan, and West of the Indus River in Pakistan(traditional Pashtoonkhwa) with recent demographic changes including the sizeable urban migration of Pashtuns into Karachi, Hyderabad, Sialkot, Lahore, Rawalpindi.
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.
Sure their are some similarities as any two countries would have sharing a border (eg.. western Iran with eastern Iraq, Western China with Eastern Kyrgysistan etc..) and especially with the choosing of Urdu in Pakistan at independence and Hindi in india and the fact that the two countrie's are right beside each other, add to this that the region of Pakistan was ''physically joined'' by the British to South Asia for around 80 yrs, but lets not forget that Pakistan also share's a border with Afghanistan, China, Iran and is a stone's throw away from the Gulf as well and also share's some imprint from their as well. Most Pakistani's can easily spot out the difference between an indian just as a Greek can tell themselves apart from a Turk or, a portuguese from a Spaniard. There are some minor exceptions (Mohajir's, Kashmiri's etc...) but they represent <8%. The vast majority are distinct and to deny them of that is an infringement of their respective identity both Pakistani and indian. 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??
 Using the same train of thought, Pakistani's can then claim (had they made their national language Persian) that they are the same as Iranians (having been under ancient Persia's rule, influenced by its culture, religion via persian mystics, sharing a border, being on the iranic plate etc..) or how about Afghanistan (again, once being a part of Afghanistan, having more native Pashto speakers, being the former winter capital of Afghanistan, large and currently open border, having a greater number of ethnic ''afghans''(Pashtuns) in Pakistan than Afghanistan itself etc...) and this can go on and on.... Its akin to arguing wether Turkey is more similar to Iraq, Greece, Syrian, a Central Asian Turk or Armenians??? they are Turk and distinct in their own right!
So let's be careful not to push the envelope guys, we should cherish, respect and appreciate the uniqueness of each nationality and not make generalizations that are hurtful, insensitive, devoid of facts and disrespective to anyone. Again I ask the moderators to warn and bar individuals from doing so in the first place.
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Suren
Arch Duke 
Chieftain Joined: 10-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1673 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 06:12 |
||
|
Don't be offended. Here in US a lot of people think all Asians are Chinese or Japanese, see all middle eastern Arab and so on... deal with it. It's hard for many people to change what they have thought and accepted. Just chill out, drink a cup of hot chocolate and laugh at them.
Edited by Suren - 13-Mar-2008 at 00:49 |
|||
|
Anfører
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
Colonel 
Joined: 10-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 646 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 07:23 |
||
|
To me, being Indian is more of a cultural identity. Because even Rajastanis and Assami people are different, and they are within India Republic.
|
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 01:15 |
||
|
^ but India is a modern nation, just because its a one country what does that even mean in historical sense?
|
|||
|
|||
|
maqsad
General
Joined: 25-Aug-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 928 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 01:52 |
||
Yes I am serious. I also notice that you took one paragraph of mine and ripped off the first sentence and quoted it there by itself. Fine, lets go with that first. Ok, put on your glasses and take a look at this line very carefully again: Pakistanis and neighbouring "Indians" are the same genetically and linguistically. So would you say that Pakistanis and neighbouring "Indians" are NOT the same genetically and linguistically? Note that I made no mention of religion/sect here. Just genetics and language. So now answer me...is a sialkoti different linguistically from a pathankhoti "Indian" across the border or will they generally be similar genetically and even linguistically? Is a person from a village east of Lahore not gunna be similar to a person from a village west of Amritsar? Or are they gunna be radically different looking and genetically and linguistically "unique" due to being separated by a 60 year old national border? How about a person from Kasur in Pakistan compared to a person in Ferozpur, India across the border. Please explain how different they will be besides the religious difference if there is any. Now here is the full paragraph that you sliced up to distort my post: Pakistanis and neighbouring "Indians" are the same genetically and linguistically. But the further south you go and the further east you go in "India" the more different they start to look and sound from Pakistanis. Pakistani Punjabis resemble Indian Punjabis. Pakistani Kashmiris resemble Indian Kashmiris. Pakistani Sindhis may resemble Indian Gujratis too perhaps. Why did you leave the rest of it out?
Maybe the moderators should arrange lessons in reading comprehension instead? I noticed that you and this "saba" person both attacked my posts with ifs and buts but when I challenged saba they vanished so lets see if you can explain exactly where my original post is wrong and then we can let the mods decide about facts and disrespect. |
|||
|
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
Colonel
Joined: 10-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 646 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 07:46 |
||
|
baniyas, I don't understand your English. Just because it is a modern country what does that mean in a historical sense? What does that mean?
To say an Indian and a Pakistani is different is okay, I argue being an Indian is more of a cultural marker and less of a national ethnic identity. For example, a Pakistani can argue that NWFP doesnt belong in Pakistan because there was no thing as Pakistan to exist before the Durrani Sultanate. Meaning being Pakistani means nothing. But aha! Its a cultural cohesiv identity that makes the difference. Now Pakistani nationalists can cry all they want, but India's Mumbai film industry is 80% of the movie market of Pakistan, not Iran's movie industry. Mostly due to language that Pakistanis can understand without subtitles. Meaning there is an existing cultural continuity. |
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:24 |
||
|
well this bond has only been created over the last 60 years^ lets say if you go 200 years back would you really think a guy from punjab would fit in Bombay or understand their language? My point is the more you go back in time the different pakistanis and indians get.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
Colonel
Joined: 10-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 646 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 16:01 |
||
|
Neither do I think a guy from Munich would fit in Madrid or a guy from Beijing fit in Hanoi.
Nevermind they wouldnt "fit" but there is shared understanding, culture and values.
Perhaps its easier to sum it up by saying there is a shared methadology of thinking. Edited by Mughaal - 11-Mar-2008 at 23:54 |
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 16:32 |
||
|
^ 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 and they dont follow any hindu values and Indian muslims are also very different from Indian hindus in terms of culture and values. As for Understanding i am not sure what you mean, if you mean language understanding then yes over the last 60 years there has been a close bond mostly because of bollywood but again like i said the more you go back in time the different indians pakistanis get.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
Colonel
Joined: 10-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 646 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 18:17 |
||
|
Its great to know Bollywood has had such power over the Pakistani people, that they spent the last 60 years learning its language.
Persians also dont follow many rites that Zorastrians once did. And Pakistanis "think" like Indians and act like them too. Being critical thinking is not one of many people's stronger points. Be a little more critical thinking.
Punjabi/Sindhi/Muhajari Pakistanis may not worship Shiva, but they do collectivize and understand themselves like Indians, not Persians and not Turks. Edited by Mughaal - 11-Mar-2008 at 23:52 |
|||
|
Mughal e Azam
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ikki
Chieftain 
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 19:08 |
||
The peculiar caste system in Pakistan is a derivation from the hindu caste system.
200 years ago, take a guy from present pakistan Punjab and put him in present indian Punjab, wich is the difference?
The fact that most of the peoples of Pakistan have a twin in India on the other side of the frontier, and that the religion and culture of those are the same than in Pakistan, and that into India and Pakistan there are a lot peoples very differents the ones to anothers with great differences greatest according with the distance; that fact don't clear to you that we are talking about the same people?
Or the opposite, that there is not a single people in India or Pakistan but hundreds. I prefer, those huge quantity of peoples are in someway related, a single people with a lot of variants wich can be included into the frontiers of historical India splited recently by frontiers born in the hatred.
Under this point of view, common in foreigners like me, India is in fact splited in four countries: Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka with confusion in the limits, we don't know if the baluchis or nepalis are indian, but we know that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley and Bengal are the same.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 19:31 |
||
|
but we know that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley and Bengal are the same
What is same? Language? Culture? Myths? History? Hero?
Has to be the least true statement in the history of AE.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 19:36 |
||
|
how are they same? indus valley people are punjabis and sindhis while bengalis live in eastern india and Bangladesh, their food, clothes, looks are different and many other things are different. This is like calling people from England and Italy as same
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 5> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
