Indo aryans of south asia a dying people?

Dardic languages are not derived from Iranic languages, which is a separate branch in the Indo-Iranic family.

Tamil is not Sanskrit based. It has borrowed from that language, but not related to it at all.

India is about 70% Indo-Aryan speaking and Pakistan is roughly around the same. Western Pakistan is mostly Iranic.

Originally posted by balochii Languages and genetics are two totally different things, for example a guy in Maharastra or central india might speak a indo aryan language yet genetically he will be much closer to a Tamil than to lets say a Kashmiri Just because 70% of India speaks indo aryan languages, doesn't mean they are related to the original indo aryans

That's what I stated. India is 70% Indo-Aryan linguistically. genetically I can't state how many are Indo-Aryan. People of Finland speak a non-Indo-European language but genetics show they are overall Scandinavian and also have the highest ratio of blondes than any ethnic group in the world. 

Language does not give us genetic answers but it does give us a clue about the history of that ethnic group(s).

They are NOT White or even Indo-Aryan, blue eyes and blond hair is extremely rare even for Kalash or North Pakistan, majority have dark hair and eyes, this is a very complex subject, Indians actually have the highest European blood outside of countries considered culturally white (upper caste Hindus and Sikhs not Muslims because Islam was brought to the lower caste, some of these castes are said to be of pure European origin), the Pakistan region was all Buddhist, Hindu, or Sikh and fled to modern day India far before the partition (no records or borders), the ones with land fled after or during the partition because they were resisting, Pakistanis today are mainly followers of a rebel leader from central India and went to the Pakistan region for land and money, only people in that region today that did not move are the Kalash more financial reasons, there’s MANY tribes like these in Nepal and India with larger numbers than Kalash, but go unnoticed because of their large population of their countries. Follow the caste not the region, the Sikh massacre made Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir and neighboring states to come a little south to Punjab or Jammu, they used to be a majority (little more south), north is successful and has a lot of immigrants and the partition switching, Im American, and almost every time Alexander the Great story is brought up, he has nothing to do with the Kalash and Alexander wasn’t even Greek, that's proof people have no Idea what their talking about, the Kalash are of Mongolian blood, they resemble ethnic Hispanic (who were Mongolian), but Hispanics are WAY lighter, the only people whose looks are being maintained are people practicing the caste system, if you go up to a Hindu they can automatically tell you what the person's caste is based on looks, and plus if you put all upper caste Hindus and Sikh together or take all the natives of one north Indian state that would be more than ALL of any south or central Asian country, so no Indo-Aryan are not disappearing

Dont be confused blonde hair has nothing to do with genes, in Asia it is mainly brought out by temperature and malnourishment, if you look at Asian decent America, NONE will have light hair, and that has nothing to do with Indo-Aryan genes

This is Anatomy 101, genes dont disappear and remain in the blood and passed on forever, unless their totally different people and think their something else, the history of Pakistan region applies to the natives not majority that live there, and the only natives are Kalash not the rest so you may think its disappearing, the Kalash (you could say kinda practice a caste system) and don't mix, that's why it seems like the Kalash are the only Indo-Aryan for Pakistanis, because the rest are once again of central India descent and mix because they don't believe in a caste system and mix

Also Caucasian and White are two different topics, ethnic Caucasians and Aryan were dark featured and said to be from the middle east, the words Caucasian and Aryan were adopted by Celtic blooded Whites

the Dravidian are the ones disappearing, did you know Indian subcontinent had a slave trade, majority of the Dravidian were put in the slave trade to  Middle East and West Indies, but they never looked like stereotypical Africans, that's why Pakistan and India is Caucasian today, because Caucasian boned people are mainly left, but the countries still has a mix of races (every country does though) 

I also dont understand why Mughul is brought up, he was Mongolian and he later accepted Turkish culture, ALL the clans of the Mughul empire were Mongols not Turks, one additional clan was added later on (once they got to Turkey) but that clan never step foot on Asia

Clearly, you have no idea or proof and claim of your opinions, i studied Anthropology for 8 years and traveled the globe.


Edited by hi_im_blond - 15-Mar-2013 at 11:19

As fas as I know, only in North West India you can find a significant percentage of people who have European characteristics like relatively white skin.

Originally posted by TITAN_ As fas as I know, only in North West India you can find a significant percentage of people who have European characteristics like relatively white skin.

Those white minorities look like Mediterranean peoples.

^ I was just specifying your description of them.  

Originally posted by TITAN_ As fas as I know, only in North West India you can find a significant percentage of people who have European characteristics like relatively white skin.

even in NW india majority of people dont have fairskin, only about 20% would probably have it. There are also no other european features in Indians

It is really once you hit Kashmir and northern Pakistan where you start seeing those features

Originally posted by balochii Just because the two countries were one before doesn't mean they are exactly the same people

They weren't the same 'country.' They were the same colony under the British empire which lasted less than a hundred years, so in that sense they were the 'same country' but before and after that the regions borders kept shifting aorund. Ukraine and Uzbekistan were the same country as the Soviet Union, nobody dares to think Ukrainians and Uzbeks are 'the same.'

I am sorry to say this. But this topic is disgusting .Its intention smells stale if indeed by "Indo Aryans" you refer to the fair skinned people(as though such a demograpic bloc can be genetically localized)

Its also hilarious to see the author pasting clear pictures of Indian albinism to show " dying aryans".

There is an albino living close to my house. He is not white, nor is he brown. He is just an albino whose parents are Indian.


Edited by SuryaVajra - 04-Jun-2013 at 00:22

Originally posted by PakistaniShield The people in the pics are not indians nor are they albino. You clearly don't understand the whole meaning of indo-aryans

From what you have so far said, it is clear that it is you who is devoid of any knowledge of who the Vedic people were.

The solution?----stop looking for albinos and start reading original texts , the Vedas .See what the Vedic people say about themselvs.

 Here's a starter. There were four major tribes. Anu, Druhyu, Turvasa, Puru. The Purus composed the Vedas and are the ancestors of Indians and ,oh well, Pakistanis.

Here is the royal family tree of the Vedic Aryan tribe of Puru-Bharata (ancestors of Indians) reconstructed from the rig Veda. This is called the Lunar dynasty. 

The Druhyu may have have been ancestors of European Celts (Druids) and the Rig Veda does say they left "Via the northern route" after loosing the Dasarajna war .

From "Rig Veda, a Historical analysis" by Srikant Talageri.
The predominant dynasty in the Rigveda is the dynasty of DevavAta, one of the descendants of the ancient king Bharata.

The kings in this dynasty, as we have already seen, are:

DevavAta
SRnjaya
VadhryaSva
DivodAsa
Pratardana
Pijavana
DevaSravas
SudAs
Sahadeva
Somaka

These kings are Bharatas, but they are also PUrus: according to the PurANas, the Bharatas are a branch of the PUrus; and this is confirmed in the Rigveda, where both DivodAsa (I.130.7) and SudAs (I.63.7) are called PUrus, and where the Bharata composer Parucchepa DaivodAsI repeatedly speaks as a PUru (I.129.5; 131.4).

Some other names of kings in the Rigveda who appear in the Puranic lists as PUru kings (some belonging to the Bharata dynasty of DevavAta, and some not) are:

AjamILha (IV.44.6).
Dhvasra/Dhvasanti and PuruSanti (I.112.23; IX.58.3).
          (SuSanti and PurujAti of the Puranic lists.)
Mudgala (X.102.2, 5, 6, 9).
RkSa (VIII.68.15, 16; 74.4, 13). 
Srutarvan (VIII.74.4, 13; X.49.5). 
Vidathin (IV.16.13; V.29.11). 
Santanu (X.98.1, 3, 7).
KuSika (III.26.1).

read this for more..

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch5.htm

Also Pakishield....DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS OF THE RIG VEDA?

Here is a sample information.

Please realize how much knowledge you are missing when you run after albinos.

Edited by SuryaVajra - 05-Jun-2013 at 11:53