Kashmir and central Asia
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23426
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 16:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Kashmir and central Asia
Posted By: creek
Subject: Kashmir and central Asia
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2008 at 01:09
|
I found this article interesting http://www.kashmirobserver.com/index.php?id=454 - http://www.kashmirobserver.com/index.php?id=454
it basically says kashmir has more central asian influence then south asian.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2008 at 23:49
|
Not surprising really, Kashmir is extremely north compared to the rest of India and Pakistan. It is also more north than most of Afghanistan. Also, its easier to get into Kashmir from Central Asia via the silk route than from India. As Kashmir is pretty much cut off from India for half the year due to heavy snow in the Pir Panjal and Himalayas. That said, India has influenced Kashmir heavily over the past 60 years. Even the tibetan Ladakhi has an indian touch to it, whilst if you go across the border into Chinese Tibet, they are heavily influenced by China. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 00:30
|
Huh Kashmir more central asian than suncontinental. This something that which is completely new to me. Could the author please clarify that what he meant by that. Discuss the features of Kashmir which according to him are more central asian than south asian. All the ancient books of the subcontinent talk about Kahmir as a complete part of south asia.
I would even go on to say that Kashmir relatively had less central asian influence compared to Pakistan and India because of its isolation. I would like to know that in which sense the person thinks that Kashmir is more central Asian than South Asian. Even Afghanistan is by many considered pretty much a part of South Asia.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 01:51
|
^ I think the author was talking about culture. Geography doesn't necessarily dominate the culture of a place. Afghanistan is considered South Asia, but its culture is not South Asian (thats what i thought it meant anyway). Climate, etc probably factor into it aswell, as Kashmir is the only region in India which does not get the monsoon rains. Geographically it is South Asia though. Also, Kashmir has had mainly Central Asian influences only, compared to a lot of middle eastern/Arab influences that India/Pakistan received. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 02:27
|
Yes that what i also want to talk about. What is in the culture of Kashmir that is more central asian. The central Asian influences which Kashmir recieved were through Pakistan.
And you got it wrong regarding Afghanistan. Geographically Afghanistan was never part of South asia it was only culturally part of south asia. The oldest culture of Afghanistan was Harappan which was based in Pakistan (South Asia). Afghanistan was home to the oldest farming communities a thing which can only be invented in the fertile lands of South Asia rather than the barren steppes of Central Asia. Bhuddism again was of South Asian orgination. The region of Gandhara extended from Indus to most of Afghanistan from where we have the Gandhara civilization. Roti with salan is the main cuisine of Afghanistan like Pakistan and South Asia, Shalwar Qamez and turban is also the common dress of both of these regions. Of course if by Central Asia you mean Persia then yes afghanistan had more influence from there. But culturally it was certainly not more a part of Central Asian states like Kazakhistan and Kyrgizstan than Pakistan.
|
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2008 at 23:17
|
I would say that the author is correct, the Kashmir region and Pakistan for that matter have more in common with Central Asia and Persian cultural tendencies which have contributed to the distinctiveness of these two reasons, hence the uniqueness of Pakistan today and the continued struggle for independence by Kashmiri's currently under indian occupation.
While there does exist some spheres of overlap, the distinctiveness of each region is more significant.
Major road links leading into Kashmir were via Pakistan and Afghanistan. I think as time passes and the fixation on ''religion'' wanes, the cultural, political,historical and customs will pull these regions back towards their original Central Asian and Eastern Middle Eastern (i.e. Persian) roots.
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 09:01
|
Sorry have to disagree. Anyone who knows history of this region will tell you just how absurd an idea it is that Kashmir more a part of Central Asia than South Asia. Every single document of this region talks about Kashmir as a part and parcel of this region. Compared to that please tell me that which other region other than South Asia talks about Kashmir as being in its sphere of influence. Which other country apart from Pakistan and India claims Kashmir. This region is defined by the Himalayas and Kashmir falls within the Himalyas. Kashmir have always been under kingdoms which were ruling South Asia be it the kingdom of Raja Dahir or the Mughals. Ranjit Singh also was a ruler from South Asia. You said India had only influenced Kahmit in the last 60 years. Well both India and Pakistan have been influencing Kahmir for thousands of years. Ansd really why wouldn't they Kashmir was righ next to them with little geographical barriers. While Kasmir was cut off from Central Asia by the Himalayas. If Kashmir had such fast links with Central Asia then why is that all the central asian invaders be it the Scythians, turks , Kushanis or Mughals first invade Afghanistan and thyem from there using the Khyber Pass moved into the sun-continent when they could just have easily moved into subcontinent from Kashmir. I'll tell you why they didn't. The towerong peaks of the Himalayas seperated Kashmir from Central Asia. Trekking those peeks even today for a small well equipped expedition is for most times a suicide mission so how come in those times carvans from central asian just walk right over these peaks, The man who made that statement does not know what he is talking about. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:19
| Well if by Central Asia you mean Afghanistan then definetly Kasmir had a lot of influence from there. By Central Asia i took countries like Kyrshistan, Tajikistan and so on. However i still think that Kashmir had much more culturla contacts from Pakistan than Afghanistan. Pakistan's Punjab is host to a significant number of population from Kashmir. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 08:43
| Well no most of Kashmir is pretty much the same. And Afghanistan is not to the north of Kashmir but rather to its west. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 08:44
Yes i know ladakh is Tibetan. And Kashmir is different from Jammu because Jammu is predominently Hindu whereas Kashmir is predominently muslim. Still the history of Kashmir goes very far back in time and the history books of the region list the Aryan kings from Kashmir from about 2000 B.C and the kashmiri historian Kalhana was one of the prime historians of this regon. There are many ancient relics in Kashmir temples and palaces. And there is even a script used there which is so different from the other scripts used in the region that it is undecipehered.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 22:03
| Ancestors of original Kashmiris were Hindus, Kashmiri Pundits are closest to the original Aryans DNA wise |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 23:59
|
What is up with this 'original Aryan' crap? why is it that Indians and KP's love to say that and go on and on about it. Most koshur speaking Kashmiris have KP tribe names even today, and those KP tribes have had mixed genetics from long ago. You will find Sapru's with tibetan blood, Siroojis with Persian blood etc etc, its been mixed for a very long time. Due to this huge diversity in gene pool, you get people in the same family ranging from sino looks to caucasian looks. And as for Aryan DNA, I'm Kashmiri from KP lineage (been in the valley for very very long time), my Ydna is J2a1b, having a 95%+ similarity to cohen blood line (lol), 90% similarity to Greeks according to genebase, which pretty much proves that my Y-ancestor moved to Kashmir (yonks ago). Ancestors were bhuddist and hindu at one time. converted to islam not that long ago. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 21:20
|
good for you R1a1 is supposed to be the gene marker though
also there is a Mediterannean gene marker amongst north Indians
|
Posted By: Jallaludin Akbar
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:19
I don't understand the meaning of more central asian and more indianized. Care to share more info on that? Also it is true that Kashmir as a muslim majority region while Jammu contains a greater majority of hindus. ------------- "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:46
He is a spammer/banned member so I am sure he won't divulge anything else  and his post will be hidden to avoid further confusion. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 23:42
|
Yes I would agree with this, they are more linked to persian/afghan culture then indian. They are up to the north and they have less influence from India, because of where Kashmir is located. That is why many kashmiri's want Kashmir to be their own country because of how different they are from India. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 23:45
|
Kosher: Yes I agree with you, many people are yapping about the Aryan Crap. They link practically everyone to Aryans ! Sheesh next thing you know they'll be saying Africans are Aryans or something. (no offense to Africans if you take this offending ) ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2009 at 23:46
|
nah,,, The comment I made Persian/Afghan culture thing. I think now that Kashmiris have their own kinda culture. ------------- |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2010 at 19:23
| This is another article on this topic |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2010 at 19:31
| http://thedawn.com.pk/2010/09/17/kashmiri-was-never-part-of-india-and-never-will-be/ - http://thedawn.com.pk/2010/09/17/kashmiri-was-never-part-of-india-and-never-will-be/ |
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2010 at 01:45
Good Propoganda for Kashmir.Lets see what happens.
|
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2010 at 02:39
| Kashmir definatly doesn't have anything to do with your south india or eastern india (bengal), maybe it does have similarities to places like Himachal or even northern punjab, but it also shares a lot with places like northern pakistan, afghanistan and Tajikistan. |
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2010 at 04:36
That doesnot make Kashmir part of pakistan
|
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2010 at 14:35
| ^ the article clearly says its shouldn't also be part of pakistan, but pakistan is more closer to kashmir then current India is. Pakistanis are 30% iranic, and also northern parts of punjab are pretty close to kashmiries |
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2010 at 23:55
Its immature saying so.Kashmir may have many things to do with South Indians & bengalis. India have people of different ethnicities living in it.We dont discriminate based on it.Now you are classifying us and himachalites,punjabies,bengalis and south indians.You seem to have gone blind because of your racial prejudice. |
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2010 at 00:01
Kashmiri pandits who constituted of 40% of the kashmiri population were driven away from Kashmir by Jihadis in 1989 and now they are living as refugees in Delhi and Jammu.We accepted them as Indians and many NGO organisations are helping them without bothering about their ethnicity. The only problem in Kashmir is politically supported religious terrorism which is supported by international terrorist organisations like alqaeda,LeT etc. And some country which has proclaimed itself as friends of Kashmir has taken away Kashmiri land and had sold it to China.
|
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2010 at 12:12
what do kashmiries really have to do with bengalis or south indians? i mean maybe the pandits share the same religion, but thats it, the muslims kashmiries have nothing to do with them at all
|
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2010 at 03:07
As I earlier told India has different races in it we have people of different ethnic origins living in India. I have in my earlier treads posted several photos of Dravidians & bengalis who are genetically similar to europeans & mediteraneans.Kashmiri pandits and others are genetically similar to many other indian caste populations.
|
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2010 at 07:48
|
Below given are the photos of some famous Kashmiri people and Indians of Other ethnicities mainly people from kerala(dravidians).Can you point out the so called differences in features that you were speaking about.            |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2010 at 18:19
^ lol totally cherry picking, and who is to say that these south indians did not arrive from north india? even your famous Ashawariya Rai has north indian roots, Pure south indian with no outside influence looks like this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EfWs4gpNJHg/SEL17lX8DsI/AAAAAAAAAAw/u8DCiRqaYdc/s400/dalit_man_doorway.jpg - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EfWs4gpNJHg/SEL17lX8DsI/AAAAAAAAAAw/u8DCiRqaYdc/s400/dalit_man_doorway.jpg
|
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 00:48
|
Thats your concept and belief. You yourself hadmentioned in your earlier posts about finding darkskinned people at several places in pakistan.
The photos of Southindians which I posted there are of G.K.Pillai,Vikram,Swami Chinmayananda,Kamal Haasan and one of a Marathi ie Milind Soman.(Others are kashmiris namely Subhash Kak,Muzammil Ibrahim,Muhammed Iqbal khan,Siddharth Kak,R.K.Raina.) Of which the first three are Nairs(menon,Pillai,Nambiar al belong to this race).Nairs were known to have a very early presence in South India with Brahmins.Kamaal Haasan is a South Indian Brahmin Iyengar.They are also known to have a very early presence in the area. I have seen darkskinned people in Northwest of India too but only difference is that they dont wear lungi like south indians.Tribal populations of East India have more dark skinned people than other parts.The caste populations of South India are generally light skinned and tribal populations are darkskinned. Your concept about dravidians(as per my under standing) is that they are darkskinned people.And that is not true there are as many light skinned dravidians in south as there are darkskinned. |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 09:07
| ^ i am not denying at all that pakistan has darkskinned people, infact a good 30-40% of population, especially in Sindh and southern punjab is darkskinned |
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2010 at 23:22
My point in posting the photos was, there is great genetical diversity among the people of India but there are genetical similarities too.Kashmiri people are not a totally different race which doesnt have any genetical relations with other Indians.There are people all over India who is genetically similar to Kashmiris.
|
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2010 at 14:02
| ^my point the more south you go the different people get, obviously people close to kashmir like from himchal will have large similaties, but as you go south, all the way to tamil nadu the different you get |
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2010 at 06:07
| South is not completely Tamilnadu.Extreme South of India has two states Kerala and Tamilnadu.Genetically there are many similarities and also many differences between the two.Kerala and Karnataka populations are more similar and Andhra pradesh & Tamilanadu populations are more similar genetically but languagewise Malayalam is similar to tamil eventhough it(malayalam) has almost 50% of its vocabulary from sanskrit And Kannada is similar to Telughu. |
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2010 at 06:14
| Nairs and Nambudiris of Kerala are known to have migrated to south from Ahichatra of Uttar Pradesh during Kadamba Vanavasi rule in South.Kadamba Vanavasi King Mayura Varman invited the Nagavamsi Kshatriyas of Ahikshetra(Ahichatra) to his kingdom for strengthening its borders and protecting it.These nagavamsis later divided int 3 groups one being the Kodavas(Coorgis) of Coorg Shettys ,Bhandaris & Rais (Tulu bunt Community) of Mangalore and Nairs(Nambiar,Menon,Pillai Kurup and many other subgroups) Of Kerala. Aishvarya Rai belongs to Tulu bunt community. |
Posted By: kamran_koshur
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2011 at 08:46
Kashmiri pànđits form only 300-000 people ------------- Káşyren hinz kàşîr kashmir for kashmiris |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2011 at 14:35
| ^ i have a question, since you are from kashmir. Are kashmiri pandits really from kashmir? because whenever i see kashmiri pandits they look more (indian) to me then lets say muslim kashmiries, by indian i mean they are usally more darkskinned and speak in Indian accent, but when i see muslim kashmiries they look more dardic or even afghan in origin, I thought they were the same people? |
Posted By: kamran_koshur
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2011 at 14:05
|
yeah kashmiri pandits are indigenous to kashmir and most of them have reddish to dark brown hair as well as green eyes like the rest of kashmiris. however after leaving kashmir in 1989 because of the conspiracy of the then governor jagmohan , some of them maybe 1 % or even less intermixed with indians and as a result appear to have indic features and that detestable indian accent. the vast majority of them are still caucasian in appearance and speak with a thick rural kashmiri accent . thanx ------------- Káşyren hinz kàşîr kashmir for kashmiris |
Posted By: oxydracae
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2012 at 01:18
| ^^ yeah and Kashmiri Muslims were also originally Kashmiri Pandits. This is clear from their surnames. |
Posted By: Kuyk Koshur
Date Posted: 29-May-2012 at 11:28
| Your figures are totally wrongs. Hindus form 35-40% of the entire State of Jammu, Ladakh & Kashmir. Jammu is predominantly Hindu, Ladakh is a mix of Buddhists and Shia Muslim, whilst Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. These regions are distinct and were artificially put together as one state by the British/Dogra empire rulers from Jammu. If we talk about the Kashmir part only, before the modern freedom struggle began in 1989, Hindus were only about 5% of Kashmir - now they are only 2% because 3% of them decided to move to Jammu or rest of India. The 2% pandits left in Kashmir have no problems whatsoever. The religious hatred is all made up by media and it is in the interest of Indian Army to do so as they need a good reason to be in Kashmir. Muslim Kashmiris still say why don't the 3% who left come back now that the freedom struggle has died down? I'll tell you why, most of them are doing extremely well in India with opportunities they would never have in good old Kasheer! |
Posted By: Kuyk Koshur
Date Posted: 29-May-2012 at 12:12
Yes, those Kashmiri Muslim with Pandit surnames have Hindu ancestors - such as Bhat/Butt, Dhar/Dar etc. But you are totally wrong if you are saying ALL Kashmiri Muslims are pandit by ancestry. As a tributary to the silk route, Kashmir hosted traders from Central Asia and Persia in the carpet, shawl, papier mache trade for centuries. There are equally as many Kashmiri Muslims with non-Pandit ancestry and this is also clear in their surnames. Examples: Badakhsi (from Badakhshan region of extreme north Afghanistan); Zargar (common name in Iran); Drabu (from Darab in Iran); Andrabi (from Andarab in Afghanistan); Hamdani (from Hamedan in Iran). Also there are a small number Kashmiris of Pashtun origin mainly Yusufzai who have been here in the valley for centuries since Kashmir was part of Afghan Empire and briefly known as East Kabul. All these traders/settlers mixed with local kashmiris and formed what is today the gene pool of Kashmiri muslims. Even those with pandit surnames have mixed heavily with the settlers over the centuries and that is why their culture and to an extent physical attributes have diverged from Hindu Kashmiris over the centuries. |
Posted By: Kuyk Koshur
Date Posted: 29-May-2012 at 12:13
Bilal sahib, you have asked for examples of Central Asian influence in Kashmir, which nobody had responded to, so I will list them. Our cuisine, the "Wazwan", where 4 people sit around the same giant tray of rice with varieties of meat delicacies served is an exact replica of Bukhari cuisine (ie Uzbek, North Afghan - not Pashtun). Only difference is that ours is spicy and Afghan/Uzbek is bland. We don't eat "roti/chappati" - it is alien to us. Our breakfast is not "curry" like most of South Asia, we have a variety of ethnic bakery products like "kulcha", "cripp", "tsot", "tsotchvoru" etc - all this is shared between the Central Asian states and I have even seen similar breakfast in Turkish villages. With this we have a pink salty tea called Noon Chai which is unique to Kashmir, although Kashmiri emigres to Pakistani Punjab proudly continue this tradition. Next is our dress. Our traditional dress is Kameez Yazaar (which is same as Salwar kameez) with Pheran (a baggy woollen overcoat). In my travels, I have seen the pheran but in a different style in extreme north of Afghanistan and also in Hunza region of extreme north Pakistan whom I would also classify as Central Asian rather than South Asian. Our marriage customs are an exact replica of Central Asians. There is no dowry system or jahez. The husband must pay a good amount of haq maher and wife's family has no duty to pay anything. However, of course we do have a lot of South Asian influence, especially since the advent of the man-made tunnel through the mountains that now artificially links us to India and before that with Pakistan through natural mountain passes (hence the large historical Kashmiri settlements in Pak Punjab). Just because we got mentioned in lots of South Asian history books it doesn't mean we were culturally linked. We were however, religiously linked through the Pandits and Buddhists who were the majority in ancient times and Kashmir was seen as a seat of learning for Buddys and Hindus spreading from China to Afghanistan. I would say our original culture is closer to Central than South Asian, but as time passes our city folk (ie Srinagaris) are becoming closer to South Asia thanks to TV, air travel, education (most Kashmiris now study in Indian universities - there is only one proper uni in Kashmir where we also have a Central Asian Studies department!). In the mountainous villages though, you will still get the purest form of Kashmiri culture and that is where it really hits you that Kashmir is not South Asian at all. I guess its the same rural/metropolitan divide everywhere, the true culture remains preserved in the rural areas whilst the cities have regional and even globalised influences. |
Posted By: Kuyk Koshur
Date Posted: 29-May-2012 at 12:16
Your figures are totally wrongs. Hindus form 35-40% of the entire State of Jammu, Ladakh & Kashmir. Jammu is predominantly Hindu, Ladakh is a mix of Buddhists and Shia Muslim, whilst Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. These regions are distinct and were artificially put together as one state by the British/Dogra empire rulers from Jammu. If we talk about the Kashmir part only, before the modern freedom struggle began in 1989, Hindus were only about 5% of Kashmir - now they are only 2% because 3% of them decided to move to Jammu or rest of India. The 2% pandits left in Kashmir have no problems whatsoever. The religious hatred is all made up by media and it is in the interest of Indian Army to do so as they need a good reason to be in Kashmir. Muslim Kashmiris still say why don't the 3% who left come back now that the freedom struggle has died down? I'll tell you why, most of them are doing extremely well in India with opportunities they would never have in good old Kasheer! |
Posted By: Kuyk Koshur
Date Posted: 29-May-2012 at 12:30
Dear Balochi brother, agreed that overall parts of Pak are culturally and ethnically closer to Pak than Hind. But it is not northern Punjab that is similar to Kashmiris at all. North Punjab is similar to Jammu as they are right next to each other without any natural barriers. In Jammu they speak Dogri which is a dialect of Punjabi. I have travelled across Pak and feel the closest resemblance is in Gilgit/Hunza area which is the northern neighbour of KAshmir Valley. Although even they are quite distinct due to mountainous isolation, they have a similar dress and food habits and the traditional art/handicrafts is very similar. Also the language is part of the same Dardic group as them rather than Indic group which Punjabi would fall under. I have also travelled extensively in India but I did not find any cultural similarities - even Himachal was totally different in culture. |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2013 at 12:07
Kashmir was inhabited by Hindus from time immemorial and was a center of Hindu culture. Kashmir Shaivism was one of the foremost schools of Hindu learning. A minister of the Hindu King, originally from Swat valley, married the Hindu King's widow and became the first Muslim King of Kashmir. He started the Kashmir sultanate in the 14th century. Sultan Sikander, his son, was one of the most bloodthirsty butchers the world has seen. He persecuted the Hindus, made piles of their skulls, destroyed all the temples and centers of learning and laid waste to the whole of the country. At the end of his reign there was not a single Hindu left in the Kashmir valley. Either they converted, or died or escaped to the plains. There was no learning, no arts, so music and the population had been decimated. And a once rich kingdom was impoverished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikandar_Butshikan His son was a more enlightened person and wanted to bring back the glory that had been Kashmir. He called back the Hindus who had migrated to the plains and enticed them with Royal grants and trading opportunities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zain-ul-Abidin Only some of theHindus returned and they prospered. However from then on Kashmir was a largely Muslim kingdom with a small Hindu minority. Subsequently, twice again, Hindus were persecuted (but not as badly as Sultan Sikander) and driven out of Kashmir. Each time they were called back and so they returned to their homeland twice more after the first return. The last time that they returned, only the Pandits returned. Other castes either settled in the plains or had converted long ago. That is why the only Hindus in Kashmir are Pundits - the rest never returned. In 1989, the Pundits were again persecuted and they again fled to the plains. Since everything Hindu was essentially destroyed, Kashmir started again de-novo in 1400s and developed because of the influence of whoever the local rulers imported. Mostly they imported the Afghan and Central Asian Islamic traditions. So no wonder the Kashmiris are like Afghans and Central Asians. ------------- Venky |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2013 at 13:58
| kashmir was vedic yes, not present hindu which is basically a ganga based culture. Ancient Vedic people were a south/central asian people to begin with, they probably looked compltly different from present day Indians and their culture was totally different |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2013 at 07:47
I am afraid you need to check your history of Kashmir. It was a great center of classical Hindu religious thought till the afore-mentioned events some 6-700 years ago transpired. You are again mixing language, ethnicity and culture. Language Kashmiri is variously called Dardic (by Pakistan Shield) or by some as more closely linked to the Rig Vedic Sanskrit (as you yourself have previously posted). Ethnically it is difficult to be sure about Kashmir, as with any north Indian population. But it is possible that ethnically Kashmiris are closer to the Rif Vedic Indo Aryans or other Proto-Indo-European language from which the Dardic languages have evolved, whichi s probably related to Parthian or related ethnic group - possibly from the Indo Parthians. Culture is always changing. Kashmir from 300 BC to 400-500 AD was Buddhist. From 4-500 AD to 1400 AD approx it was Hindu, Shaivaite classical Hindu. Shankara came to Kashmir to read from their library - because it was the best in existence after the destruction of Taxila by the Huns. From 1400 AD to present it is Muslim and mostly adopted imported cultural elements rather than local as I posted earlier ------------- Venky |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2013 at 09:35
| ^ well the original article is about the muslims of kashmir, they are defiantly mixed with central asian and afghans, their culture is very similar to them rather than ganga indian culture, which I believe even hindu kashmiries never practiced. Kashmiries also look complelty different from most indian groups |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2013 at 07:35
The muslims of Kashmir are all forced converts from Hinduism in the 15th century AD as I had written earlier. There was very little influx of Afghans or other centralasians in large numbers - in fact Kashmir was converted by a single individual who married the Hindu queen to become King, as I had written earlier. After that it was never invaded until the Mughals invaded it. There was no influx of population. Before 15th century they were all very much practicing Hindus and in fact they were great Hindu scholars who decided how Hinduism should be practiced. They were culturally same as Hindus in Ganges plains - no difference. They had great temples and prayed to Shiva and the Shiva Linga. All of these were completely destroyed by Sultan Sikander in the 14th century and the stones were used to build mosques. As for looks - they look a bit different, but not significantly different from Punjabis of India or Pakistan. If people live for a while in UK and then look at Indians, Pakistanis or Kashmiris or Bangladeshis - all look the same - and very very different from the Whites and the Blacks and the East Asians. It is easy to place a south Asian as such - and very difficult to place the state or location within South Asia. The difference in looks between these groups of South Asians is like "unnees bees" or 19-20. The difference between Whites and South Asians is about 19 and 1200 - and same between blacks and South Asians. And if you watch the cricket teams - who play in the hot sun all day - there is no difference at all ! In USA there is a lot of overlap between looks of Mexicans/Latins and South Asians though. One is hard placed to tell the difference until people open their mouth and their accent betrays them. Much of the descriptions you are making about light skin in Kashmir - these are true for about 5-10 % of the KAshmiris - same as for Punjabis from both sides of the border. Lots of Kashmiris are quite brown just like in Punjab. When they come to work in the plains, it is difficult to place them as Kashmiris at all - they could be from anywhere. Such light skinned individuals are seen all over India including from Tamil Brahmins (? from north migrations), Kerala Namboodiris (same), Kerala Nairs (? Arab blood), Goans (? Portugese), Konkanis (?Arabs), Andhra, Maharashtrians, Gujaratis, Bengalis - all very far away from the repeatedly invaded Punjab where whiter skin is more common. Many poorer Kashmiris who work outside in the sun look quite close to Himachalis, Garhwalis and Nepalis - with lighter skin tanned by the ultraviolet light of the higher altitudes. Kashmiris features are also similar to the other hill people. They tan very easily when exposed to the sun, just like other light skinned people from the subcontinent. None of them look like Germans or Saxons or North Europeans at all - or even Russians. Closest to Kashmiris in looks are probably Pathans - and even among them, only 10 odd percent are really light skinned. Rest look generic South Asian. ------------- Venky |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2013 at 09:50
|
^ no, kashmiries are significantly fairer than most punjabis, in Pakistan most people know this, only northern punjabi groups living in extreme northern punjab or azad kashmir mayhave some resemblance to them, but that is because they probably mixed with them The Ganga plains indians have nothing to do with kashmiries, even in the past they were totally seperate, just because kashmiries were hindus, doesn't mean they were related to ganga plains indians and your comment on pathans is ridicules, even the darkest pathan will never look indian, they totally have a different phenotype. groups like baloch, pathans, kalash, dardic, and even many kashmiries have nothing to do with indians, Indians totally look different (Dravidian) on average Just look at average pashtuns on google images, even the darkest ones would never resemble indians. Also most of the pashtun skintone is Med/middle eastern, not indian https://www.google.ca/search?q=pashtun&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=LtM&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=4AsMUdzyKoHS2AXr7YGYCg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1440&bih=728 Pakistani punjabis though can be considered a transitional people between south/central asian groups I mentioned and the Indians, Punjabis in general can range from a Kashmiri type look to a Tamil type look. Most indians however are closer to looks to south indians than they are too south/central asian folks. This is a fact and btw, so called Tamil Brahmins, most of them look generic south indian, in fact most UP brahmins are generic too. I dont know why people say Brahmins are fairer, most of them look exactly the same as surrounding population. In fact some low caste Rajahastani groups I have seen are probably more fairskinned than Tamil or Up Brahmins |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2013 at 13:34
|
also your unnees bees theory is bogus. Indians generally may show very little difference, but once you get to north west part of south asia, people over there completely change in looks from Indians, doesn't matter what their skin colour is, a Pashtun, Baloch, Dardics, Kalash and even most Kashmiries will almost never look Indian |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 04:04
I have two Kashmiris working under me (both Muslim) and one Kashmiri who is a colleague - a Hindu who came to the plains long ago. They dont look much different from the Punjabis. If I didnt know their origin and saw them on the streets of Delhi (where I live) - I would never be able to guess their origin based on looks. I see people from Afghanistan every other day in my work. Most of them are Pushtuns and seem quite poor. They dress different and speak different - and it is mostly their speech which sets them apart. And many are bearded. Many look thinner and taller and have a starved kind of look - unlike the well fed and shorter Punjabis. But based on their features they could be from Punjab or even the Himachal. I have lived in Western countries and it is virtually impossible to guess the person's origin, unless they are very very typical. Kashmiris look like Punjabis who look like Lebanese who look like Arabs who look like Algerians who look like Turkish. I have travelled in the Gulf also - and most people in Arabic countries also look pretty similar. Of course, percentage of people who would fit into a description would be really low the farther you get from central asia, from where most of the people of the north west are derived. So you cannot go by the averages at all - what is 20% might be 2% in another geographic location. In another post on steppe nomads, on a discussion on caste system, I had posted as below: "Actually apprearance of people in India depends on geographical location. Dark skin is better suited for India protecting against skin cancer. So those people who have evolved longer within India will keep getting darker. More recent arrivals from Central Asia tend to have lighter skin tone and these are more concentrated in Punjab and nearby northern areas regardless of caste. As you get further away from Punjab, people from the so called "higher" castes would tend to look more like the Punjabi people. This trend will get weaker as you get further and further away from Punjab, until you reach Tamil Nadu where most people from almost all castes would look similar and have darker skin and coarser features. So a person from a supposedly lower caste in Punjab would have more central asian features and skin than a person from a supposedly higher caste from Tamil Nadu, where apart from Brahmins (some of whom are more recent arrivals from 1200 to 1800 AD, being displaced from looted temples of North India by muslim invasion) everyone would look the same. Punjab was invased in succession by Aryans (1200BC), Persians (500BC), Greeks (300BC), Shakas (200BC), Parthians (150BC), Kushans (100BC), Huns (500AD), Afghans (1200 AD), Mongols (briefly and not in strength 1250-1300 AD), Tamerlane (1400 AD), Afghans (Mughals) 1500 AD and Persians (Nadir Shah) 1750 AD. (Just approximate dates)" BTW, someone had posted a photo of Turks during a demonstration in Brussels - very interesting to see how different each of them looked - but all were from Turkey. You should have a look at the photo - it is in the Steppe Nomad section. http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31423 How many of these would you guess to be from India? I thought about 7-8 looked like they could be from India but none looks like the "average" Indian. But I see people looking like this every day in Delhi. Yet all are Turkish - thats the farthese you can get from India and still be in Asia. I dont have much more to say. Except, if you watch cricket, a look at the Indian and Pakistan teams - and then the Australian/English and West Indies teams - would be quite informative.
------------- Venky |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 04:38
Lots of Muslim Kashmiri traders are also in India and doing well - you cannot visit a handicrafts center in any part of India without running into a Kashmir handicrafts shop. Lots of young educated Kashmiris who are Muslim are now working in Indian companies in well paid jobs and are buying flats in Gurgaon. Same holds true for people from every other state in India as well. Many educated Kashmiris who are Muslims also prefer to continue their education, do PhD and get teaching jobs all over India - lots of them seem to prefer this option for some reason. ------------- Venky |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 13:19
Punjabis are not mainstream Indians, like I said they are transitional people between proper Indians from (india) and south central asian people like Pashtuns etc... so you will find every type of look in punjabis ranging from a pashtun look to a Tamil look. As for the rest of Indians, they are completely different from south central asian people, you must be blind in thinking they look the same, and I am not just talking about skin colour, a pashtun has totally different features from Ganga plain indian. Indians again are a heavy Dravidian race, if you knew any thing about genetics you will see that almost all Indians from Delhi and south/east wards are heavily related to Ancestral south indians, who are native dark (Veddoid) race of India, they had nothing to do with central asian folks Even in cricket teams you will see that the Pathan guys easily stand out from the punjabi guys, look at Afridi, Younis Khan, Umar Gul, Junaid Khan and compare them to average punjabis like Kamran Akmal, Shoaib Malik etc... In pakistan we know how much average punjabies and average pashtuns look a part. In Pakistan punjab, Pashtuns are usually considered a (gora) white race and Indians are considerd a Dark dravdian race Also regarding high caste, it's all Bs propoganda spread by hindu natiolists, I have never seen a Ganga UP Brahmin or a tamil brahmin who looks like even a punjabi, let alone Pashtun. Most Brahmins from those areas look exactly same as the other castes look at this video of tamil brahmins, do they look different from other Tamils lol, do they look punjabi? [TUBE]Dqc6d0ZORwQ[/TUBE] Looks at all these brahmins from UP , do they look Pashtuns? [TUBE]P7Xgc4ljHKM[/TUBE] ^ again it's all Bs spread by indian nationalistic who claim they are the real Aryan race |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 13:34
|
and look at this video of pakistani pashtuns, by no mean they are white, but their skin tone and looks are completly different from Indian, they are closer to middle easterners in looks, simply because they have west asian genes and less south asian component [TUBE]1mKaKZOUefE[/TUBE] |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 13:39
|
Ofcourse Chitralis/Dardic look even more different, they are more similar to Pamiri populations than to south asians: [TUBE]ps_PIwlpuz8[/TUBE] ^ in this video the darker guy is a punjabi who uploaded the video, look at the difference between him and chitralis |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2013 at 15:02
|
edit |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2013 at 07:36
  Above are Afghan Army and people Below are Indian Army and people    Now this is Americal Army guys  All thown up by first page of search google images of Afghan, Indian and American . Tell me - do the Afghans look like Indians or like Americans? Now for some tamil brahmins (I googled Tamil Brahmin wedding photos)    About a million colourful photos come - you can see for yourself. I am not saying there is no difference between Punjabi, Afgan, North and South Brahmins - there is. But the difference is hardly 19/20 ka farak. Now look at some Iranians (not at all having any local Indian genes at all - I dont say Dravidian because Dravidian is a language group   None of the Afghans, Iranians or Arabs ever stand out as foreign in Delhi - because some (but not all) Indians can look like them and so they are not perceived as alien. Of course, Indians are extremely colour conscious and "look" conscious. But most of it is conscious over 19/20 ka farak only. All of these people stand out in Germany as totally foreign - and difficult to place. Germans look so tiotally different, they are truly a different race. None stand out in Delhi as foreign. If they did not open their mouth and betray their foreigh language - or did not wear clothes which were different - like a Burnos or peculiar outlandish clothes - they would not be seen as foreign in Delhi. ------------- Venky |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2013 at 07:44
|
BTW I just returned from a holiday in Goa which was full of europeans. Because of the discussion here I tried to place their origin and then asked them where they were from. I made quite a few mistakes between British and Russian people - especially the old fat people. Russians are difinitely European - and any Russian blood in Iranians and South Asians is now diluted to non-significance as far as looks go - Russians are Europeans and Iranians and Arabs are definitely not European. They dont look at all similar. Now let us look at the PAthans you pointed out (sorry, the cricketers pictures keep getting deleted for some reason) Afrigi Younis Umar Gul Junaid Khan Now coming to the non PAthans Kamran Akmal Shoib Malik Indian Cricket team  North West Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans Kashmiris - to me they look similar - 19/20 ka farak. Now for some Kashmiris  I think you are hypersensitive to small differences - it is very much there in India also. Pakistan army  Kashmiris     There is very little actual difference - the Afghans and Kashmiris as local "goras" are a stereotype which about 5-10% of people of Afghanistan or Kashmir might be able to meet. If that.
------------- Venky |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 11:54
|
you are posting the most Caucasoid indians you could find, that's not how most indians look even punjabis. Afghans and indians are very different looking from each other, there is no comparison, even if some afghans are dark they usually look the arab type dark, not indian. I have seen enough afghans and indians in my life to know the difference is huge, not the 19/20 difference you are talking about. Punjabis are also no way similar to afghans/pashtuns, while there are individual punjabis who can pass as pashtuns, they are no way in majority as you are portraying. Most punjabis are very indian looking, on average punjabis are just more robust version of other north indians, they dont look like pashtuns, kalash,Balochis etc.... In pakistan (punjab) pashtuns almost always stand out in the crowd, most pashtuns are known as goras in cities like Lahore, Rawalpindi etc... so you really dont know what are you talking about. I myself have lived in punjab. As for kashmiries they are a mix of dardic people up north and punjabis, you would find both types of looks in them. however an average street punjabi is very different from kashmiries aswell |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 14:27
Do the google search yourself I posted everything from the first page on images and gave you the key words. For Afghan picture search the famous female geographic photo came up multiple times. Now that is the real picking out peculiar isolated photo. Frankly none looked caucasoid. The American soldiers looked caucasoid. To some extent there is a difference between the man on the street and people from richer background. in general richer people like those you find in malls will look more punjabi than the poor people on the streets. In Kashmir also this is true. The majority on the streets and the richer minority look different and gets reflected in the srinagar protest photos I posted. There is a theory that blondes arose by sexual selection some 10 or 20000 years ago. Within india richer men would prefer to marry women with lighter complexion and over even a few generations this can skew peoples looks. In older times you can change higher caste for richer men and this is a possible reason for differences in looks even when the gene pool is same. So your skin colour genes would segregate differently from mitochondrial and y chr haplogroups. A lot of skin colour is also epigenetics. So norwegians and icelanders tan more than germans although only 1000 years separate them. Anyone living in tropics will tan heavier in each passing generation. So mesopotamian arabs and egyptians are much darker than more northern populations and more recent arrivals of iranic origin in arabia. Southern iraqis look very different from northern syrians.
------------- Venky |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 14:34
|
^ who cares about google search? I know how indians look and I know how afghans look, I meet them almost on a daily basis I never said they look white or european, but most afghans have a west asian/middle eastern type look, which most indians lack. there is a certain percentage of south/centrals asians who can pass as white or eastern european, espeically among the kids who show coloured eyes and hair on a very high percentage. I have never seen a indian with those features, even among punjabis |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2013 at 23:20
        The above pictures turned up on a randon google search of Khazakhstan people. Now these are people who would truly be called intermediate between Europeans and Asians - There are some who would pass for Germanic, some who would pass for Iranians, some who would pass for Mongols. Very very few who who would ever be called South Asians. These people if found on the streets of Delhi would be considered foreigners. Now I have been to Kashmir valley and Kashmiris dont look like these. I have also been to Kabul and Afghans dont look like these. I also meet Afghans who come to Delhi on a regular basis and they dont look like these. Yes, definitely some of these people (and Uzbeks) must have come down to Afghanistan and the Swat valley and might be responsible for the occasional blonde hair and blue or green eyes seen in Afghans. Probable sources are from the Jushan invasion from Uzbekistan or mercenaries from Greek invasion - or more likely a combination of both. If you look at Iranians, few or almost none have these kind of features. Iranians came from Turkmenistan and Afghans are also from the same area. Probably, Afghans are much closer to Iranians than Khazaks (who are the descendents of the Andronovo people of antiquity). Khazakhstan despite its massive size is very thinly populated and has some 15 million people or so - much much less than Afghanistan. Kashmiris are nothing like these people. They are much closer to north Indians and Punjabis. You will never find this kind of stand out appearance in Kashmir at all - and that is abundantly visible in the street protest photos which I had posted earlier, where some 1000s of people are visible. Now below are Uzbekistan people      And so on and so forth - the Uzbeks look intermediate between the Khazaks and the Afghans and Iranians. They also seem to have a lot more Mongol blood in them than Khazaks. Uzbeks are much more populous than Khazaks with some 30 million of them. With Samarkhand and Bukhara straddling the silk route, they are obviously on the crossroads and are a total melting pot of multiple ethnicities. If you do the same googling with Kyrgizthan, they look almost completely Mongol as do the Uigurs. Kashmiris again look nothing like the Uzbeks. Kashmiris are SLIGHTLY CLOSER to Khazaks than North Indians. But Kashmiris are really far from being close to Khazaks at all. They are very very close to being South Asians - in fact they ARE south Asians
------------- Venky |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 00:46
|
who is talking about kashmiries? like I said before kashmiries are a mix of dardics and south asians, they look mixed. also your are posting pics from Uzbekistan/Kazkhasthan, who was ever talking about that? Kashmiries are closer to south/central asia region, not proper central asia. South central asia means = pashtuns, dardics, afghans, kalash etc.. those people Also again who is saying pashtuns look white? I have said pashtuns for the most part look west asian, however people up in north pakistan like northern pashtuns, kalash, dardic and once you cross the border in to the Wakhan area between pakistan/tajikistan (Pamiries), there are a good numbers of people with European features, not fully european, but with european features. Indians totally lack those features Just go search Pamiri people, nuristani people, kalash people on the net, a good number of them, even if it 20% have those features, especially the kids. Pashtuns up north living close to these areas tend to exhibit these features in higher numbers, compared to lets say pashtuns living in Kabul or Peshawar also my original point is that none of these look Indian, Indians totally have indic features native to south asia found no where else |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 00:57
|
look at the pamiri girl at 7:00, she can easily fit in eastern europe somewhere, there is clearly some european features in the area, espeically the mountains of tajikistan and north pakistan. In General almost all the people in the area have very fairskin and look nothing like indians, they resemble west asians the most, followed by eastern european [TUBE]rKaecMDew60[/TUBE] |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 01:40
The thread is about Kashmir and central asia And Central Asia means Uzbekistan, Khazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Iran, Iraq the levant and Turkey is West Asia. India and Pakistan including Kashmir is South Asia. Afghanistan is the border between West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.
------------- Venky |
Posted By: Venkytalks
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 07:59
|
From another forum - Regarding whether the Mughals were Turkik or Mongol: Confusing topic this. Uzbeks have always had Mongol blood probably from pre history in terms of both language, culture and genes. Uzbekistan from prehistory has been inhabited by people who come from the confluence of the European and Mongol races in the steppes and at different times had people of different ethnicity and language – but derived from the admixture of these two gene pools – the percentage probably varies from person to person. But in time, you can say that the proportion of Mongol genes kept on increasing. Being on a trade route – silk route no less – meant continuous churn in the gene pool. The Yeuzhei (of 200 BC) – I am using approximate dates throughout - and Tocharians (of 500 AD) both living originally in Xingiang were Indo European speaking, but given their close proximity to the Mongol and Chinese, were probably genetic admixtures – and would have carried their Mongol blood with them when they were displaced. Even the original Indo Aryans probably had some Mongol blood in them – and invasions by the Mongol tribes would have definitely played a part in their migration in one way or another, although not recorded in history. In well recorded times, in around 850 AD, the Turkik speaking people migrated throughout central Asia from the Tarim basin, basically Xingiang and Kyrgizthan region. At that time these people were probably half Indo European and half Mongoloid in their gene pool, being descended from the Tocharians and the Uighur Khaghanate (both a couple of centuries earlier). They probably emigrated after they were defeated (like the Yeuzhei previously) in 850 AD. The distinction between Turkik and Mongol is not possible based on genes – because the gene pools were liquid and mixed freely, derived from the same two groups at different times. And the Turkik speakers from 850 to 950 AD populated Central Asia from Turkey to Afgnanistan, on both sides of the Caspian sea. But the proportion of local people still residing in an area would determine the local gene pool (remembering that the Steppes were always thinly populated while the places they went to had agriculture and heavy populations). So in Turkey, despite being Turkik speaking, gene pool would be mostly European and Greek and only minimally Mongol. In Khazaksthan it would be mostly European but slightly more Mongol. And yet Turks are mostly dark haired while Khazakhs are mostly blonde. So despite the gene pool being in the same broad category, no comparison makes sense in looks, dress or culture. In Afghanistan and Azerbaijan it would be mostly European and Irano-Parthian in gene pool but in language and culture, they would be very very different. No comparison again makes sense. So pre-Mongol 13th century invasion, Turkik people are already half Mongols. Based on language and culture, Turkik is different from Mongol. And the Uzbeks remained Turkik even after the Mongol invasion of the 13th century washed over them. Only the proportion of Mongol DNA in the gene pool increased. The Mongols absorbed the local culture of the core group of Turkik people i.e. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan – they are basically Turkik people of similar admixture of gene pools. And after Mongol invasions of 13th century were over, the area remained Turkik in nature, gene pool, culture and language. Coming to Mughals of India, the Kings were of Uzbek origin and largely remained so because mostly married to Afghans or Uzbek women. But in the populations of the army, the biggest chunk would be of South Asian origin in gene pool and language. There would be many Afghan cavalry commanders and fighters and artillery commanders – maybe 5% would be of Afghan origin. Afghan (Pushto speakers) are themselves a genetic admixture. Iranic, Turkik and South Asian in one third proportion approximately – with individual variations. The population of Mughal empire numbering maybe 100 million people (depending on whether you take census before or after a famine !!!) were 99% South Asian. Mughals were Uzbeks. Mughal empire was very much Indian. ------------- Venky |