Kashmir and central Asia

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!

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000                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.

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.

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar [QUOTE=balochii]^ 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

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

^ 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

^ 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


Edited by balochii - 01-Feb-2013 at 13:54

Originally posted by balochii 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

Edited by Venkytalks - 02-Feb-2013 at 04:34

Originally posted by Venkytalks Originally posted by balochii 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 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.

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?

Looks at all these brahmins from UP , do they look Pashtuns?




^ again it's all Bs spread by indian nationalistic who claim they are the real Aryan race


Edited by balochii - 02-Feb-2013 at 13:41

Ofcourse Chitralis/Dardic look even more different, they are more similar to Pamiri populations than to south asians:



^ in this video the darker guy is a punjabi who uploaded the video, look at the difference between him and chitralis


Edited by balochii - 02-Feb-2013 at 15:03