Why do Pashtuns give their daughters to non-pashtuns?

[Khyber Pass]

thats because pashtuns ruled india numerous times and left cultural imprint.
you are looking at this the other way around. Even if there was hinduism in Afghanistan that doesnt mean it had to do with india or that afghanistan was part of india. it were the locals who practiced it and even the people in india held these "aryans" in high esteem. So what ever cultural similarities you see is because Pashtuns ruled india and brought their culture there. also the clothing , it was brought there by Afghans ,persians ,arabs and mughuls.


the name hind or hindustan was given to them by muslims.
india is most likely an english version of it.

seems like you have sort of bias ,to make us seem closer to indians.

btw Afghanistan is situated in southcentral asia aka heart of asia.
the map your posted it false and one shouldnt just google a map and post it since there are many who would make these false claims and maps.

That map of the geography of Asia, used by the United Nations actually, how can it be false? I'm sure you know a lot more about the geographic locations of certain countries because you're just that smart? Yeah screw all the vast intellects that sit in the UN all day making these maps you're right. LOL my sarcasm. Anyway what you just stated was my point, like I said earlier and if you took the time and effort to read my responses I clearly stated as a whole we are closer to Indians because A) Our ancient era location was India, when India ranged to Ghandhara, and B) Our Invasions to them have shaped much of their culture, we can also say the same about their invasions on us as well. Here is another map. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...th_Asia_UN.png This is another map of South Asia, and another onehttp://www.southasianconcern.org/ima...h_asia_map.gif As a whole Afghanistan is situated in South Asia but it's geographical location makes it a good way to control both the middle east, central asia and south asia, *cough*

[Khyber Pass]

Everyone should keep in mind that (Pashtuns, Baloch, Kurds, Persians, Tajiks, etc) Are Iranid races. Who they mix with and what they do to bring the next generation is not my business. They are iranians (iranid races), their language belongs to iranian languages (pashto, balochi, farsi). Who they mix after being said this is not my business. They can mix with sindhis/panjabis or indics or whoever they want and create mix breed. But originally in their pure original form they are iranids. And panjabis in their solid original shape/form are indics and belong to indic race.

Mixing will create mix breeds. But in their original pure form they look like iranians. And panjabis in their original form look like indics. because of course they were/are originally indians.

I've said this countless times Punjab has many ethnicities, not all have Indic orgins, ya idiot.

[M17ArnoBaloch]

I've said this countless times Punjab has many ethnicities, not all have Indic orgins, ya idiot.

All of them do, ya idiot. There is a Pakistani panjab and there is an indian panjab. Once that was 1 big Panjab. Who lived in that 1 big panjab? Ofcourse Indians did. Hence they were called: "Panjabis", ya idiot.

[ډګروال]

That map of the geography of Asia, used by the United Nations actually, how can it be false? I'm sure you know a lot more about the geographic locations of certain countries because you're just that smart? Yeah screw all the vast intellects that sit in the UN all day making these maps you're right. LOL my sarcasm. Anyway what you just stated was my point, like I said earlier and if you took the time and effort to read my responses I clearly stated as a whole we are closer to Indians because A) Our ancient era location was India, when India ranged to Ghandhara, and B) Our Invasions to them have shaped much of their culture, we can also say the same about their invasions on us as well. Here is another map. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...th_Asia_UN.png This is another map of South Asia, and another onehttp://www.southasianconcern.org/ima...h_asia_map.gif As a whole Afghanistan is situated in South Asia but it's geographical location makes it a good way to control both the middle east, central asia and south asia, *cough*

Afghanistan is situated in the southcentral asia not south asia.
Afghanistan hasnt been part of india or conquered by india.

hope that is clear

[Khyber Pass]

Afghanistan is situated in the southcentral asia not south asia.
Afghanistan hasnt been part of india or conquered by india.

hope that is clear

Afghanistan did not exist before Durrani's time let us not forget that Before it has been part of Khorasan and India.

[Karachi]

I've said this countless times Punjab has many ethnicities, not all have Indic orgins, ya idiot.

jatts, rajputs, mughals, arians etc.... are all indic and former hindus. none of them look like from Iran, central asia, europe. Out of all the punjabi groups, Jatts may have outside origins, but they have clearly mixed with indics so much, that you can not tell a difference between them and other punjabi/north indian groups, they generally all have very similar indic looking features. There are always few exceptions and like I said in south asia, some familes do have real outside origins, but those are individual families, not whole ethnicity

[Khyber Pass]

All of them do, ya idiot. There is a Pakistani panjab and there is an indian panjab. Once that was 1 big Panjab. Who lived in that 1 big panjab? Ofcourse Indians did. Hence they were called: "Panjabis", ya idiot.

You don't understand, that is the LOCATION of Punjab that's like calling everyone that lives in Balochistan as Baloch, everyone that lives in KPK as Pashtun as we know that's not true as we have a diverse population of Hindkowans, Pashtuns, Baloch, Kalash and so on each with it's own origins. Generalizing all the people of the Punjab is stupid.

[ډګروال]

Afghanistan did not exist before Durrani's time let us not forget that Before it has been part of Khorasan and India.

im sure you understood what i ment.

[Khyber Pass]

jatts, rajputs, mughals, arians etc.... are all indic and former hindus. none of them look like from Iran, central asia, europe. Out of all the punjabi groups, Jatts may have outside origins, but they have clearly mixed with indics so much, that you can not tell a difference between them and other punjabi/north indian groups, they generally all have very similar indic looking features. There are always few exceptions and like I said in south asia, some familes do have real outside origins, but those are individual families, not whole ethnicity

Mughals do not have Indic orgins neither do Aryans as whole in fact the Aryan, Indian story there is quite a bit of dispute about it. Rajputs do though, but they are not from the Punjab rather they are from Northern India from a place called Rajasthan.

[Karachi]

^ the arians of punjab are not (aryans). They are a zaat actually native to indian side of punjab, which migrated to pakistani punjab in 1947. Also Mughals may claim their linage from the mughal empire, but in reality that doesn't make it so, considering how many Mughals there are from Pakistan to Bangladesh. All of these people look 100% desi and indian not central asian like the real mughals

[Khyber Pass]

^ the arians of punjab are not (aryans). They are a zaat actually native to indian side of punjab, which migrated to pakistani punjab in 1947. Also Mughals may claim their linage from the mughal empire, but in reality that doesn't make it so, considering how many Mughals there are from Pakistan to Bangladesh. All of these people look 100% desi and indian not central asian like the real mughals

You can't say that about every single Punjabi that lives in Punjab, if you are going to generalize like that I can also say the same about Pashtuns can I not? You are making assumptions but are not using proper historical credible facts to back up your claims. The Indians in general are primarily Aryans, even India as a whole was founded by the Aryans when they came into India and settled in present day Sindh. The Aryans were classified as a bloodthirsty race, coming into the Indus in 1500 BC and basically creating a full blood bath one of these people was Bharata who created a very large Indian empire "According to ancient Indian epic legend of the Mahabharata as well as the numerous puranas and diverse Indian history, Bharat Empire included the whole territory of the Indian subcontinent, including parts of present day Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia,[3] Turkmenistan, North-west Tibet, Nepal and Bangladesh." As a whole we have no direct proof of mixing, we don't even have proof of Pashtuns mixing, so why bring up that topic?

[Karachi]

^ this concept that aryans created indian civilization is incorrect. Aryans were a small group of people, coming to a huge land called India. India already had a Dravdian civilization before Aryans came. Even today India is a mix of Dravidian culture and all the other cultures that came, including muslim central asian cultures. The influence of Dravdian people is undeniable, even in pakistan

Also we can go on and on about being punjabis being different from Indians, but that is not the reality, even punjabis themselves know this

[Khyber Pass]

^ this concept that aryans created indian civilization is incorrect. Aryans were a small group of people, coming to a huge land called India. India already had a Dravdian civilization before Aryans came. Even today India is a mix of Dravidian culture and all the other cultures that came, including muslim central asian cultures. The influence of Dravdian people is undeniable, even in pakistan

Also we can go on and on about being punjabis being different from Indians, but that is not the reality, even punjabis themselves know this

How is it incorrect? I won't view it as incorrect because you simply told me so, but there is dispute, and I know the Dravdian people are the original Native Indians, today they live mostly in South Asia as a whole.

[M17ArnoBaloch]

You don't understand, that is the LOCATION of Punjab that's like calling everyone that lives in Balochistan as Baloch, everyone that lives in KPK as Pashtun as we know that's not true as we have a diverse population of Hindkowans, Pashtuns, Baloch, Kalash and so on each with it's own origins. Generalizing all the people of the Punjab is stupid.

False. Panjabis speak the language "Panjabi". Any panjabi or sindhi living in Balochistan wouldn't speak "Balochi" because he/she isn't a baloch. Balochistan means the land of Baloch. Historically speaking the sistan-va-balochistan and todays balochistan was one big land. Baloch lived in these lands untill occupation from Pakistan. All panjabis are Indians or Indics. So you're living in Panjab right? after a decade would it be okay for me to call you a panjabi? since its just a term for a person living there? Absolutely not. You will stay pashtun you will not become panjabi because panjabi is a race not a term to be given to those who reside Panjab.

Panjabis are Indians. There are indian panjabis and then there are paki panjabis. Both are indians.

[Karachi]

How is it incorrect? I won't view it as incorrect because you simply told me so, but there is dispute, and I know the Dravdian people are the original Native Indians, today they live mostly in South Asia as a whole.

it is incorrect to assume that every single thing in India and Indian culture is from aryans. Indian civilization is older then aryans. The influence of dravdian is integral to all of south asia