Alternative Universe: What If Afghans/Persians etc.were creepily fixated with Indics?

[Elias]

BTW, the Nuristanis of northeast Afghanistan are an Indic, Indo-Aryan people. The Pashai are a Dardic people who speak a Dardic language. Dards are also Indic, Indo-Aryan people.

Nuristani is neither Iranian nor Indo-Aryan but it’s considered to be a separated branche of Indo-Iranian.
Concerning Dardic languages I have my doubts. It could be possible that Indian linguistists propagate the thesis that Dardic languages are Indic just to justify the annexion of Kashmir or rather to underline their position at the world stage.

[ذو الفقار]

Nuristani is neither Iranian nor Indo-Aryan but it’s considered to be a separated branche of Indo-Iranian.
Concerning Dardic languages I have my doubts. It could be possible that Indian linguistists propagate the thesis that Dardic languages are Indic just to justify the annexion of Kashmir or rather to underline their position at the world stage.

Where are you getting this from? Indo-Iranian isn't a separate category at the same level as Iranian or Indo-Aryan. Rather, both Iranian and Indo-Aryan are branched off from Indo-Iranian. So what category do Nuris belong to, it has to be either Iranian or Indo-Aryan. Which credible anthropologist has put them in a third category?

The linguists who classify Dardic languages as being Indo-Aryan are predominantly European (not Indian), like Morgenstierne. Read also The Indo-Aryan Languages by Colin P. Masica. Suffice to say, the theory that Dardic languages are part of the Indo-Aryan family has nothing to do with the political controversy of Kashmir.

To me there isn't any legitimate reason to exclude Dardic peoples from the Indo-Aryan population.

[Elias]

Where are you getting this from? Indo-Iranian isn't a separate category at the same level as Iranian or Indo-Aryan. Rather, both Iranian and Indo-Aryan are branched off from Indo-Iranian. So what category do Nuris belong to, it has to be either Iranian or Indo-Aryan. Which credible anthropologist has put them in a third category?

The linguists who classify Dardic languages as being Indo-Aryan are predominantly European (not Indian), like Morgenstierne. Read also The Indo-Aryan Languages by Colin P. Masica. Suffice to say, the theory that Dardic languages are part of the Indo-Aryan family has nothing to do with the political controversy of Kashmir.

To me there isn't any legitimate reason to exclude Dardic peoples from the Indo-Aryan population.

Look, what i said is nuristani is branched off Indo-Iranian that making nuristani a separate branche of Indo-Iranian.
Where did I say that Indo-Iranian is at the same level as Iranian or Indo-Aryan? o.O

[ذو الفقار]

Look, what i said is nuristani is branched off Indo-Iranian that making nuristani a separate branche of Indo-Iranian.
Where did I say that Indo-Iranian is at the same level as Iranian or Indo-Aryan? o.O

I understand that, but you still haven't cited any evidence or authoritative views from scholarly circles to substantiate your claim that Nuristani is a separate third branch distinct from both Iranian and Indo-Aryan.

[Elias]

I understand that, but you still haven't cited any evidence or authoritative views from scholarly circles to substantiate your claim that Nuristani is a separate third branch distinct from both Iranian and Indo-Aryan.

I would suggest you to visit Richard Strands site

Richard Strand's Nuristan Site: Evolution of the Nuristani Languages

[ذو الفقار]

I would suggest you to visit Richard Strands site

Richard Strand's Nuristan Site: Evolution of the Nuristani Languages

Okay, what about the Pashai (Dardic language speakers in Afghanistan)? What's your source that Dardic isn't an Indo-Aryan branch. You said "I have my doubts", personal speculation isn't very convincing.

[Charsi Malang]

Okay, what about the Pashai (Dardic language speakers in Afghanistan)? What's your source that Dardic isn't an Indo-Aryan branch. You said "I have my doubts", personal speculation isn't very convincing.

I know Pashai people that consider themselves Pashtuns.

[Elias]

Okay, what about the Pashai (Dardic language speakers in Afghanistan)? What's your source that Dardic isn't an Indo-Aryan branch. You said "I have my doubts", personal speculation isn't very convincing.

I didn’t formulate my sentence as if it is a fact that Dardic aren’t Indo-Aryan while you clearly said that Nuristani IS Indo-Aryan.
Now it’s your turn to show me the source of this fact that states Nuristani languages being Indo-Aryan.

[ذو الفقار]

I know Pashai people that consider themselves Pashtuns.

Anecdotal. Even if it is true, they clearly are not Pashtun, but speakers of an Indo-Aryan and Dardic language, and therefore in the attitude of many of those on this forum, including the OP, an "Indic" people

[ذو الفقار]

I didn’t formulate my sentence as if it is a fact that Dardic aren’t Indo-Aryan while you clearly said that Nuristani IS Indo-Aryan.
Now it’s your turn to show me the source of this fact that states Nuristani languages being Indo-Aryan.

The debate is still ongoing among scholars. Some of them posit that Nuristani languages are closer to Indo-Aryan than Iranian. I also would like to point out that Nuristani people are recent converts to Islam, before that they practiced a form of Hinduism. Based on this and many other factors, I think by this forum’s own criteria, the Nuristanis should be considered an “Indic” people, putting them in the same category as us Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis, Hindkowans, and north Indians

[Elias]

The debate is still ongoing among scholars. Some of them posit that Nuristani languages are closer to Indo-Aryan than Iranian. I also would like to point out that Nuristani people are recent converts to Islam, before that they practiced a form of Hinduism. Based on this and many other factors, I think by this forum’s own criteria, the Nuristanis should be considered an “Indic” people, putting them in the same category as us Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis, Hindkowans, and north Indians

So what Afghans are Muslims but that doesn’t make them Semitic. This causality set up by you is ridiculous.
Please elaborate the “many other factors”.

[maneatinglizard]

Where are you getting this from? Indo-Iranian isn't a separate category at the same level as Iranian or Indo-Aryan. Rather, both Iranian and Indo-Aryan are branched off from Indo-Iranian. So what category do Nuris belong to, it has to be either Iranian or Indo-Aryan. Which credible anthropologist has put them in a third category?

Literally the first sentence of Wikipedia:

The Nuristani languages (نورستاني) are one of the three groups within the Indo-Iranian language family, alongside the much larger Indo-Aryan and Iranian groups.

Nuristani languages - Wikipedia

Source

A quick google search could've taken care of this for you.

The linguists who classify Dardic languages as being Indo-Aryan are predominantly European (not Indian), like Morgenstierne. Read also The Indo-Aryan Languages by Colin P. Masica. Suffice to say, the theory that Dardic languages are part of the Indo-Aryan family has nothing to do with the political controversy of Kashmir.

Dardic as a language classification or ethnicity is basically made up. Pretty much the only things that "Dardic" languages have in common are "definitely Aryan, archaic, with some features of Indic and Iranian languages." It's not a real category, and languages get thrown into it simply because they're rare and Western anthropologists and linguists have had few opportunities to study them. With the exception of Kashmiri (which has been studied), most "Dardic" languages are in rural Pashtun areas and Afghanistan, i.e. no-go zones for most Western researchers.

At one point Nuristani was considered Dardic, then the Dardic group was considered a third branch of Aryan languages, and now the Dardic group is considered a part of the Indo-Aryan group, while Nuristani is considered its own separate branch. At one point British researchers considered Pashto Indic too, but it's pretty obvious to anyone who actually knows the language that it's very far from any Indic language. In other words, these classifications are highly fluid and mean little.

Ask any Nuristani if he feels any kinship with Indians and he'd probably laugh in your face.

To me there isn't any legitimate reason to exclude Dardic peoples from the Indo-Aryan population.

Any you say this based on? You're not exactly the most credible guy around here, if you haven't noticed.

And all this discussion is basically moot, because what you don't seem to realize is when we refer to "Indic" we don't mean people who speak languages that have been classified as "Indo-Aryan." Rather, we refer to people primarily east of the Indus who have a shared Indic cultural heritage.

[ذو الفقار]

Literally the first sentence of Wikipedia:

A quick google search could've taken care of this for you.

As I pointed out in my previous post: "The debate is still ongoing among scholars. Some of them posit that Nuristani languages are closer to Indo-Aryan than Iranian." Now you have cited the linguist scholar Cardona as arguing that Nuristani is affiliated with Indo-Aryan branch.

Dardic as a language classification or ethnicity is basically made up.

What is your academic source for this claim? Even if what are traditionally considered "Dardic" languages shouldn't be considered a real category, what are the academic sources that dispute that the individual languages shouldn't be considered Indo-Aryan?

Ask any Nuristani if he feels any kinship with Indians and he'd probably laugh in your face.
And all this discussion is basically moot, because what you don't seem to realize is when we refer to "Indic" we don't mean people who speak languages that have been classified as "Indo-Aryan." Rather, we refer to people primarily east of the Indus who have a shared Indic cultural heritage.

That's a false premise that the people east of the Indus have a shared cultural heritage. Heritage implies something in the past, so that heritage would include the Dardic speaking peoples and Nuristanis west of the Indus, even if at present a Nuristani will supposedly "laugh in my face". Language is a huge part of cultural heritage.

Culturally, the Nuristanis are quite different from Pashtuns. For example, Nuristanis aren't tribal or organized along tribal lines. Nuris are therefore closer to the Hindkowans, Chitralis, Kashmiris than to Pashtuns.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

.

Culturally, the Nuristanis are quite different from Pashtuns. For example, Nuristanis aren't tribal or organized along tribal lines. Nuris are therefore closer to the Hindkowans, Chitralis, Kashmiris than to Pashtuns.

This is a a form of a logical fallacy called false dichotomy.

[ذو الفقار]

This is a a form of a logical fallacy called false dichotomy.

Not at all, it is a strong example in response to maneatinglizard's argument that Nuristanis are closer to Pashtuns than the peoples immediately east of the Indus River. In his words: "we refer to people primarily east of the Indus who have a shared Indic cultural heritage [as Indic]", implying that the Nuristanis have a shared cultural heritage with the Pashtuns rather than what he defines as "Indic". But the example I gave is a strong repudiation of that point.