This guy would be killed in most muslim countries

[Friends of Baloch]

True. I do suppose it depends on what we're comparing it to. Compared to what Pakhtuns and Baloch, and further west, are accustomed to, yes, it is basically different versions of more or less the same thing. If we're isolating the sub-continent, and comparing the people within to each other, then there are apparently a few differences between them. From what I hear, the "northern" indians have an apparent superiority complex (This is likely historical, due to the direction of empires going from West to East). There's also an East/West cultural difference. Not sure to what degree though...

There are of course differences from north to south, east to west. India is a "subcontinent", a huge place. But these differences are variations within a common cultural continuum, or civilization. The commonalities far outweigh the differences.

South India could be considered distinctive, but it is still related to North India. Punjab and Sindh on the other hand are 'North India' aka Hindustan along with all the other territories that stretch to and include Bengal.

If you read any historical account, like Baburnama for example, Hindustan was considered to start from when you get past from the Khyber Pass down into the Peshawar plains. It starts from there going south east and eastwards.

Only what is today's north east India is historically, racially and culturally separate, and is only part of India now because of the British. But Indians now outnumber most of those peoples like Nagas and Meiteis in their own homelands so i dont know how long those peoples and their cultures will survive.

In Bangladesh it is the same, where parts of the east and most of the southeast were historically non-Indic. But now Bengalis outnumber the natives. It is in this context that the Rohingya issue in Burma needs to be understood. The Western media spins the news and tries to portray the Rohingya as a persecuted "Muslim minority" for their own self-interested reasons. But the truth is that it is a racial conflict more than a religious one, and it is again a legacy left behind by British colonial rule which facilitated the large migration of Indians (now known as Rohingya) into Burma. The Burmese are right to call them illegal Bengali settlers. But of course the ethnic cleansing they are doing against them is deplorable.

Prior to the British, it was the Durrani empire initially, that essentially had modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan, some parts of Iran and some parts of India. Following that, it was the short lived Sikh empire, which encompassed basically Indiot Punjab, Pakistani Punjab, Kashmir, and sadly, KPK, in Pakistan. This probably covers approx 200 years of essentially different cultures, and people, vs the rest of the sub-continent. That just further adds to the historical differences.

You know what... you are actually right. This a good point. I don't know why the whole Khalistan thing slipped my mind.

Not even 100 years actually. Nader Shah died in the mid 18th centuary which gave rise to Ahmad Shah. The British conquered Punjab almost exactly hundred years later in the mid 19th centuary. Ranjeet Singh and his hairbags captured Lahore and declared their own so called "empire" from there at the very start of the 1800s..

Durrani occupation of north west India lasted only about 20 to 40 years (depending on which city) and they never properly controlled or governed it anyway and certainly had no cultural impact on India other than to devastate many of the local cultures and give them a good beating, particularly Sikhs.

In regards to that last sentence of yours which i underlined, i think that you are not reading enough or are just not properly understanding history and are imagining it through the lens of what the World is today. I suspect also that you are only reading the history of the elites, the conquerors etc basically military history. You arent reading more deeply about society, culture, economy and state.

I should not need to tell you that state borders as we understand them today as fixed, tangible and enforceable (though still ultimately imaginary lines) are a very recent thing, going back only 150 years or so, and exist mainly because of Capitalism and to the serve the economic interests of ruling elites from taxes and resource exraction. Capitalism is what really creates borders as we know them today, law enforcement is the secondary consideration (and that again is not a universal priority for most states in the World even today). Taxes and resources are the primary motive. The whole thing is a European exercise in power and control, and fit neatly alongside the other European concept of the nation state. Ordinary people have had no say in any of the World's borders. Their boundaries are more fluid, based more on boundaries that are 'familiar' (family, tribe, ethnicity, culture etc). They arent permanently fixed around a certain location.

Why i mention this is because you seem to think that 18th and 19th century India or Afghanistan is like how the World has been post-World War 2. But there is no comparison. People didnt have passports in the 18th centuary, borders in Asia were ill defined and rarely respected, and people were left largely to fend for themselves and left to their own devices, especially people outside of the cities, which was where most people lived. Rulers cared for themselves. There was no national institutions for health, education, the arts etc

You seem to think that the Durranis issued passports to all the Jats and Gujjars and other Dalit peoples and had some kind of border police to stop other Indians moving to Lahore etc and had a national radio and school system which taught the local Dravidian kids different things to what Indians were learning outside of Durrani limits etc etc when the fact is that none of those things existed. Indians were still moving back and forth from Lahore to Delhi and beyond like they always had done because these were familiar places and places of shared, common culture. Most of the natives had little or no contact with their Mughal or Afghan overlords (who were few in number) except when their Afghan or whatever other rulers were chasing them for taxes or just simply plundering them. Borders didnt exist for the natives. They existed only for the rulers, and again for economic reasons (which ruler has the right to tax which villages, mine which hills, cut which forests etc). Nothing to do with culture at all. Culture is the lived traditions, norms, experiences etc of the people. Those boundaries are different to the ones that existed for Emperors, Kings, Warlords etc

[mungojerry]

[MENTION=5110]Friend[/MENTION]s of Dravidians

oke we know south india is closly related to you Dravidian man.

haha you trying to tell us Mughal and Afghan was same thing. wrong. Moghul was master of Afghan and Pashtunes. Afghans and Pashtunes was slave of Mughal.

[mungojerry]

There are of course differences from north to south, east to west. India is a "subcontinent", a huge place. But these differences are variations within a common cultural continuum, or civilization. The commonalities far outweigh the differences.

South India could be considered distinctive, but it is still related to North India. Punjab and Sindh on the other hand are 'North India' aka Hindustan along with all the other territories that stretch to and include Bengal.

If you read any historical account, like Baburnama for example, Hindustan was considered to start from when you get past from the Khyber Pass down into the Peshawar plains. It starts from there going south east and eastwards.

Only what is today's north east India is historically, racially and culturally separate, and is only part of India now because of the British. But Indians now outnumber most of those peoples like Nagas and Meiteis in their own homelands so i dont know how long those peoples and their cultures will survive.

In Bangladesh it is the same, where parts of the east and most of the southeast were historically non-Indic. But now Bengalis outnumber the natives. It is in this context that the Rohingya issue in Burma needs to be understood. The Western media spins the news and tries to portray the Rohingya as a persecuted "Muslim minority" for their own self-interested reasons. But the truth is that it is a racial conflict more than a religious one, and it is again a legacy left behind by British colonial rule which facilitated the large migration of Indians (now known as Rohingya) into Burma. The Burmese are right to call them illegal Bengali settlers. But of course the ethnic cleansing they are doing against them is deplorable.

Not even 100 years actually. Nader Shah died in the mid 18th centuary which gave rise to Ahmad Shah. The British conquered Punjab almost exactly hundred years later in the mid 19th centuary. Ranjeet Singh and his hairbags captured Lahore and declared their own so called "empire" from there at the very start of the 1800s..

Durrani occupation of north west India lasted only about 20 to 40 years (depending on which city) and they never properly controlled or governed it anyway and certainly had no cultural impact on India other than to devastate many of the local cultures and give them a good beating, particularly Sikhs.

In regards to that last sentence of yours which i underlined, i think that you are not reading enough or are just not properly understanding history and are imagining it through the lens of what the World is today. I suspect also that you are only reading the history of the elites, the conquerors etc basically military history. You arent reading more deeply about society, culture, economy and state.

I should not need to tell you that state borders as we understand them today as fixed, tangible and enforceable (though still ultimately imaginary lines) are a very recent thing, going back only 150 years or so, and exist mainly because of Capitalism and to the serve the economic interests of ruling elites from taxes and resource exraction. Capitalism is what really creates borders as we know them today, law enforcement is the secondary consideration (and that again is not a universal priority for most states in the World even today). Taxes and resources are the primary motive. The whole thing is a European exercise in power and control, and fit neatly alongside the other European concept of the nation state. Ordinary people have had no say in any of the World's borders. Their boundaries are more fluid, based more on boundaries that are 'familiar' (family, tribe, ethnicity, culture etc). They arent permanently fixed around a certain location.

Why i mention this is because you seem to think that 18th and 19th century India or Afghanistan is like how the World has been post-World War 2. But there is no comparison. People didnt have passports in the 18th centuary, borders in Asia were ill defined and rarely respected, and people were left largely to fend for themselves and left to their own devices, especially people outside of the cities, which was where most people lived. Rulers cared for themselves. There was no national institutions for health, education, the arts etc

You seem to think that the Durranis issued passports to all the Jats and Gujjars and other Dalit peoples and had some kind of border police to stop other Indians moving to Lahore etc and had a national radio and school system which taught the local Dravidian kids different things to what Indians were learning outside of Durrani limits etc etc when the fact is that none of those things existed. Indians were still moving back and forth from Lahore to Delhi and beyond like they always had done because these were familiar places and places of shared, common culture. Most of the natives had little or no contact with their Mughal or Afghan overlords (who were few in number) except when their Afghan or whatever other rulers were chasing them for taxes or just simply plundering them. Borders didnt exist for the natives. They existed only for the rulers, and again for economic reasons (which ruler has the right to tax which villages, mine which hills, cut which forests etc). Nothing to do with culture at all. Culture is the lived traditions, norms, experiences etc of the people. Those boundaries are different to the ones that existed for Emperors, Kings, Warlords etc

Dravidian man, you write very silly stuff. haha

[khushal]

Iqbal was only ethnically kashmiri, he was born and raised in punjab, I doubt he even spoke kashmiri, he clearly spoke punjabi, jinnah was born in Sindh. Muhajirs as they are known today are the people of Delhi, UP, Bihar areas

And blaming British only is a stupid thing, it was muslims who came up with idea. British took advantage of it yes, especially they made borders in the wrong areas, like taking Pashtun areas for example, but I am sure Muslims had a hand in that too

Muslims and hindus were not living together for the most part, only during Akbar's time there was a bit of peace, because he was a peaceful Mughal, however orthodox muslims started hating his peaceful ways and then guys like Aurengzeb came

There are always people that will side with a particular idea, it does not mean that the vast majority of people actually agree with that idea. Just because there were Muslims and Hindus that sided with partition does not mean that majority were in agreement. Today there are Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras (secular and non secular) that are against US occupation of Afghanistan but the US empowers those Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras that are for the occupation.

The British empowered those that kept its hegemony in place. Europeans also tried to keep China divided. Mao Tse Tong prevented them and he succeeded where Ghandi failed. Ghandi was against partition so he had vision but he was a passive man unlike Mao Tse Tong. Mao Tse Tong built the foundation for what Superpower China is today and Ghandi built the foundation for what the sh*thole Paki/India/Bangladesh is today.

[Porus]

I would like for you to accept the fact that Pakistan is not a liberal state but one that fails to implement democracy as well as religious facism.

You're right. So is Afghanistan though.

That an individual gets away with saying this or that, l not due to the freedom of speech allowed to every citizen or level of respect and tolerance shared between Pakistani citizens but because no one cares enough to hold anyone else accountable for what they state or claim unless they see the opportunity to profit from it personally.

See if you wanna talk about corruption and accountability, sure Pakistan has none of that. But is there more of that where you come from?

Seems like this place was made to constantly bash Pakistan. I've sort of shifted from being sympathetic to Afghans, to being slightly critical. Because there's a LOT of silly people on this forum, who clearly feel so inferior to Punjabis that EVERY post they write is about them (not talking about you).

Bash Pakistan for what it does exclusively, talk about ISI, talk about Zulfiqar, Zia ul-Haq, Abul Samad Achakzai, whoever the hell you want... but don't say Pakistan is corrupt like you're from some heaven. I'm not gonna say Afg is more or less corrupt, because I can't prove that either.

[Karachi]

There are always people that will side with a particular idea, it does not mean that the vast majority of people actually agree with that idea. Just because there were Muslims and Hindus that sided with partition does not mean that majority were in agreement. Today there are Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras (secular and non secular) that are against US occupation of Afghanistan but the US empowers those Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras that are for the occupation.

The British empowered those that kept its hegemony in place. Europeans also tried to keep China divided. Mao Tse Tong prevented them and he succeeded where Ghandi failed. Ghandi was against partition so he had vision but he was a passive man unlike Mao Tse Tong. Mao Tse Tong built the foundation for what Superpower China is today and Ghandi built the foundation for what the sh*thole Paki/India/Bangladesh is today.

Idiot, every Paki I have I met, except few (Muhajirs) has hate for Indians and hindus, you're gona blame that on British too? we all know this hatred goes way before the British even came. Pakistan movement was a movement of hatred, especially obviously among the ruling class of Muslims.

[DaZahroJaam.]

You're right. So is Afghanistan though.



See if you wanna talk about corruption and accountability, sure Pakistan has none of that. But is there more of that where you come from?

Seems like this place was made to constantly bash Pakistan. I've sort of shifted from being sympathetic to Afghans, to being slightly critical. Because there's a LOT of silly people on this forum, who clearly feel so inferior to Punjabis that EVERY post they write is about them (not talking about you).

Bash Pakistan for what it does exclusively, talk about ISI, talk about Zulfiqar, Zia ul-Haq, Abul Samad Achakzai, whoever the hell you want... but don't say Pakistan is corrupt like you're from some heaven. I'm not gonna say Afg is more or less corrupt, because I can't prove that either.

I am not here, claiming how great and liberal of a democracy Afghanistan is, am I?? We will discuss how Afghanistan is not any of that, when someone makes that claim.
Get rid of this ****ty habit of covering one pile of crap with another. There is no point of having meaningless and pointless conversations. Don't waste my time and more importantly, don't waste your own time. It does no one any good. We are all grown ups here. Let's be honest to ourselves and each other.

[Elite Pakhtun]

There are of course differences from north to south, east to west. India is a "subcontinent", a huge place. But these differences are variations within a common cultural continuum, or civilization. The commonalities far outweigh the differences.

South India could be considered distinctive, but it is still related to North India. Punjab and Sindh on the other hand are 'North India' aka Hindustan along with all the other territories that stretch to and include Bengal.

If you read any historical account, like Baburnama for example, Hindustan was considered to start from when you get past from the Khyber Pass down into the Peshawar plains. It starts from there going south east and eastwards.

Only what is today's north east India is historically, racially and culturally separate, and is only part of India now because of the British. But Indians now outnumber most of those peoples like Nagas and Meiteis in their own homelands so i dont know how long those peoples and their cultures will survive.

In Bangladesh it is the same, where parts of the east and most of the southeast were historically non-Indic. But now Bengalis outnumber the natives. It is in this context that the Rohingya issue in Burma needs to be understood. The Western media spins the news and tries to portray the Rohingya as a persecuted "Muslim minority" for their own self-interested reasons. But the truth is that it is a racial conflict more than a religious one, and it is again a legacy left behind by British colonial rule which facilitated the large migration of Indians (now known as Rohingya) into Burma. The Burmese are right to call them illegal Bengali settlers. But of course the ethnic cleansing they are doing against them is deplorable.

I will agree that from a racial, and even linguistic standpoint, there is definitely more in common between a north indian and a south indian, than a north indian and peoples of western Pakistan.

But regarding cultural aspects, this is where it gets a little more subjective. By that, I mean, one could argue either way, and there's no objective way of concluding one reason is superior to the other. If you argue the religion's impact on the culture, which is the basis behind the partition, then the differences as a result of this in the past, to-date, have been significant. The punjabis on both sides of the border may share the same ethnicity, they are miles apart with regards to religion.

I also think that, while they are of the same cultural backdrop, that they have different opinions of who is or isn't superior. The north indians, while they see themselves as inferior to certain other people, see themselves as superior to the south indians, and even east indians. Many of the Pakistanis that we are referring to (punjabis, sindhis) unconsciously think that the indians are simply inferior to them... even though they themselves are indic. They see themselves as better indics than the indians, who are far worse, more disgusting, just generally more inferior, indics.

If we expand that, and ignore religion, I'm arguing that north indians see themselves as better indics - so much so that, that in a world where there was never a Pakistan, the idea of their separation would be desirable, is entirely plausible.

The East West difference also exists in terms of which indic sees themselves as better/worse. The ones on the West think they're better than, say, the ones in the East, or even too deep Centrally.

This is the truth... they'd hate nothing more than to share a border with India, and intermix with more indians, and forever accept the fact that 1 billion people (EVEN MORE DRAVIDIAN THAN THEM!!), exist in the same country as them.

Not even 100 years actually. Nader Shah died in the mid 18th centuary which gave rise to Ahmad Shah. The British conquered Punjab almost exactly hundred years later in the mid 19th centuary. Ranjeet Singh and his hairbags captured Lahore and declared their own so called "empire" from there at the very start of the 1800s..

Durrani occupation of north west India lasted only about 20 to 40 years (depending on which city) and they never properly controlled or governed it anyway and certainly had no cultural impact on India other than to devastate many of the local cultures and give them a good beating, particularly Sikhs.

In regards to that last sentence of yours which i underlined, i think that you are not reading enough or are just not properly understanding history and are imagining it through the lens of what the World is today. I suspect also that you are only reading the history of the elites, the conquerors etc basically military history. You arent reading more deeply about society, culture, economy and state.

I should not need to tell you that state borders as we understand them today as fixed, tangible and enforceable (though still ultimately imaginary lines) are a very recent thing, going back only 150 years or so, and exist mainly because of Capitalism and to the serve the economic interests of ruling elites from taxes and resource exraction. Capitalism is what really creates borders as we know them today, law enforcement is the secondary consideration (and that again is not a universal priority for most states in the World even today). Taxes and resources are the primary motive. The whole thing is a European exercise in power and control, and fit neatly alongside the other European concept of the nation state. Ordinary people have had no say in any of the World's borders. Their boundaries are more fluid, based more on boundaries that are 'familiar' (family, tribe, ethnicity, culture etc). They arent permanently fixed around a certain location.

Why i mention this is because you seem to think that 18th and 19th century India or Afghanistan is like how the World has been post-World War 2. But there is no comparison. People didnt have passports in the 18th centuary, borders in Asia were ill defined and rarely respected, and people were left largely to fend for themselves and left to their own devices, especially people outside of the cities, which was where most people lived. Rulers cared for themselves. There was no national institutions for health, education, the arts etc

You seem to think that the Durranis issued passports to all the Jats and Gujjars and other Dalit peoples and had some kind of border police to stop other Indians moving to Lahore etc and had a national radio and school system which taught the local Dravidian kids different things to what Indians were learning outside of Durrani limits etc etc when the fact is that none of those things existed. Indians were still moving back and forth from Lahore to Delhi and beyond like they always had done because these were familiar places and places of shared, common culture. Most of the natives had little or no contact with their Mughal or Afghan overlords (who were few in number) except when their Afghan or whatever other rulers were chasing them for taxes or just simply plundering them. Borders didnt exist for the natives. They existed only for the rulers, and again for economic reasons (which ruler has the right to tax which villages, mine which hills, cut which forests etc). Nothing to do with culture at all. Culture is the lived traditions, norms, experiences etc of the people. Those boundaries are different to the ones that existed for Emperors, Kings, Warlords etc

No, I do not think the regions in question were similar to post industrialization world. No idea how you got to that conclusion. What I do think is that the impact of religion is being grossly underestimated here. Yes, they left people to their own devices, to live in their own squalor, for the most part - but in that era was it not religion that had a greater cultural impact than anything else? Sure they didn't broadcast radio shows, nor did they have standardized curriculum etc. but they did build mosques, destroy various items of the previous religion, and convert people.

Even the sikh religion came into being because of Islamic expansion, and primarily Mughal (but also Pashtun) brutality on them. Said religion is exclusive to a small portion of poo-njab, and is easily culturally distinct from the rest of the subcontinent. That's an example of a "cultural" difference.

Mughals, too, spent resources developing places in north india like the Taj Mahal in Agra (UP), or the Badshahi mosque in Lahore (I guess they decided to reconstruct after razing the city to the ground).

I think if the cultural impact of religion is taken into account, then the differences start increasing. If one looks at how the religions were dispersed, and where the concentrations were, one sees a fair bit of differences per geographic location.

But look, I see your points, and I certainly do think there is some validity to some of the points. My response was actually primarily to Karachi. Karachi had made it appear as if merging with India is SUCH a no-brainer, and he's wondering why Pakistani Punjabis are so against it. There may be cultural, and definitely are racial, commonalities, but there are sufficient differences that I don't agree with his saying that it should be the default desire.

[logical]

I will agree that from a racial, and even linguistic standpoint, there is definitely more in common between a north indian and a south indian, than a north indian and peoples of western Pakistan.

But regarding cultural aspects, this is where it gets a little more subjective. By that, I mean, one could argue either way, and there's no objective way of concluding one reason is superior to the other. If you argue the religion's impact on the culture, which is the basis behind the partition, then the differences as a result of this in the past, to-date, have been significant. The punjabis on both sides of the border may share the same ethnicity, they are miles apart with regards to religion.

I also think that, while they are of the same cultural backdrop, that they have different opinions of who is or isn't superior. The north indians, while they see themselves as inferior to certain other people, see themselves as superior to the south indians, and even east indians. Many of the Pakistanis that we are referring to (punjabis, sindhis) unconsciously think that the indians are simply inferior to them... even though they themselves are indic. They see themselves as better indics than the indians, who are far worse, more disgusting, just generally more inferior, indics.

Some Pakistanis trolling Indians on internet isn't proof of that. But if that was mindset then they would troll bengalis and sri lankans etc Here you are implying darker skin or Indian genes mean inferior, which mean Pakistani pathans are inferior to Afghan ones and Kalash are superior Pakistanis. Considiring pathans I've seen in Karachi come in many shades even if on average lighter then sindhis or muhajirs. Skin and features are not clear cut defining features of ethnicities in our region unlike for white europeans or black africans.

[logical]

Iqbal was the one who proposed the Idea you idiot, and he was from your region, was Iqbal Muhajir, was Jinnah Muhajir? the only people from Delhi, UP etc.. areas that went with the Idea were the Nawabs and Elites of those areas, not your average folks

Also we are talking about today, Punjabis are the most pro Pakistanis, they have the most hatred of their hindu roots, they think they are arabs, despite many of them having hindu last names.

and oh please most Pakistanis hate India, it is only muhajirs who say that partition was a bad idea

We are pro Pakistan, from where did you got idea of muhajirs being against partition? Our native tongue is official language of Pakistan, we dominate media. Karachi is financial hub of Pakistan and generate 80% of its revenues, without us this country will be Afghanistan 2.0. I don't mind sore losers like porus and elite pakhtun being racists against us on internet. In reality these same pathans who die to move to Karachi and do low paying dirty jobs no muhajir will think of doing. Its like you see african americans and latinos being racist against whites in social media.

[Karachi]

We are pro Pakistan, from where did you got idea of muhajirs being against partition? Our native tongue is official language of Pakistan, we dominate media. Karachi is financial hub of Pakistan and generate 80% of its revenues, without us this country will be Afghanistan 2.0. I don't mind sore losers like porus and elite pakhtun being racists against us on internet. In reality these same pathans who die to move to Karachi and do low paying dirty jobs no muhajir will think of doing. Its like you see african americans and latinos being racist against whites in social media.

Muhajirs live in their own Pakistan, which is only Karachi, the rest of country is not your's, you are unwanted everywhere you go in Pakistan, except Karachi, be it interior Sindh, all of Punjab, KPK etc.... that is what you call your country?

I remember as a kid, even when we traveled to Islamabad, Lahore, Muree etc... My dad had to lie about his ethnicity by calling himself Punjabi, rather then a person from Karachi, luckily he did speak punjabi so no one could suspect. Face the truth, Karachites are extremely disliked in the rest of the country. You are living in a dream world, a lot of muhajirs are duped/brainwashed in the so called Pakistan dream.

I use to be Pro Pakistan before, because I was also brainwashed to hate Indians, but then I realized, what is the point of all this hate? I mean we watch Indians movies, we eat same food, wear same clothes as them, yet I have to hate them for no reason? I mean my parents still have cousins living there in India who are proud to be Indians, I have to hate them aswell? the whole Pakistani identity thing, two nation theory is so bogus, it feels like we are retarded people

[Friends of Baloch]

The punjabis on both sides of the border may share the same ethnicity, they are miles apart with regards to religion.

Some are, others are not so distant. The beliefs of their religions are very different on paper, but if you look at Barelvis and Sufis they are very close to Hindus and Sikhs in some of their religous practices, which are more cultural than strictly "religious" but are devotional in nature and so fall under 'religious', particularly the use of devotional songs and dancing. The way paki Sufis and Barelvis venerate Muhammad or 'saints' and the songs and dances they do is exactly like how Hindus venerate their deities. The spoken words may be different, but the rituals look very similar.

I also think that, while they are of the same cultural backdrop, that they have different opinions of who is or isn't superior. The north indians, while they see themselves as inferior to certain other people, see themselves as superior to the south indians, and even east indians. Many of the Pakistanis that we are referring to (punjabis, sindhis) unconsciously think that the indians are simply inferior to them... even though they themselves are indic. They see themselves as better indics than the indians, who are far worse, more disgusting, just generally more inferior, indics.

Really? I think it is the other way around. Deep down Pakis (Punjabis) feel inferior to Indians because they know what their place was in Hindu society before the partition. They are in denial and so try to turn that inferiority around by feigning 'superiority' because they are insecure and are hurting from the truth about their miserable history and the lives that as recently as their grandparents were living.

Just forward to 8:55 mins on the video below and listen to what the old paki was saying about how Hindus treated the Muslim Punjabis as if they were still Dalits. So called "High caste" Hindus wouldnt even drink from the same water tap as Punjabi 'Muslims' in pre-partition Hindustan.



When Indian nationals visit Paki Punjab i would say on average they are treated much better than when Paki nationals visit India. In my observation there is a latent hostility and contempt that Hindus hold for Paki Punjabis in the real World that far exceeds whatever compensatory puny chest beating that little paki "pindi walas" on the internet try to project against Hindus.

Pakis and Indians look down on each other equally which is laughable because they are both stinking Dravidians, but i think when it boils down to it Hindus (the "high caste" ones) are more cunning and viscious with their contempt for Paki Punjabis. They still see them as Dalit converts and will treat them that way with the cold shoulder.

If we expand that, and ignore religion, I'm arguing that north indians see themselves as better indics - so much so that, that in a world where there was never a Pakistan, the idea of their separation would be desirable, is entirely plausible.

The East West difference also exists in terms of which indic sees themselves as better/worse. The ones on the West think they're better than, say, the ones in the East, or even too deep Centrally.

Maybe, i dont know about that one. Im not so sure though because Bengalis have a much older and richer culture than Punjabis do, who have a very weak culture and identity actually in comparison. So i wonder on what basis some Dravidian from Punjab would could look down on his fellow Dravidian from Bengal when Bengali language has far more literary history to it. Same with South Indians who have their own unique architectures, dynasties and literary history etc which you can actually call "Tamil" or "Bengali".

Do Jats and Gujjars and Awans and other so called "Punjabis" have any history or literature or culture like that? They have practically nothing in comparison. They dont even have a single emblam or flag of their own that can be called "Punjabi", only the Sikh one that was made up by the British for them in the 20th century. They have no architecture of their own. Sikh temples do not count because they are ripped off from Mughal architecture, which itself was ripped off from Persians.

I think there is a massive cultural dearth in west Hindustan / Dravidianstan (aka Punjab). So its curious why those Dalits would pretend that they are "superior" to anyone when they have nothing unique or distinct to show for themselves except for Sikhism, which is a load of silly nonsense that was half British invented anyway (the Sikhism that we know today anyway).

This is the truth... they'd hate nothing more than to share a border with India, and intermix with more indians, and forever accept the fact that 1 billion people (EVEN MORE DRAVIDIAN THAN THEM!!), exist in the same country as them.

Pakis try to fool themselves about that but truth is Punjabis and Sindhis arent any less Dravidian than Indians from Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi etc Punjabis are actually more Dravidian as evidenced by their language having a greater Dravidian phonology and substratum than Hindi does. After all, Punjab has historically had the highest demographic of Hindu "low castes" in South Asia. Still does today too.

All of these so called "Punjabis", who are mostly Jats, Awans, Chuhras, Gujjars, Lohars, Cheemas etc are all "shudra" Hindu peoples that can be found all over north India, not just in Pakiland.

Yes, they left people to their own devices, to live in their own squalor, for the most part - but in that era was it not religion that had a greater cultural impact than anything else?

No, i would not say so. It depends. The religion of the elites and rulers, lets say Islam in this case, was not the same "Islam" that the converted Hindu knew. Just like the religion of the Brahman was not exactly same "Hinduism" that it was for the average illiterate "shudra". The average Muslim convert in the Delhi Sultanate or Mughal India was still part of Hindu society for the most part, except for those who actually made their way into the foreign ruling order.

Hindus always overwhelmed the Muslim population anyway and the boundaries between Muslim and Hindu (for the natives) wasnt clear cut in most places until the British era anyway since both mostly belonged to the lower rung of society and were uneducated, illiterate and living in utter poverty.

The book i linked you earlier discusses this grey area between rural Muslims and Hindu low castes in Punjab sharing the same religious grey area in the 19th century. It is in that context that Indian varieties of Surfism earlier emerged and things like Sikhism out of that later.

Mughals, too, spent resources developing places in north india like the Taj Mahal in Agra (UP), or the Badshahi mosque in Lahore (I guess they decided to reconstruct after razing the city to the ground).

I wouldnt call the Taj Mahal or Badshahi examples of resources being spent on "developing places". Development means things than improve peoples lives. So quite the opposite. These projects almost bankrupted the Mughals and contributed to their eventual downfall. These monuments and mosques did nothing for the natives and were not built for them, they were built for the rulers in vainglorious fashion so that they could admire themselves.

Buildings dont change cultures. Like i said cultures are lived things. The only change with those buildings, however magnificient they are, was the skyline in those locations and increasing the hostility towards the Mughals by the natives that were taxed to starvation to build them. They added nothing to the 'culture' of the common Dravidian who could not enjoy them for himself and had no use for them either.

But that is another debate!

But look, I see your points, and I certainly do think there is some validity to some of the points. My response was actually primarily to Karachi. Karachi had made it appear as if merging with India is SUCH a no-brainer, and he's wondering why Pakistani Punjabis are so against it. There may be cultural, and definitely are racial, commonalities, but there are sufficient differences that I don't agree with his saying that it should be the default desire.

OK. That is a different debate. Punjabis are of course against anything that challenges Pakiland because this is the first time in their history that they have ever ruled anything.

The "shudra" and servant to foreign rulers of the past 3000 years is now finally the governor himself. No more Brahmins and no more "fair skinned" foreign rulers to kick him around and rub his face in the dirt. Now the "Punjabi" gets to rub his own face in the dirt And they do an excellent job of it with this failed sh** hole of a British invented 3rd world country they call Pakiland. The land of the "pakis" !

[logical]

Muhajirs live in their own Pakistan, which is only Karachi, the rest of country is not your's, you are unwanted everywhere you go in Pakistan, except Karachi, be it interior Sindh, all of Punjab, KPK etc.... that is what you call your country?

I remember as a kid, even when we traveled to Islamabad, Lahore, Muree etc... My dad had to lie about his ethnicity by calling himself Punjabi, rather then a person from Karachi, luckily he did speak punjabi so no one could suspect. Face the truth, Karachites are extremely disliked in the rest of the country. You are living in a dream world, a lot of muhajirs are duped/brainwashed in the so called Pakistan dream.

I use to be Pro Pakistan before, because I was also brainwashed to hate Indians, but then I realized, what is the point of all this hate? I mean we watch Indians movies, we eat same food, wear same clothes as them, yet I have to hate them for no reason? I mean my parents still have cousins living there in India who are proud to be Indians, I have to hate them aswell? the whole Pakistani identity thing, two nation theory is so bogus, it feels like we are retarded people

Well if it wasn't for dictator moving capital from karachi to punjab then we would be in even better position. Now capital population is 80% punjabis and muhajirs make around 10% of population.

Since we made Pakistan, it was logical that capital should have been Karachi. But even then remember its not us moving to other areas but people from punjab and kpk moving to Karachi. From simple labour to top actors all move to Karachi to find work.

[Avry]

Islam allows killing and fighting back! Islam encourage killing those who disobey God's law! Islam is a way of life!

There are still some idiots that believe its otherwise but its only happening because they have been brainwashed and they have built everything on wrong bases.

The killing, wars, starvation and poverty won't stop even if all muslims become kuffar or as you call em civilised, so i don't understand why you people act as if all this will change! what happening right now is that all enemies have choosen to fight muslims and islam and try as much as they can to slove their problems in a "civilised" way but soon that all will collapse and when that happens there will be a group of people that will harvest what they have planted.

[Manzareh]

It was moved from Karachi because it's not safe for them to have their capital city so close to India, also they would rather be surrounded by rugged tarrein and races of people that would actually fight if the time came rather than Karachites.