Pakistan Census 2017 (pashtun Population)

[toughpashtun]

[MENTION=20203]Razor[/MENTION] is kind of right. You can't really say Pakistan is "Indian" because the idea of India as a united cultural region is a made-up fantasy created by westerners, South Asia is home to many diverse cultures and language. And the geographical region of India, i.e. Hindustan, is strictly defined as being east of the Indus River, the majority of Pakistan is west of the Indus River so even by that definition Pakistan is not Indian. Pakistan includes Pashtuns and Balochis who have no connection to India.

Majority of the population of Pakistan lies to the east of River Indus ,even if geographically the land area to the west of the river is greater,and I am not even sure if that's true.So this arguement is not very strong.
The point is , the Pakistani people got separated from India some 70 years ago on the basis of religion.Even if culturally and ethnically there are some similarities , no two countries have probably as much hatred for each other as these two.Pakistanis want to have nothing to do with Indians and vice versa.I think that's enough reason to say that they are two distinct nations.
its only the really racist Afghans/Central Asians and Pashtuns who would use the taunt of 'indic'. Why does it even matter?

[kunatawar]

Punjab and Sindh are Indus Valley cultures and have a lot in common with North Indians, especially due to a shared Mughal heritage.

they dont have alot in common because of 'shared mughal heritage' they have had a lot in common much before that even before islam, this is the denial everyone is calling you out for

Punjab has its own name, identity, language and culture, which is more than I can say for "Hindi speaker" who are entirely defined by Mughals and Brits

.......you could say the same about punjabi identity being completely foreign made too

I am not the one denying shared heritage of North Indians and Punjabis/Sindhis. But they are sufficiently different, otherwise there would be no such things as Punjabi/Sindhi/

part of the same indian 'desi' civilization which you are denying. its like someone saying "uzbeks and kyrgyz have similarities but only because of shared russian heritage not because of common turk background, since kyrgyz and uzbek ethnicities exist there is no such thing as a shared turk identity" see how ridiculous that sounds?

You are probably confused because North India was subjugated to such an extent that they lost their culture and language as a result, so now you are assuming that they must have been the original Muslim Mughals, which is absurd and contrary to all evidence available.

What you insist on calling "Indian" is actually a Muslim Mughal identity. At no point did Hindus rule over Muslims in the subcontinent in any meaningful way. This Mughal identity was forced upon North Indians and resulted in their culture and language. The North and South India divide is the result. Indian nationalists are erasing this identity and/or rewriting history books with the same arguments as yourself. Its pathetic.

since native north indian culture doesnt exist and the culture those people are following is exclusively mughal culture then that means that punjabi/sindhi/north indian muslim culture should be almost the same as central asian turks right? after all the mughals were central asian turks who completely wiped out indigenous cultures and replaced it with their own so then why is a punjabi muslim culturally almost the same as a punjabi sikh but so culturally, linguistically, and genetically defferent from Kyrgyzstan?

Also how beghairat do you have to be to say that your ancestors identity was wiped out by foreigners who saw you as sub-humans just because you want to distance yourself from indians cuz of pakistani nationalism? blind patriotism will literally rot your brain and this thread is a good example of that.

Compare Mughal identity to others that weren't wiped out: Sikh, Gujarati, Bengali, Tamil and what not. These are nothing like Mughals, and neither were the original North Indians.

yes exactly lets compare them, you are culturally and genetically closer to sikhs and gujratis than to turks because you have the same shared north indian heritage and the mughals adapted into indian culture rather than the other way around although they left some influences.

if this non-sense is the new trend among pakistani nationalists then Allah save us all

[Elite Pakhtun]

[MENTION=20203]Razor[/MENTION] is kind of right. You can't really say Pakistan is "Indian" because the idea of India as a united cultural region is a made-up fantasy created by westerners, South Asia is home to many diverse cultures and language. And the geographical region of India, i.e. Hindustan, is strictly defined as being east of the Indus River, the majority of Pakistan is west of the Indus River so even by that definition Pakistan is not Indian. Pakistan includes Pashtuns and Balochis who have no connection to India.

Majority lives east of Indus.

The insults aren't necessarily that far off in that it's more similar to present day India, but I can see the flip side. There's enough difference that it bothers them alot to be linked to gangadesh.

[Markhor]

Peshawar_222, refrain from calling members here losers in real life. You are still a boy staying in Malaysia as a student. You have yet to achieve any thing in life. Your parents have spent a lot of money in sending you there for studies , so concentrate on your studies boy.

True, Education is something that you need badly instead of fantasizing about things that happened 3000 years ago.

[Razor]

they dont have alot in common because of 'shared mughal heritage' they have had a lot in common much before that even before islam, this is the denial everyone is calling you out for

Thats where you are showing your ignorance on South Asian history. The regions were in no way united before the Mughals. And this is the same ignorant argument the Indians use to claim Gandhara and Baluchistan. Because Hinduism is so incredibly vague, anything that is "not Islam" is by definition called India. The largest "Hindu" empire in the region controlled Indus valley as a vassal and it lasted mere decades. The region was very independent before the arrival of Islam. Note that Sindh was considered separate by Arabs.

.......you could say the same about punjabi identity being completely foreign made too

Childish.I am not even going to respond to this.

part of the same indian 'desi' civilization which you are denying. its like someone saying "uzbeks and kyrgyz have similarities but only because of shared russian heritage not because of common turk background, since kyrgyz and uzbek ethnicities exist there is no such thing as a shared turk identity" see how ridiculous that sounds?

I never denied shared heritage with North Indians. In fact I have repeated this a dozen times by now. But I am not going to sit here and let you make up things about Punjabis being Dalits and Dravidian twins, Hindus in disguise etc, and especially when you try to pass of a Muslim Mughal identity as "desi" which has nothing to do with most Indians.

since native north indian culture doesnt exist and the culture those people are following is exclusively mughal culture then that means that punjabi/sindhi/north indian muslim culture should be almost the same as central asian turks right? after all the mughals were central asian turks who completely wiped out indigenous cultures and replaced it with their own so then why is a punjabi muslim culturally almost the same as a punjabi sikh but so culturally, linguistically, and genetically defferent from Kyrgyzstan?
Also how beghairat do you have to be to say that your ancestors identity was wiped out by foreigners who saw you as sub-humans just because you want to distance yourself from indians cuz of pakistani nationalism? blind patriotism will literally rot your brain and this thread is a good example of that.

No need for the insults, especially when you have failed to understand what I wrote.
Cultures EVOLVE. Mughal was a distinct culture that developed under the Muslims in Pakistan and North India. This is clearly documented. It didn't wipe out local cultures, especially not in Pakistan, but it definitely lives on in Pakistan. Nations are complex.

yes exactly lets compare them, you are culturally and genetically closer to sikhs and gujratis than to turks because you have the same shared north indian heritage and the mughals adapted into indian culture rather than the other way around although they left some influences.

if this non-sense is the new trend among pakistani nationalists then Allah save us all

It seems you have no understanding of what the Mughals actually were and you cannot seem to comprehend that they were distinct. You even try to dismiss their Muslim identity for some reason. Its pathetic.

Punjabis are the same people, but Gujaratis have their own culture and language. Sure, if you want to lump us in the next closest category, it's technically correct, but completely pointless. But you know very well that religion plays a major role in identities across Asia, so you are being ignorant and insincere in your arguments in general.

[salman47]

And moments ago, your friend was arguing that its in fact Indian lol.

You just described history of the entire humanity. Pakistani culture today is based on Mughal culture with regional influences.



You have mental issues. Seriously.

Do you really want to see Mughal Culture? Believe me you will pop your eyes because there are no similarities between you and Mughal(literally nothing, not even the body shape, skin color etc..)

[Razor]

Do you really want to see Mughal Culture? Believe me you will pop your eyes because there are no similarities between you and Mughal(literally nothing, not even the body shape, skin color etc..)

You are obsessed with skin colour and not once did I mention appearance.
We are talking about Mughal culture and there is tons of literature on this.

[Samandri]

You are obsessed with skin colour and not once did I mention appearance.
We are talking about Mughal culture and there is tons of literature on this.

And he must be obsessed with body shape because he also mentions body shape in his post, why it did not catch your attention?. Its you who has obsession and sensitivity about skin colour.

If i ask you what exactly were salient features of Mughal culture, you wont be able to answer.

[maneatinglizard]

And Afghanistan is just an extension of Pakistan.

Afghanistan, like India, is a distinct geographical/cultural region that has been recognized as such for hundreds of years. Pakistan is a political entity that was created by the British just 70 years ago.

Calling Afghanistan an extension of Pakistan would be like saying that the Levant is a part of Israel, when the Levant has been recognized as a distinct cultural region for thousands of years, while Israel has only existed for less than 70 years.

I know of an Afghan person, who is very dark skinned. This person could easily pass for Indian. The person is in their 40s, and sells candles in a very large city.

What do you have to say about that? There's lots of dark Afghanis. Many look indistinguishable from Pakistanis, or even some north Indiots.

If this is all about some language family thing, then man did I ever get the wrong message. I was thinking more in terms of looks...

It's not just the difference in skin color that differentiates us. A really dark, but otherwise average, Afghan will still look nothing like an average Indian.

Of course, there are exceptions. There are Pashtuns that could pass for Indians (likely ones with some Indian ancestry), and there are some Indians that could pass for Afghans (again, probably because they have some Afghan ancestry). Heck, there are Afghans and some Indians that look like Europeans, so it would be crazy if there didn't exist Afghans and Indians, two peoples that are way closer to each other geographically than to anywhere in Europe, that look similar. But, the average person from each region looks very different.

On the other hand, you could take the average person from anywhere in India (aside from East Asian parts), and they wouldn't look significantly different from a Punjabi or Sindhi. Just like people in Europe tend to look quite similar. Do they all look exactly the same? No, but just like there's a look associated with Europeans, there is one associated with Indians. And Afghans don't typically look like either, instead looking most similar to Tajiks and Iranians that don't have significant Arab/Turkic/Middle Eastern ancestry.

[MENTION=20203]Razor[/MENTION] is kind of right. You can't really say Pakistan is "Indian" because the idea of India as a united cultural region is a made-up fantasy created by westerners, South Asia is home to many diverse cultures and language. And the geographical region of India, i.e. Hindustan, is strictly defined as being east of the Indus River, the majority of Pakistan is west of the Indus River so even by that definition Pakistan is not Indian. Pakistan includes Pashtuns and Balochis who have no connection to India.

It's not a Western fantasy. If anything, India not being India is actually a Pakistani fantasy. The Indian region has been recognized throughout history, and has always included Punjab. Some historical definitions have included some areas west of the Indus, but no one has ever tried to claim that everything past it isn't India, until Pakistan came around and some dumb nationalists decided that they could no longer accept reality because it conflicted with their irrational hate of India. There are even Hadith that make specific reference to al-Hind. India wasn't united under a single government in the past either, and yet everyone still new it as simply "India."

The idea that Punjab doesn't have a historical relationship with the rest of India is ridiculous. Even today, a significant part of the region is part of India. South Asia may be home to many different cultures, but they're all connected through a shared Hindu heritage. No one says Europe isn't Europe because there are many diverse cultures there, because it's obvious to anyone inside it or outside of it that they're connected. The same applies to Indian cultures. Punjab and Telangana may have their own cultures, but it's obvious to everyone that isn't a deluded Pakistani nationalist that they're still related.

As for Pakistan's geographical makeup, I don't know the exact ratios, but the population, economic, and political centers are all firmly in the Indic part of the country. Pashtuns, Balochis, and others west of the Indus are all neglected populations by the national government (as I mentioned in a previous post, the HDI of KP is equal to Afghanistan, and Balochistan's is lower), and no one thinks of them when they think of Pakistan.

Majority of the population of Pakistan lies to the east of River Indus ,even if geographically the land area to the west of the river is greater,and I am not even sure if that's true.So this arguement is not very strong.
The point is , the Pakistani people got separated from India some 70 years ago on the basis of religion.Even if culturally and ethnically there are some similarities , no two countries have probably as much hatred for each other as these two.Pakistanis want to have nothing to do with Indians and vice versa.I think that's enough reason to say that they are two distinct nations.
its only the really racist Afghans/Central Asians and Pashtuns who would use the taunt of 'indic'. Why does it even matter?

There are almost as many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan. The creation of Pakistan probably screwed over more Indian Muslims than it helped, since it made the Muslims of India a small minority, and because of that they have largely been subjugated by the Hindu majority. The nationalistic hate does no good for Pakistanis, as all it does is continue to isolate Pakistan and hurt its economic potential. I imagine the Pakistani government inculcates so much hate for Afghanistan and India in its population just as a way to get people's minds off the incredible failures of their own government. (Not trying to say that a united India would've been better than what exists today, but rather point out that the continued rivalry does little good for the average Pakistani).

And calling Punjabis Indians/Indics isn't meant to be an insult; it's literally what they are. It's not a slur like n***** or "daalkhor," and it never has been (unlike "paki," which actually has become a slur in the UK lol). If they don't like the term, they should convince the rest of the world that what has always been known as India/Hind/Hindustan should be called something else. Pashtuns have had a rivalry with Iranians far longer than Pakistan has even existed, but how many Pashtuns do you see acting like self-hating children when they find out that Western scholars consider us "Iranian people"?

[maneatinglizard]

And he must be obsessed with body shape because he also mentions body shape in his post, why it did not catch your attention?. Its you who has obsession and sensitivity about skin colour.

If i ask you what exactly were salient features of Mughal culture, you wont be able to answer.

Pretty sure the only salient feature he cares about is "not Indian."

[Razor]

History is not your strong point maneatinglizard. Lets just leave it at that.

I dont care what or who you insult, but whatever you are saying is not backed up by facts. Before the Brits there has never been any Empire or Nation or Ethnicity or a linguistic group or a culture called India/Indian. Then what on earth are you referring to? A collection of the above? This could very easily include Afghanistan too and you know it.

Winston Churchill said: India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator


A geographical TERM. Google Hunt-Lenox globe and you will see just how many different places were called India. Including China and South east Asia too.

Here is a video showing all the kingdoms, empires and people in the subcontinent. You are CHOOSING to lump all of this into an imaginary creation called India.



But this is not to say that Punjabis and Sindhis are not close to North Indians. Your definition of "India" however is not based on any real facts.

[Razor]

And whatever you said about Pakistan is pure garbage. Muslims of Indus valley (as Rahmat put it) worked for their nation and had never been ruled by a Hindu authroity. The remainder of the British Empire was turned into modern India and there was no question of whether they belonged in single nation or not.

At least we have established that you know very little about Mughals, British empires, general history of the subcontinent and Pakistan.

[Charsi Malang]

Majority of the population of Pakistan lies to the east of River Indus ,even if geographically the land area to the west of the river is greater,and I am not even sure if that's true.So this arguement is not very strong.
The point is , the Pakistani people got separated from India some 70 years ago on the basis of religion.Even if culturally and ethnically there are some similarities , no two countries have probably as much hatred for each other as these two.Pakistanis want to have nothing to do with Indians and vice versa.I think that's enough reason to say that they are two distinct nations.
its only the really racist Afghans/Central Asians and Pashtuns who would use the taunt of 'indic'. Why does it even matter?

There are more than just "some similarities" between India and Pakistan

1. Language -Urdu /Hindi-speakers have no problems conversing with one another at all. Punjabi-spoken and native to both countries
2. Food-barring regional differences the food is very similar if not the same
3. Dress-pretty much the same again barring some regional differences especially if you go to South India. Many women in Pakistan love wearing saris.
4. Pastimes- cricket- Indians and Pakistanis both love cricket so much it's unbelievable.
5. Currency -lol Indian rupee and Pakistani rupee
6. Forms of entertainment-pretty much the same
7. Weddings pretty much the same- all the brides wear red traditionally and in the same style. The men also dress pretty much the same. Apart from the religious aspect- a lot of the time it's difficult to differentiate between and Indian or a Pakistani wedding.
8. Most of all the common shared history and same traditions
9. Music-the same pretty much
10. It goes on and on


The list is endless. Pakistan and India are not "distinct" nations. Pakistan is a new country made up of people who were once part of India proper- the whole culture is Indian. Karachi Muhajirs would proudly tell you they actually physicall came from what is now India proper. I've never seen two nations who are almost identical yet hate each other so much. Majority of Pakistanis were a mere seventy or so years ago living side by side with Indians proper and had been doing so for thousands of years ago.
When a Pakistani goes abroad they are lumped together with Indians in the same category for obvious reasons

[Razor]

There are more than just "some similarities" between India and Pakistan

1. Language -Urdu /Hindi-speakers have no problems conversing with one another at all. Punjabi-spoken and native to both countries
2. Food-barring regional differences the food is very similar if not the same
3. Dress-pretty much the same again barring some regional differences especially if you go to South India. Many women in Pakistan love wearing saris.
4. Pastimes- cricket- Indians and Pakistanis both love cricket so much it's unbelievable.
5. Currency -lol Indian rupee and Pakistani rupee
6. Forms of entertainment-pretty much the same
7. Weddings pretty much the same- all the brides wear red traditionally and in the same style. The men also dress pretty much the same. Apart from the religious aspect- a lot of the time it's difficult to differentiate between and Indian or a Pakistani wedding.
8. Most of all the common shared history and same traditions
9. Music-the same pretty much
10. It goes on and on


The list is endless. Pakistan and India are not "distinct" nations. Pakistan is a new country made up of people who were once part of India proper- the whole culture is Indian. Karachi Muhajirs would proudly tell you they actually physicall came from what is now India proper. I've never seen two nations who are almost identical yet hate each other so much. Majority of Pakistanis were a mere seventy or so years ago living side by side with Indians proper and had been doing so for thousands of years ago.
When a Pakistani goes abroad they are lumped together with Indians in the same category for obvious reasons

None of your points apply to South India and East India. "India proper" lol. Completely clueless.

And also a big thanks for dismissing the Muslim identity of the people. A bit low, but expected.

[Charsi Malang]

None of your points apply to South India and East India. "India proper" lol. Completely clueless.

And also a big thanks for dismissing the Muslim identity of the people. A bit low, but expected.

So no one in South India or East India speak Hindi/Urdu?

I haven't dismissed anybody's Muslim identitity. Millions of Muslims exist in India- that makes the difference between them and Pakistanis even smaller as now we are talking about two groups which not only share a common heritage, history, culture AND religion. My points are in fact further substantiated. Are there any big differences then between an Indian Muslim and an average Pakistani?

As expected you would bring religion into it as well. None of my points are low they are facts staring at you.