Pakistan Census 2017 (pashtun Population)

[salman47]

Mughal is Persianized word for Mongol (Persianized Muslim Turks). Saying you are Mughal is no different than if you started identifying yourself as ''British'' since they also ruled the subcontinent and English is the official language in both Pakistan and India today.

Since few people know Turkish here, the word 'Mughal' as we know is corrupted form used in Pakistan/India/Bangladesh(Indian Languages). The original word is 'Moghol'[Generally used in most Turkish Languages] or 'Moğol'[Modern Turkey's Turki. pronounced as 'Mol' but with a long 'o' sound]
It means 'Mongolian'[English].
'Mogholistan'/'Moğolistan' = Mongolia.

Offtopic: were they really Turks? or were they from Mongolia?

[Elite Pakhtun]

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.

Fair enough, if the only thing that mattered was the name. The country known as Afghanistan (i.e. land of Pashtuns) didn't encompass what is present day Afghanistan, much like India didn't encompass what is present day India. Most Pashtuns being in Pakistan, and most of the Indus river also being in present-day-Pakistan, means that the countries using the name Afghanistan and India are not representative of the historical Afghanistan or India.

Calling Pakistan an extension of India would make no sense, since the indus river is almost entirely in Pakistan to begin with.

Razor also made a good point: Angrezaan had no idea what india was. Anything remote, and exotic, was considered "india". The natives in North America were called "indians". Their definition of the word was very loose, to say the least.

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.

Afghan cricket team:



Tell me what the big difference between that and an average Pakistani (and there's a few players who even look full indian) is?

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).

Never met indians that could pass for Afghan, unless they have 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.

If you ask some idiot euro if he can tell the difference, the chances are low that he can. It'll just be brown skinned people from one place vs another.

The average afghan may not look like the average indian, just like the average pakistani doesn't really look like the average indian either.

The only reason so many people think they do, is because what most people think of indians are basically sikhs ie punjabis. Normal indians look more... well... indian. Even though sikhs are very indian to begin with.

That said, Punjabis and Sindhis are indic for sure. From a cultural standpoint. However, it would be false to use that as a reason to equate them with the people in the country of india.

[Razor]

ok f**k the similarities, tell me at least one difference between an Indian and Pakistani(With Indian origins)?

Salman, at no point in ANY of my posts has this been the topic of discussion. Your post literally highlights your ignorance.
I don't care about the similarities (plenty) and differences (also plenty). My entire argument is that you have no idea what "India" and "India origins" actually means. It's the most pointless expression.


But I will answer your question anyway.

Native Pakistanis (Punjabis and Sindhis) are based in the Indus river valley.
North Indians are historically based in the Ganges valley. (Already we have a disparity on what Indian actually refers to. It started off referring to the Indus region people, which included Gandhara, but ended up being used for modern India and even China and Southeast Asia, not to mention Indonesia, America and Caribbean too)

Pakistanis natively speak Punjabi and Sindhi.
Less than 3% of Indians speak these languages.

Besides Punjabi and Sindhi cultures, there is another general Mughal influence in Pakistan and North India, which is very much Muslim and Central Asian in origin. Pakistanis associate with this a lot more than Indians, so I find your expression "Indian culture" ridiculous.

Before you say Mughals were Turks/Persians, note that they were Mongols before this. Cultures evolve. Mughals eventually became to represent Urdu speaking Muslims in the subcontinent, which is the precursor to the modern nation of Pakistan.


There, I covered the differences, similarities and the misnomer too. I fully expect you and your peers to ignore this and revert back to "You are all Indian".

[Nertj]

Fair enough, if the only thing that mattered was the name. The country known as Afghanistan (i.e. land of Pashtuns) didn't encompass what is present day Afghanistan, much like India didn't encompass what is present day India. Most Pashtuns being in Pakistan, and most of the Indus river also being in present-day-Pakistan, means that the countries using the name Afghanistan and India are not representative of the historical Afghanistan or India.

Calling Pakistan an extension of India would make no sense, since the indus river is almost entirely in Pakistan to begin with.

Razor also made a good point: Angrezaan had no idea what india was. Anything remote, and exotic, was considered "india". The natives in North America were called "indians". Their definition of the word was very loose, to say the least.

Afghan cricket team:



Tell me what the big difference between that and an average Pakistani (and there's a few players who even look full indian) is?

Never met indians that could pass for Afghan, unless they have Afghan ancestry.

If you ask some idiot euro if he can tell the difference, the chances are low that he can. It'll just be brown skinned people from one place vs another.

The average afghan may not look like the average indian, just like the average pakistani doesn't really look like the average indian either.

The only reason so many people think they do, is because what most people think of indians are basically sikhs ie punjabis. Normal indians look more... well... indian. Even though sikhs are very indian to begin with.

That said, Punjabis and Sindhis are indic for sure. From a cultural standpoint. However, it would be false to use that as a reason to equate them with the people in the country of india.

Oh ****, here we go again with skin color comparisons. lol

80% of Pakistan is Indic so the avarage person look very Indian like.

There are Afghans that can have South Asian Look, but they are minority/rare. Afghans have unique/distinguishable features but if we must compare then avarage Afghan look more like Iranians, Turks, non-Semetic Levant populations than they do South Asians.

[Friends of Baloch]

The only reason so many people think they do, is because what most people think of indians are basically sikhs ie punjabis. Normal indians look more... well... indian. Even though sikhs are very indian to begin with.

That said, Punjabis and Sindhis are indic for sure. From a cultural standpoint. However, it would be false to use that as a reason to equate them with the people in the country of india.

Punjabis and Sindhis are just like their other fellow Indians. Their languages are all closely related (languages like Sindhi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Hindi etc) and all merge into each other through dialects and come from the same root. They are all racially from the same ancestral group and they all belong historically to the same Hindu civilization and are made up of the same Hindu communities.

The largest community that make-up the so called 'Punjabis' are converted 'untouchables', followed by the Jats, and then other Hindu peoples like Gujjars, Lohars, Chuhras etc None of these communities are unique or exclusive to Punjab and are found all over North India / Hindustan, which Punjab and Sindh are only extensions of.

This rubbish that there is some kind of distinct "Indus" and "Ganges" regions is just more made-up desperate paki nonsense to try and fabricate a new identity for a 70 year old break-away country which the only basis for it's coming into existence was to be an independent country for the 'Indian Muslims'.

Pakiland will forever be associated with India because over 80% of it's people are Indians, speak Indian languages, have Indian cultures, live in the Indian subcontinent and have Hindu ancestry.

[Razor]

Punjabis and Sindhis are just like their other fellow Indians. Their languages are all closely related (languages like Sindhi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Hindi etc) and all merge into each other through dialects and come from the same root. They are all racially from the same ancestral group and they all belong historically to the same Hindu civilization and are made up of the same Hindu communities.

The largest community that make-up the so called 'Punjabis' are converted 'untouchables', followed by the Jats, and then other Hindu peoples like Gujjars, Lohars, Chuhras etc None of these communities are unique or exclusive to Punjab and are found all over North India / Hindustan, which Punjab and Sindh are only extensions of.

This rubbish that there is some kind of distinct "Indus" and "Ganges" regions is just more made-up desperate paki nonsense to try and fabricate a new identity for a 70 year old break-away country which the only basis for it's coming into existence was to be an independent country for the 'Indian Muslims'.

Pakiland will forever be associated with India because over 80% of it's people are Indians, speak Indian languages, have Indian cultures, live in the Indian subcontinent and have Hindu ancestry.

You are obnoxious and a challenged person.

There are distinct Indus and Ganges regions. Your dalit obsession is quite clear now.

Just for the record, since you love labelling everything Indian. Balochistan was Hindu too (look it up), but now realing that you are an Indian troll, this is probably what you already believe.

[toughpashtun]

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"?

Don't agree with you regarding partition of the subcontinent.I am not saying that Punjabis or Sindhis are not Indic people , what I am trying to get across is that after partition the Pakistanis want nothing to have to do with the Indians regardless of their common culture or ethnicity.

[toughpashtun]

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

I agree with you on the similarities in terms of culture , traditions and the like.However , there are religious and political differences which have pushed both countries apart.

[salman47]

Salman, at no point in ANY of my posts has this been the topic of discussion. Your post literally highlights your ignorance.
I don't care about the similarities (plenty) and differences (also plenty). My entire argument is that you have no idea what "India" and "India origins" actually means. It's the most pointless expression.


But I will answer your question anyway.

Native Pakistanis (Punjabis and Sindhis) are based in the Indus river valley.
North Indians are historically based in the Ganges valley. (Already we have a disparity on what Indian actually refers to. It started off referring to the Indus region people, which included Gandhara, but ended up being used for modern India and even China and Southeast Asia, not to mention Indonesia, America and Caribbean too)

Pakistanis natively speak Punjabi and Sindhi.
Less than 3% of Indians speak these languages.

Besides Punjabi and Sindhi cultures, there is another general Mughal influence in Pakistan and North India, which is very much Muslim and Central Asian in origin. Pakistanis associate with this a lot more than Indians, so I find your expression "Indian culture" ridiculous.

Before you say Mughals were Turks/Persians, note that they were Mongols before this. Cultures evolve. Mughals eventually became to represent Urdu speaking Muslims in the subcontinent, which is the precursor to the modern nation of Pakistan.


There, I covered the differences, similarities and the misnomer too. I fully expect you and your peers to ignore this and revert back to "You are all Indian".

Ganges culture? You do know that Indians also claim Indus Valley Civilization! Dont you?
So if what you say is true,
1) compare Ganges Culture and Indus Culture
2) prove that 'Mughals represent Urdu speaking people' of South Asia
3) list the Moghal influences
4) whats similar between the Indian peoples of India and Pakistan?

[Razor]

Ganges culture? You do know that Indians also claim Indus Valley Civilization! Dont you?
So if what you say is true,
1) compare Ganges Culture and Indus Culture
2) prove that 'Mughals represent Urdu speaking people' of South Asia
3) list the Moghal influences
4) whats similar between the Indian peoples of India and Pakistan?

Indians claim a lot, half of Asia to be exact, including Pashtun and Balochi heritage too. Their claims on Indus valley are based on mass migrations/natural disasters with no real evidence other than vague religious texts that are only being "discovered" this century by a certain guy named Rao. He also claimed to have deciphered the language, also bs.

1. Differences between Indus valley and Ganges region include:
Native languages and cultures are Punjabi/Sindhi. Less than 3% of Indians share this, mostly from Indian Punjab
Ancient history (indus valley civ never extended to ganges),
Foreign influences like Persian, Mongol, Central Asian(kushans), Greek etc
Followed by all the Muslim era empires (Arab, Durrani)
100 years of British rule, vs 300 in other parts of India.
Generally speaking, the region has been Muslim majority for the last 1200 years, though Mughals spread a lot of Muslim influence to Ganges.
The Thar desert created a natural border, which kept Sindh and Gujarat separate.
Ganges people are largely vegetarian. Punjab/Sindh definitely not.
A lot of Pashtun influence in Punjab since the 18th century. And a lot of Balochi influence in Sindh, since forever. Balochis ruled Karachi when the Brits came.
No Dravidian, Tibetan or Nepali influence in the Indus valley.

2&3 Mughal culture evolved into this. I am very aware it had its origin elsewhere. This topic deserves a book and there are plenty. To give you an idea, this includes way of life, music, food, religion, language, architecture. Too much to discuss

4. Plenty similarities too, though the term "Indian peoples" is a misnomer. South and Eastern India do not share many similarities so I cannot speak for them.

Similarities include:
Punjab region, culture and language of both sides, which is probably the most prominent region of the entire subcontinent.
Muslim Mughal influence in Pakistan and North India (what you like to call Indian culture for some strange reason)
Shared lingua-franca due to Mughals (Urdu). You should note that the original hindustani language was written in persian script and heavily persianised, more so than Urdu today. Modern Hindi is a new concept (they love their misnomers).
Technically, native languages of Northern India and Punjab/Sindh fall under Indo-Aryan branch.
British rule and influence
I suppose Punjabis/Sindhis and other non-Punjabi North Indians can look similar.

There, I hope you appreciate that I am trying to be as unbiased as possible and believe me, I have no love for India.

I didn't include Hinduism intentionally because its a very vague concept, which was only defined during the Mughal era. In fact, the oldest Hindu documents are less than 1000 years old and there is very little evidence of the actual religion of pre-Islamic Indus Valley. It doesn't help that Indians claim their religion is always evolving so by definition, they can literally claim anything. On the same basis, they have also created a Hindu narrative in Balochistan, Pashtun regions like Gandhara. In fact, they consider Buddhism and Sikhism to be part of greater Hinduism, so Tibet goes in there too. Its another bs debate that I hate wasting my time on.

[salman47]

Indians claim a lot, half of Asia to be exact, including Pashtun and Balochi heritage too. Their claims on Indus valley are based on mass migrations/natural disasters with no real evidence other than vague religious texts that are only being "discovered" this century by a certain guy named Rao. He also claimed to have deciphered the language, also bs.

1. Differences between Indus valley and Ganges region include:
Native languages and cultures are Punjabi/Sindhi. Less than 3% of Indians share this, mostly from Indian Punjab
Ancient history (indus valley civ never extended to ganges),
Foreign influences like Persian, Mongol, Central Asian(kushans), Greek etc
Followed by all the Muslim era empires (Arab, Durrani)
100 years of British rule, vs 300 in other parts of India.
Generally speaking, the region has been Muslim majority for the last 1200 years, though Mughals spread a lot of Muslim influence to Ganges.
The Thar desert created a natural border, which kept Sindh and Gujarat separate.
Ganges people are largely vegetarian. Punjab/Sindh definitely not.
A lot of Pashtun influence in Punjab since the 18th century. And a lot of Balochi influence in Sindh, since forever. Balochis ruled Karachi when the Brits came.
No Dravidian, Tibetan or Nepali influence in the Indus valley.

2&3 Mughal culture evolved into this. I am very aware it had its origin elsewhere. This topic deserves a book and there are plenty. To give you an idea, this includes way of life, music, food, religion, language, architecture. Too much to discuss

4. Plenty similarities too, though the term "Indian peoples" is a misnomer. South and Eastern India do not share many similarities so I cannot speak for them.

Similarities include:
Punjab region, culture and language of both sides, which is probably the most prominent region of the entire subcontinent.
Muslim Mughal influence in Pakistan and North India (what you like to call Indian culture for some strange reason)
Shared lingua-franca due to Mughals (Urdu). You should note that the original hindustani language was written in persian script and heavily persianised, more so than Urdu today. Modern Hindi is a new concept (they love their misnomers).
Technically, native languages of Northern India and Punjab/Sindh fall under Indo-Aryan branch.
British rule and influence
I suppose Punjabis/Sindhis and other non-Punjabi North Indians can look similar.

There, I hope you appreciate that I am trying to be as unbiased as possible and believe me, I have no love for India.

I didn't include Hinduism intentionally because its a very vague concept, which was only defined during the Mughal era. In fact, the oldest Hindu documents are less than 1000 years old and there is very little evidence of the actual religion of pre-Islamic Indus Valley. It doesn't help that Indians claim their religion is always evolving so by definition, they can literally claim anything. On the same basis, they have also created a Hindu narrative in Balochistan, Pashtun regions like Gandhara. In fact, they consider Buddhism and Sikhism to be part of greater Hinduism, so Tibet goes in there too. Its another bs debate that I hate wasting my time on.

Don't have time to research/reply to your comment but one thing I would like to say is that are sure Gujarat and Sindh have no connections? As far as I can tell they do have a very deep and close relation, hereby I will prove by example: I have friend, whose mother is Pakistani(Sindh) and father is Indian(Gujarat). They speak the exact same language(Kachi).

[maneatinglizard]

Since "Mughal Punjabi non-Indian Muslim" Razor can't provide a single example of uniquely Mughal culture found in Punjab, let's see what Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, thought on the matter:

"Once the water of Sind is crossed, everything is in the Hindustan way (tariq) land, water, tree, rock, people and horde, opinion and custom."

The Babur-nama in English pg. 484

Wow, he certainly emphasized how everything past the Indus was distinctly Hindustani. From the land to everything on it, the "Indian-ness" pervaded everything to him, just as it does to every single person who isn't a delusional Pakistani today. I guess Babur was brainwashed by those dastardly Englishmen!

That quote should be enough to settle the matter, but since I'm generous:

"Many rivers rise in these mountains and flow through Hindustan. Six rise north of Sihrind, namely Sind, Bahat (Jilam), Chan-ab, Rawl, Biah, and Sutluj; all meet near Multan"

The Babur-nama in English pg. 485

Now, don't those Hindustani river names sound familiar? Aside from the Indus, I do believe there's a land known for it's 5 rivers. What could that land's name possibly be? And Multan sounds familiar too. They're probably in South India right? Because Punjab is obviously not in India, so there's no way that that land of 5 rivers Babur is describing could be one and the same.

Anyway, I do think I've found one aspect of Mughal culture that Razor dutifully follows to this day, and since he's had so much trouble finding an example of his own, I will share it with him. Let's look at another part of the Baburnama:

"Hindustan is a country of few charms. Its people have no good looks; of social intercourse, paying and receiving visits there is none; of genius and capacity none; of manners none; in handicraft and work there is no form or symmetry, method or quality; there are no good horses, no good dogs, no grapes, muskmelons or first-rate fruits, no ice or cold water, no good bread or cooked food in the bazars, no Hot-baths, no Colleges, no candles, torches or candlesticks."

The Babur-nama in English pg. 518

That's part of his description of all the things he dislikes in India. It's a pretty extensive list. But what's perhaps even funnier is his description of what he actually likes about India:

"Another good thing in Hindustan is that it has unnumbered and endless workmen of every kind. There is a fixed caste (jam'i) for every sort of work and for every thing, which has done that work or that thing from father to son till now."

The Babur-nama in English pg. 520

In other words, his favorite part of India is the seemingly endless supply of people who could work for him! After having to pass through the Afghan lands where he had to constantly deal with unrest and uprisings, as well as suffering his defeat in Samarqand, I can completely see why he appreciated the people of India being populous and largely easygoing.

So what do Razor and Babur have in common? Disdain for Indians! The only difference is that Babur was a foreigner that conquered it, while Razor is an Indian that thinks a change in nationality suddenly negates thousands of years of cultural and political connections.

So just accept it, Razor. You're an Indian. No, not in terms of nationality, but rather in terms of ethnicity, culture, etc. But here's the thing: there's nothing wrong with being an Indian. I didn't quote Babur because I agree with him, but because he's the kinda guy you seem to want to associate yourself with. Indians are people just like any other, with the capacity to be good or bad, smart or stupid, handsome or ugly, etc. There's nothing about being an Indian that makes you inherently inferior to a(n) Arab, Persian, Afghan, European, or anything else. Once you get over the self-loathing and accept yourself for who you are, you too can see this, and be happy with it.

Or you can keep on lying to yourself and everyone else who will listen. You can keep desperately trying to argue that you're actually something you're not. Today a Mughal, tomorrow an Arab, the next a Brit. No matter what you pretend, everyone else will have no respect for you, and see you as a loser. Not because we all know you're a Hinudstani, only the racists will hate you for that. Rather, it will be because you hate and lack respect for yourself, and no one respects someone who doesn't respect himself.

[Traveller]

Since "Mughal Punjabi non-Indian Muslim" Razor can't provide a single example of uniquely Mughal culture found in Punjab, let's see what Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, thought on the matter:



Wow, he certainly emphasized how everything past the Indus was distinctly Hindustani. From the land to everything on it, the "Indian-ness" pervaded everything to him, just as it does to every single person who isn't a delusional Pakistani today. I guess Babur was brainwashed by those dastardly Englishmen!

That quote should be enough to settle the matter, but since I'm generous:



Now, don't those Hindustani river names sound familiar? Aside from the Indus, I do believe there's a land known for it's 5 rivers. What could that land's name possibly be? And Multan sounds familiar too. They're probably in South India right? Because Punjab is obviously not in India, so there's no way that that land of 5 rivers Babur is describing could be one and the same.

Anyway, I do think I've found one aspect of Mughal culture that Razor dutifully follows to this day, and since he's had so much trouble finding an example of his own, I will share it with him. Let's look at another part of the Baburnama:



That's part of his description of all the things he dislikes in India. It's a pretty extensive list. But what's perhaps even funnier is his description of what he actually likes about India:



In other words, his favorite part of India is the seemingly endless supply of people who could work for him! After having to pass through the Afghan lands where he had to constantly deal with unrest and uprisings, as well as suffering his defeat in Samarqand, I can completely see why he appreciated the people of India being populous and largely easygoing.

So what do Razor and Babur have in common? Disdain for Indians! The only difference is that Babur was a foreigner that conquered it, while Razor is an Indian that thinks a change in nationality suddenly negates thousands of years of cultural and political connections.

So just accept it, Razor. You're an Indian. No, not in terms of nationality, but rather in terms of ethnicity, culture, etc. But here's the thing: there's nothing wrong with being an Indian. I didn't quote Babur because I agree with him, but because he's the kinda guy you seem to want to associate yourself with. Indians are people just like any other, with the capacity to be good or bad, smart or stupid, handsome or ugly, etc. There's nothing about being an Indian that makes you inherently inferior to a(n) Arab, Persian, Afghan, European, or anything else. Once you get over the self-loathing and accept yourself for who you are, you too can see this, and be happy with it.

Or you can keep on lying to yourself and everyone else who will listen. You can keep desperately trying to argue that you're actually something you're not. Today a Mughal, tomorrow an Arab, the next a Brit. No matter what you pretend, everyone else will have no respect for you, and see you as a loser. Not because we all know you're a Hinudstani, only the racists will hate you for that. Rather, it will be because you hate and lack respect for yourself, and no one respects someone who doesn't respect himself.

How did you find those quotes. Have you actually read the Babarnama?

[Razor]

Don't have time to research/reply to your comment but one thing I would like to say is that are sure Gujarat and Sindh have no connections? As far as I can tell they do have a very deep and close relation, hereby I will prove by example: I have friend, whose mother is Pakistani(Sindh) and father is Indian(Gujarat). They speak the exact same language(Kachi).

I had never even heard of Kachi before, but it seems to have very few speakers.

Gujarati and Sindhi are completely different languages with their own culture, outlook and people.

[Razor]

Since "Mughal Punjabi non-Indian Muslim" Razor can't provide a single example of uniquely Mughal culture found in Punjab, let's see what Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, thought on the matter:



Wow, he certainly emphasized how everything past the Indus was distinctly Hindustani. From the land to everything on it, the "Indian-ness" pervaded everything to him, just as it does to every single person who isn't a delusional Pakistani today. I guess Babur was brainwashed by those dastardly Englishmen!

That quote should be enough to settle the matter, but since I'm generous:



Now, don't those Hindustani river names sound familiar? Aside from the Indus, I do believe there's a land known for it's 5 rivers. What could that land's name possibly be? And Multan sounds familiar too. They're probably in South India right? Because Punjab is obviously not in India, so there's no way that that land of 5 rivers Babur is describing could be one and the same.

Anyway, I do think I've found one aspect of Mughal culture that Razor dutifully follows to this day, and since he's had so much trouble finding an example of his own, I will share it with him. Let's look at another part of the Baburnama:



That's part of his description of all the things he dislikes in India. It's a pretty extensive list. But what's perhaps even funnier is his description of what he actually likes about India:



In other words, his favorite part of India is the seemingly endless supply of people who could work for him! After having to pass through the Afghan lands where he had to constantly deal with unrest and uprisings, as well as suffering his defeat in Samarqand, I can completely see why he appreciated the people of India being populous and largely easygoing.

So what do Razor and Babur have in common? Disdain for Indians! The only difference is that Babur was a foreigner that conquered it, while Razor is an Indian that thinks a change in nationality suddenly negates thousands of years of cultural and political connections.

So just accept it, Razor. You're an Indian. No, not in terms of nationality, but rather in terms of ethnicity, culture, etc. But here's the thing: there's nothing wrong with being an Indian. I didn't quote Babur because I agree with him, but because he's the kinda guy you seem to want to associate yourself with. Indians are people just like any other, with the capacity to be good or bad, smart or stupid, handsome or ugly, etc. There's nothing about being an Indian that makes you inherently inferior to a(n) Arab, Persian, Afghan, European, or anything else. Once you get over the self-loathing and accept yourself for who you are, you too can see this, and be happy with it.

Or you can keep on lying to yourself and everyone else who will listen. You can keep desperately trying to argue that you're actually something you're not. Today a Mughal, tomorrow an Arab, the next a Brit. No matter what you pretend, everyone else will have no respect for you, and see you as a loser. Not because we all know you're a Hinudstani, only the racists will hate you for that. Rather, it will be because you hate and lack respect for yourself, and no one respects someone who doesn't respect himself.

Not sure the the f*** you are quoting my messages when you seem completely mentally incapable of understanding a single god damn thing that I am writing. We get it. You hate Pakistanis. Move on bro. I am not asking for your valuable attention.