Pakistan Census 2017 (pashtun Population)

[Razor]

Deluded pakis think they are different from Indians. lol

ask any non-South Asian person, and they will say Paki and Indians are the same ****. lol

[LOL]
Are you Punjabi or Sindhi? Otherwise you are not the same.

You really have no self respect if you cannot respect actual established identities of the subcontinent and demand that they be blurred. Nobody is denying shared heritage between neighboring peoples, but Indians who demand to be associated with Pakistani ethnic groups come across as desperate.

And the only reason you would ask a "non South Asian" is because you want an ignorant response. Otherwise you would be asking someone who knows a damned thing or two.
[/LOL]

[salman47]

Its called the Aryan migration theory. Now debunked because it's ridiculous.

4000 BC the world was created
2500 BC The biblical flood happened
Then Dravidians ruled a lot of Asia
1500 BC "Aryans" invaded and took over, gradually, which is probably the displacement he is talking about.

Europeans needed "to be responsible" for all civilisation and it needed to neatly fit with the Biblical dates too. Hindu nationalists use the same theory to pretend that Dravidians are the original heirs of Indus valley, Afghan and Balochistan.

To modernise the theory, they removed the "creation of the world" at 4000 BC and Noahs flood at 2500 BC, but kept the rest...

Aryan Invasion theory is more plausible!

[Razor]

Aryan Invasion theory is more plausible!

Same concept. Discredited theories.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Deluded pakis think they are different from Indians. lol

ask any non-South Asian person, and they will say Paki and Indians are the same ****. lol

Okay then, let's see how smart you are.

What country is this person ethnically from:

EDIT: IMAGE REMOVED.

A) India
B) Pakistan
C) Afghanistan

Will delete image later - let's see if Nertj or Hindu times or whoever I'm talking to can back his claims up

EDIT: pic uploaded form source. FYI - you can right click and view image. It works sometimes.

[maneatinglizard]

Okay then, let's see how smart you are.

What country is this person ethnically from:



A) India
B) Pakistan
C) Afghanistan

Will delete image later - let's see if Nertj or Hindu times or whoever I'm talking to can back his claims up

Your image doesn't work.

Regardless, these tests are usually useless. Either you show a typical person and everyone can easily guess where they're from, or you show someone atypical and results are all over the place.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Your image doesn't work.

Regardless, these tests are usually useless. Either you show a typical person and everyone can easily guess where they're from, or you show someone atypical and results are all over the place.

Afghanai, check now. What's your answer in the list?

FYI you can right click the photobucket thing and see the image there... I think. Either way, what do you think is the answer?

[Elias]

Okay then, let's see how smart you are.

What country is this person ethnically from:



A) India
B) Pakistan
C) Afghanistan

Will delete image later - let's see if Nertj or Hindu times or whoever I'm talking to can back his claims up

EDIT: pic uploaded form source. FYI - you can right click and view image. It works sometimes.

atypical Afghan.

[a.s.takhar]

Punjab doesnt have its "own name". The name is foreign imposed on you. What is the native name that you have for youselves? lol... You dont have one.

You are not "Punjabis" really, you are Jats, Awans, Chuhras, Gujjars, Cheemas, Arains, Lohars etc These are your ancestral and native communal names and identities. All 'untouchable' and 'shudra' Hindu people.

The name "Punjab" was first coined by the Turks, but wasnt fixed and firmly used until the British completed their conquest of India in the mid 19th century and drew the boundaries of what they considered would become "Punjab" province.

The name "Punjab" does not appear once in the original Baburnama for example, because there was no "Punjab" then. He identifies the people there as 'Hindus' and the region simply as 'Hindustan'.

Even Ranjeet Singh and his Sikhs, the people most associated with being "Punjabis", was known as the 'Sikh kingdom of Lahore', not "Punjab".

What you know as "Punjab" today was all coined and defined by the British colonial rule. The borders of "Punjab", the ethnonym "Punjabis", all came about during the British "Raj" over you Dravidians.

You f*in retarded Dravidian/Andaman Islander cross breed, how are we untouchables compared to you? I would not anyway want you to touch me let alone for you to come near to me. Babur was a retard as well.

I cant figure out if you are a retarded Afghan working for RAW or a retarded Indian Dravidian working for RAW?

[a.s.takhar]

Afghans dont have anything to do with so called "Mughal identity" you fool, and neither do you. Mughal identity was limited to them, a few thousand foreigners ruling the natives of Hindustan like you.

Afghan identity, language, culture, traditions, leaders etc is all completely separate from Mughals who were just a tiny number of Turkic invaders of the Indian subcontinent with a few thousand Persian soldiers and courtesans between the eras of Homayoun and Shah Jahan.

These few thousand Turko-Persian foreigners ruled over millions of native paki servants like you in alliance and colloaboration from the petty Hindu chieftains of western India, the skinny, drug abusing "Rajputs". The interrelationship that dynasty had with their Hindu subjects was so much that Akbar married a Hindu and Jahangir and Shah Jahan both had Hindu mothers (Jahangir also had a Hindu first wife).

Just look at your absurd and bizare fabrications about things you know nothing about. "Mughal identity", "Indus valley identity", Radcliffe line of 1947 identity, lol. What a Jat fool you are.

You are one of those insecure pakis that must think when Christopher Columbus landed in the Carribbean he found the "West Mughals" or the "West pakis", and not the "West Indies" which the Carribbean is also known as, or that Native Americans were originally called "Red Mughals" or "Red pakis" and not "Red Indians", etc etc etc It is all an error and mistake of history, what they were really looking for was another route to "Indus valey" or "Pakliand" and not India when Europeans first voyaged west across the Atlantic! Calling the Native Americans 'Red Indians' from the 15th century to 20th century was a mistake, they should have been called the 'Red pakis' because India never existed according to 60 year old paki school books!

It is clear from the stupid beliefs you have that you are ignorant and uneducated on history, or you are just another paki inferiority complex driven liar that is either scared to study history because you know it will utterly demolish the false beliefs you have or like a typical paki weakling you simply just do not have the mental acumen to sit down and read some books from start to finish and digest what is you are learning.

^^ above showing me your more likely to be an Dravidian Indian retard.

[a.s.takhar]

This is mostly accurate, but it isnt as simple as the river Indus neatly marking where India begins.

For example in Achaemenid Persian records from the reign of Darius I, India did not start either at or only east of the Indus, it included some land west of it too. This was both a geographical consideration and based on the racial/cultural demography about what kind of people were living there. The Alexander Chronicles corroborate the same thing as the Persian sources, and from the Indians own perspective that is what they considered too.

Your confusion probably arises from the changes in the demographics that have taken place over time west of the Indus in what is now Balochistan and what is now Pakhtunkhwa.

Balochistan for example as it exists today (both sides of it) isnt historically a single region but comprises of land from four different regions: Sistan, Makran, Afghanistan and India.

In much of eastern Balochistan the native peoples living there were originally Indian/Dravidian tribes before the Baloch are believed to have started arriving in the area and slowly push eastwards from circa 11th century CE. These Indic natives still exist in the Brauhis, Loris, gypsies/Jats, and obviously others became absorbed after some generations among some of the Baloch tribes too.

Similarly some parts of what is now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, particularly Peshwar and the lowland areas were not originally Pashtun lands. Peshawar was orginally an Indian city centuries before these areas were eventually settled by Pashtun tribes and the local Indian poulations diminshed/killed or were expelled from the land and replaced by Afghans. The remnants of the original Indian population of these areas that are now Pashtuns lands are Hindkowans/Gujjars etc

So, it depends on what era of history you are talking about, and whether you are talking about geography or peoples, eg, Pashtuns were not living in the area of Peshawar when Alexander invaded India and Baloch did not exist when Sistan was a Sassanian 'quarter' of their 'Iranshahr' etc. The demographics of these two places from those two different eras as examples are very different from the demographics and identity of those places today.

Pashtuns and Baloch are not from or related to Indian civilization. But some of the land that Pashtuns and Baloch now inhabit was at one time Indian lands before Baloch and Pashtuns arrived there and became the dominat group.

It is only in the immediate environs of the actual Indus and east of it that foreign invasions have made no impact on the native Indian demographics and which is why from the Indus to the Bay of Bengal the Indian population has remained unchanged for some 3500 years or so.

But west of the Indus some very significant demographic shifts have taken place within the past few hundred years, with Afghans and Baloch eventually replacing Indians and emerging as the dominant groups over the Indians and all of the other smaller peoples living on the fringes in places like Kohistan and Chitral that were neither Indian or Afghan historically but are now dominated by Pashtuns today.

^^ This is further indications your an Indian agent of some sort.

You lunatic, Kohistan and Chitral are not dominated by Pashtuns. Their languages are closer to Punjabi and Sindhi but not to your Tamil.

[a.s.takhar]

So called Indo-Aryans are basically raped Dravidians. All Indo-Aryan languages have traces of Dravidian in them, just like Dravidian genes run thick through your paki veins as they do any fully Dravidian black skinned Tamil.

In fact, Punjabi language is a Dravidian substratum moreso than any other Indo-Aryan language is. Punjabi has retained more of it's original Dravidian phonology, retroflex consonants and morphology than other "North Indian" languages. This explains quite a bit why Punjab has always had the highest demographic of "untouchables" and "shudras" of any Indian region and why Punjabi has always been considered an inferior language because it is a group of dialects mainly spoken by Dalits and Hindu "low castes".

Even some of your fellow pakis are also now facing the truth about the Dravidian root of Punjabi.

Punjab Notes: Safdar Shah’s Punjabi Grammar and Nuzhat’s stories for children
Mushtaq SoofiApril 21, 2017
Punjab Notes: Safdar Shah’s Punjabi Grammar and Nuzhat’s stories for children - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

Dr Safdar Ali Shah is a poet, author, research scholar and linguist. He has a number of books to his credit some of which are Khabaan di Mutyaar (Punjabi poetry), Quest for Peace, Colonialism, English and Punjabi, The Sikh Heritage of Pakistan (co-author), The Hindu Heritage of Pakistan (co-author), The Buddhist Heritage of Pakistan (co-author) and Sufi Poetry of Pakistan.

Dr Shah currently works at the National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, as Director Publishing and Student Affairs. He has an abiding interest in the Punjabi language and literature. “Punjabi Grammar”, his latest book, published by his university from Islamabad, had added to his already impressive repertoire. It fulfills the requirements of those who are in any way keen to understand and learn Punjabi as everyday speech and vehicle of creative expression. It’s neither the first book on Punjabi grammar nor the last. But it’s highly relevant because it deals with the grammatical structure as well as with the brief history and literature of the language.

“This book not only provides the details on the structure of the language, but also introduces the readers to some of the history and richness of the literature and culture that finds its strength in the ‘folk-character’ of Punjabi to which Dr Shah refers,” writes Lars Dyrud, the Principal Researcher, Sociolinguistic Survey of Punjabi, Pakistan (published 2011), Northland Community and Technical College, Minnesota, USA, in the blurb.

Dr Shah’s book which addresses the contemporary needs of language learning deserves such an accolade. His book seems accessible to both scholar and lay reader. He elucidates the hazy facets of the language structure and related issues in a lucid manner. The book is divided into different chapters in order to deal with diverse aspects of the language such as phonology, morphology and syntax which contain hidden in their innards the baffling secrets of stable but imperceptibly changing dynamics of incredibly complex abstract construct called language.

Language has contradictory nature; it can be as simple as breathing and it can be as difficult as looking for a needle in a haystack. Highly illuminating in fact is Dr Shah’s scholarly and researched introduction which takes a look at the trajectory of Punjab’s civilisation march. In order to understand the origins and development of the Punjabi language, one needs to know the complex evolution of Punjab’s society spanning over thousands of years. Any effort to fully analyse the highly stratified, layered and caste ridden society of the subcontinent will flounder if we ignore deliberately or out of ignorance the open secrets of Harappa civilisation which visibly underpins what is generally referred to as Indian civilisation. It’s in fact more of Pakistan’s heritage than that of contemporary India.

The core of a language cannot be discovered without discovering its speakers, Dr Shah rightly stresses. He explains briefly the ancient history of Punjab in which lie hidden the roots of its language. As to the origin of the Punjabi, three theories are prevalent: 1) it evolved from spoken Sanskrit 2) It sprang from the Vedic language 3) It predates Vedic and classical Sanskrit. It is indigenous language of Harappa and is organically linked to the group of Munda and Dravidian languages.

First two theories have been debunked by serious linguists and historians of the language in the aftermath of ample archeological evidence provided by excavations done on the Harappan sites. The vocabulary that the Punjabi language shares with the Vedic language and classical Sanskrit in no way proves that they gave birth to it because “the difficulty is that Sanskrit does not share a common syntax with these (so-called Indo-Aryan) languages,” writes Dr Shah.

He agrees with Asif Khan, Ainul Haq Faridkoti and others who with lot of painstaking research proved the non-Aryan origins of Punjabi.

Dr Safdar Shah has done a commendable job as his ‘Punjabi Grammar’ not only provides the readers with effective tools for learning Punjabi but also offers a valuable insight into an otherwise umbra filled cultural world of contemporary Punjab.

“Sattay Khairan”, a small book of stories for children, written and illustrated by Nuzhat Abbas, has been published by Punjab Lok Lehar, Sahiwal. Lok Lehar, headed by Qaswar Mubarak Butt, is a cultural body dedicated to promoting the Punjabi language, literature and culture.

Oxford-based Nuzhat Abbas is a well-known figure. She is a writer, vocalist and cultural activist. Her specialisation is child education in mother language. She is actively involved in helping expat parents acquire printed and audio-visual material so that they could teach their children Punjabi at home. It is now universally acknowledged (though not in Pakistan, especially in Punjab) that mother tongue plays a crucial role in developing a child’s communication skills and mental growth at an early age. It shapes his/her identity and creates sense of belonging. The book has an interesting format; the stories in Punjabi are printed in two scripts, Nastaliq (derived from Arabic) and Shahmukhi (derived from Landay) along with their English translation.

Gurmukhi part has been done by Sukhdev Sidhu and English translation is by Pratima Bhatia Mitchell. It caters to a range of diverse needs of Punjabi community. This small lovely book can be a source of delight for our children if we want them to know who we are and what is the wisdom bequeathed to us by our forefathers. Sattay Khairan should be on your child’s table.

@FOB - I got it. Your a Dalit.

Dravidia-Dalitstan zindabad!

dude I like Dalits, but stop your BS nonsense in post after post.

[a.s.takhar]

Urdu is nothing but a b@stardized Hindu language from the "Ganges region" that was introduced into Bundjab by your British masters because Bundjabi language is just a collection of uneducated and cheap Dalit dialects that nobody considered fit or adequate enough to be a language of administration and education, not even by your own 'leaders' in either pre-partition Bundjab or in modern Pakiland, so the only choice the British had to try to govern and civilize the Dravidians of northwest Hindustan in a native Indian language very close to their own was to introduce Urdu there.

And yes you are right that Bundjabis and Sindhis are the genetic descendants of the native Dravidian inhabitants of the "Indus". Just take one good look at pakis, their culture, languages, dirty cities etc etc and it is obvious that they are the same Dravidian race as the rest of the Hindus.

f*OFF you retarded Dravidian/Dalit idiot.

[salman47]

Okay then, let's see how smart you are.

What country is this person ethnically from:



A) India
B) Pakistan
C) Afghanistan

Will delete image later - let's see if Nertj or Hindu times or whoever I'm talking to can back his claims up

EDIT: pic uploaded form source. FYI - you can right click and view image. It works sometimes.

My initial guess would be 'Irani'.

[a.s.takhar]

Urdu is nothing but a b@stardized Hindu language from the "Ganges region" that was introduced into Bundjab by your British masters because Bundjabi language is just a collection of uneducated and cheap Dalit dialects that nobody considered fit or adequate enough to be a language of administration and education, not even by your own 'leaders' in either pre-partition Bundjab or in modern Pakiland, so the only choice the British had to try to govern and civilize the Dravidians of northwest Hindustan in a native Indian language very close to their own was to introduce Urdu there.

And yes you are right that Bundjabis and Sindhis are the genetic descendants of the native Dravidian inhabitants of the "Indus". Just take one good look at pakis, their culture, languages, dirty cities etc etc and it is obvious that they are the same Dravidian race as the rest of the Hindus.

You seem to have just one aim which is that you want to convince us we are Dravidian/Dalits. You are continuously pissing yourself because we refuse to say what you want, i.e for us to say we are Dravidian/Dalits and you are our Indian masterlord. Our language, according to you, is most similar of all Indo-Aryan languages to Dravidic and there is, according to you, no other language deep inside India that is more Dravidic than Punjabi.

You are a slimy serpent going on in your posts week after week, swearing and cursing, calling us Bundjabi, weaklings, self haters and numerous other nonsense, bad mouthing Jatts, Gujjars and everyone else.

Apparently you are so tough and strong, courageous, non self-hater, highly civilised, from an ultra clean homeland with shiny clean cities, and so on so forth....then why dont you have the guts to say who you really are and give us proof of that. Show us you are not Dalit or Dravidian low caste untouchable, but something really really special, and very non-Indian.

[a.s.takhar]

Lol stupid, do you even know what this excerpt is about? This is a study that was done measuring the tooth shapes and sizes from a sample of 176 people from the same paki community in Manshera and comparing them to the teeth of 21 prehistoric samples and people living in different places.

What do the tooth shapes of these 176 Awans from Manshera have to do with the identification of the Dravidian substratum of Bundjabi language by linguists?

Why are you so anxious to prove this Dravidian substratum nonsense? What connection has Dravidian got with you? What is your native language that has no Dravidian substratum?