If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Wrayun,
Would the following pictures be fair examples of how normal Indians look like?
Do all Pakistanis look like that? You can't cherry pick images and present your case. I can do the same thing.
It is documented that 1 out of 200 people on this planet are descendants of Genghis Khan, that is just one man alone. Do they all look like him, wear his clothing, speak his language, or hold his religious beliefs?
Skin tone and clothing is not definitive of lineage. I realize that can put my own argument at odds, though my intention wasn't to compare who looks more Indic and not. Rather that many of these people can be legitimate. Just because they no longer speak certain way, dress certain way, look certain way doesn't make their claim invalid.
You can be a Punjabi, Pashtun, Sindhi, Balochi, Afghan, Tajik, Persian and Indian, yet have forefathers that were Turk, Arab, Jew, Greek etc.
Do all Pakistanis look like that? You can't cherry pick images and present your case. I can do the same thing.
It is documented that 1 out of 200 people on this planet are descendants of Genghis Khan, that is just one man alone. Do they all look like him, wear his clothing, speak his language, or hold his religious beliefs?
Skin tone and clothing is not definitive of lineage. I realize that can put my own argument at odds, though my intention wasn't to compare who looks more Indic and not. Rather that many of these people can be legitimate. Just because they no longer speak certain way, dress certain way, look certain way doesn't make their claim invalid.
You can be a Punjabi, Pashtun, Sindhi, Balochi, Afghan, Tajik, Persian and Indian, yet have forefathers that were Turk, Arab, Jew, Greek etc.
You are arguing for the sake of winning an argument and I am afraid are kicking in the air to force in your point. No one says, there aren't descendents of Turks, etc. but how many of the present Indian Muslim population (around 500-600 milllions) are the real descendents of the invaders/foreigners is a matter of common-sense.
When did you go to Sindh or Punjab interior to conclude that they are different from the people on the other side of the border?
and whomever thinks u can differential between an Indian and a pakistani panjabi and sindhi.. u are fooling urself ...
how can a separation of 60 years effect people's genes and skin color LOOOOL
60 years? The borders were created 60 years ago, though the racial, ethnic, and linguist invasion of this region has been happening for centuries.
and as far as the topic is concerned: Khyaal wrora.. don't talk about disintegration of Pakistan in this forum... most of the KP pashtoons are die hard Pakistanis... u will cause them emotional trauma! lol
Khoray, the problem isn't KP Pukhtoons love for Pakistan, but what is observable and reality. The disintegration of Pakistan is a subject that has been used for the past 60 years. There are genuine factors for such claims like Bangal, Kashmir, Baloch and even the Pukhtoonistan movement, however people have become used to it and it is some what redundant and cliche.
Pukhtoons of KP, including those Pukhtoons who came from Afghanistan and settled in Pakistan (millions of them), have to ponder on what does it mean for them i.e the disintegration of Pakistan and the following fallout? Is it also in the interest of Afghanistan, especially in this day and age?
It's kinda like cutting the branch you are sitting on story....
BTW, would you agree to divide Afghanistan for a Pukhtoonistan? I'm not looking for the historical sentimental values associated with who or what is an Afghan and who created Afghanistan etc. etc. I want your answer in such a scenario. Would you join the Pukhtoons of KP in creating a homeland for us, which will finally designate us with our true ethnic, linguist and sole identity = PUKHTOON-I-STAN?
You are arguing for the sake of winning an argument and I am afraid are kicking in the air to force in your point. No one says, there aren't descendents of Turks, etc. but how many of the present Indian Muslim population (around 500-600 milllions) are the real descendents of the invaders/foreigners is a matter of common-sense.
Common-sense says that a lot changes in a 1000 years. Common-sense also says that majority of the Muslims of the sub-continent don't make foreign linage claims.
When did you go to Sindh or Punjab interior to conclude that they are different from the people on the other side of the border?
Why does that matter? The border between Pakistan and India is only 60 years old, the racial, ethnic, linguist and cultural invasion of that region has been going on for centuries.
Sindh = Wasn't it occupied by Arabs who didn't go back? Surely you don't think that their numbers didn't multiple after centuries of Islamic rule over the region?
Punjab = How are they different from Pukhtoons, many share genetics with Pukhtoon. If they are indic and similar to the rest of the Indians, so are Pukhtoons. If that doesn't warrant a nation for them based on their own unique heritage, neither does it for Pukhtoons. This argument goes both ways, tomorrow India can lay claim on lands and people that are "exclusive" to Afghan and Pukhtoons. You'll reverse your argument then to suit your needs. We are not Indics, we never were, we are Jews. We are bani-Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin. Or we are Iranic, lets join Pan-Persia? Al-Khorasniya?
Hahahaha, I know roadrunner has the same desperation as his other Punjabi brethtern i.e., to somehow prove the distinctiveness of Indus Valley from Gangetic plain as for culture and history are concerned. Roadrunner, at the time of Mahmoud Ghaznavi, there were Hindus living in Pukhtunkhwa...May be some eastern Pashtuns were also Hindus.
Well you've obviously no idea of what you're talking about my Gangetic friend.
Hindus were never resident in any Pashtun lands, the nwfp included.
Hinduism did arise in the Ganges.
Due to some migration, some Hindus migrated to the area of modern day Pakistan (probably partly as a result of the formation of East and West Pakistan).
Most of the indic people claim to be descendents of arabs, turks, afghans, iranis while strongely deny their indic/hindu roots. In india more than 15 million muslims claim to be of Pathan descent while number of syeds is also in millions, others are sadiqis, faroqis, qureshis, iranis etc. while the history tell us that low caste shudars converted to islam and make up magority of muslims
That might be what indic people dream of being because of Bollywood, but their origins are not so.
The Indians of Pathan descent means what exactly? They are not really a representation of anyone from the Pashtun lands, a lot of them don't even speak Pashto.
Have you studied the book "Indus Saga" by Itizaz Hassan? That is also an attempt to prove that the history of Indus Valley is distinct from that of the Indo-Gangetic plain.
It is very distinct.
Do you even know what the Indus Valley encompasses geographically?
how can a separation of 60 years effect people's genes and skin color LOOOOL
Probably because Pakistan and India were always separate until the last one or two centuries
There's some incredibly dense people on here when it comes to history.
There are more Hindu temples and stone figures all over the Gandahara and Peshawar valley into towards Afghanistan. Most were destroyed because of the conservative nature of the locals, and looted or stolen. There are Hindu and Budd idols even today in the Swat valley.
Punjab = How are they different from Pukhtoons, many share genetics with Pukhtoon. If they are indic and similar to the rest of the Indians, so are Pukhtoons.
You obviously don't know how genetics works in this case (i'm basing this on your replies in the what constitutes a Pashtun thread).
There are more Hindu temples and stone figures all over the Gandahara and Peshawar valley into towards Afghanistan. Most were destroyed because of the conservative nature of the locals, and looted or stolen. There are Hindu and Budd idols even today in the Swat valley.
Your assessment is gravely incorrect.
To the individual who said he wasn't talking to me.
It is you that is gravely incorrect.
Like a parrot, you read something and automatically see the word Hindu. Then you believe it must be true.
It isn't. And it wasn't Hinduism.
If you knew Afghan history, you would know what it was.
Comment