What's new

Afghanistan is Pakistan’s principal enemy

Afghans would be much more convincing enemies if they would flood Pakistani boards with raging keyboard warriors cursing every Pakistani under the sun. Indians have outdone them here with insults like Porkistan on social media, whereas Afghans weak attempts such as daal khor probably applies more to their new found friends India, so their efforts have been somewhat clumsy so far.

I would attribute this to Pakistan being a fairly new state, Afghan insults probably go back centuries and so were probably more topical pre-1947.
 
Afghans would be much more convincing enemies if they would flood Pakistani boards with raging keyboard warriors cursing every Pakistani under the sun. Indians have outdone them here with insults like Porkistan on social media, whereas Afghans weak attempts such as daal khor probably applies more to their new found friends India, so their efforts have been somewhat clumsy so far.

I would attribute this to Pakistan being a fairly new state, Afghan insults probably go back centuries and so were probably more topical pre-1947.

Or 'Punjabi', which is the most common and bizarre insult they give out. Then cry racism themselves.
 
Or 'Punjabi', which is the most common and bizarre insult they give out. Then cry racism themselves.

Not a great student of Afghan history, but I have always attributed Afghan/Punjabi hostility to the Sikh wars with Afghans, which of course predate Pakistan. This supposed enmity with Pakistan is not that convincing for that reason, it just doesn't have enough historical roots. The best insults they can come up with are veggie diet related which are more hurtful to our dear neighbours than to ourselves.
 
Ofcourse the majority of Pakistanis are. In many foreign countries Pakistanis are just labelled as Indians (by Angrez) because they cant distinguish between us. Majority of Pakistanis i.e. Punjabis, Sindhis and Muhajirs all have many commonalities with those living across the borders.

Why is the ignorance of angraiz being labelled at a fact? By your logic, Japanese and Chinese are the same. We share similarities but we're not the same. Get that into your head.

Genetically we are different, ethnically we are different, and culturally we are different. Just because the British came and clumped us together into colony called "British India" for 90 years doesn't erase over 3000 years of Indus history.
 
Why is Central Asia a gold mine?

Its a sparsely populated and neglected part of the world, which has no importance than being the backwaters of ex soviet union. Yes there may be some Oil and gas in some of the countries bit it isn’t massive and also there are already other trade routes for these. Google China’s new silk route (of which Cpec is just one small tributary).

As for Afghanistan, the only thing they have to export are drugs, weapons and that 50000 rupees walla Carpet (that the finally sell for 500 rupees)...��

Some oil and gas? It has some of the largest untapped reserves in the world. Furthermore, as their economies open up, they're going to need warm water ports to trade with. Guess what Gwadar is for countries like Tajikistan and Uzbekistan?

Are you even Pakistani? Like how do you not know this? Pakistan should try every effort to have a pro-Pakistan regime in Kabul. The second you have that, you have all of Central Asia at your disposal.
 
Khuda ke bande dimag na kao mera. This is pretty simple:
Punjabis are Punjabis
Pashtuns are Pashtuns

Both are split between two countries. Punjabis are split between Pakistan (majority) and India (minority), while Pashtuns are split between Pakistan (majority) and Afghanistan (minority). That's all I'm saying.


Teek hai yaara.


What does "forcing both together" even mean? They follow the same ideology "Pashtunwali"...they are practically one ethnic group.



They are different in terms of nationality yes.



Pakistanis in general don't have any love for Afghanistan as a country, but to claim that there is no similarity or bond between the Pashtun groups in both countries is preposterous. Again, you seem to be conflating Afghanistan as a nation state with Pashtuns. You need to stop doing that.



Yeah and?



That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. Pashtunistan would split Afghanistan is half as well, since the Farsi/Dari speakers would be against it. So remind me again why would any Afghan Pashtun support that? This is what happens when you don't differentiate NATIONALITY and ETHNICITY.

Afghan nationalists don't want Pashtunistan, they want a joke called "Loy Afghanistan"
All of Afghanistan + Balochistan, KP and Punjab up to Jhelum river (never going to happen).
View attachment 93501

Pasthun nationalists want Pashtunistan.
All Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan combining into one landlocked state - the area in green (never going to happen)
View attachment 93502

And amused Pakistanis like to troll both of them with Loy Pakistan
View attachment 93503



Please calm down.

Strange that people can write so much yet make little sense or are saying the same thing as the person they dispute!! I know for goodness sake that they have the same culture but nationality is more important to me. I did say they do have the same culture so what are you crying about?? What I am saying is Pakistani Pashtuns have no interest in acquiring Afghani nationality, do you have a problem with that? So what if you are a Pashtun? I am Punjabi and have no love for India or their Punjab at all and never will do.

Where did I say the he two Pashtuns have no similarities? I said they do just like the two Punjabis have a similar language and culture as well. Rather your comments are so silly that they make no sense, in your disagreement you are just repeating what I said. That is what I said that Afghan Pathans wanted Pashtunistan but Pak ones told them where to go that killed the movement. Afghan Pashtuns didn't care that Pushtunistan would split their Afghanistan at all but were stopped by the Pak Pashtuns who showed no interest in it. I am as calm as ice, it would be nice if you made some sense though.
 
Where exactly are you getting your information from?

Sure they are not, but don't majority speak Urdu which is like hindi?
What country are you from? Like how do you not know that Urdu is not the majority spoken language in Pakistan? Not even by a long shot. It's the lingua franca only.

Largest spoken mother tongues in Pakistan
Punjabi (45%)
Pashto (15%)
Sindhi (12%)
Saraiki (10%)
Urdu (8%)
Balochi (3.6%)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Pakistan

don't majority eat the same type of food as Indians?
No we don't. Pakistanis eat halal and are heavily meat oriented. Furthermore, cuisine in Pakistan differs from region to region. Pakistani cuisine can be characterized by a blend of various regional cooking traditions of the subcontinent, Central Asia as well as elements from its Mughal legacy. The various cuisines are derived from Pakistan's ethnic and cultural diversity. Cuisine from the eastern provinces of Punjab and Sindh are characterized as "highly seasoned" and "spicy", which is characteristic of flavors of the subcontinent. Cuisine from the western and northern provinces of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are characterized as "mild" which is characteristic of flavors of the Central Asian region.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_cuisine

don't majority have like 3-5 day weddings like the Indians?

Says who? The only people who have 5 day weddings are Urdu speakers who immigrated from India to Pakistan in 1947 and kept that tradition alive from where they are from. Ever been to a Pashtun wedding? A Baloch wedding? A Kashmiri wedding? A Gilgiti wedding?

Hosting the marriage ceremony differs among different cultures. In Punjabi weddings, the ceremony traditionally hosted by the family of the bride, while in Baloch weddings the ceremony is traditionally hosted by the family of the groom. Nowadays, it has become common to hold the event at a marriage hall, restaurant or hotel.

Most marriages in Pakistan only consist of Nikah and Walima and the honeymoon (Shab-i-Zifaf). Then you have regional variations like Mobaraki, Attan, Dholki etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Pakistan

don't majority play and watch the same sport as the Indians?

Oh I see...so Australians must also be Indians by your logic.

Now please tell me what the majority do that is common with the Afghans besides religion.

I don't know where you're from, but the comments you wrote above prove what arrogance you have. Pakistan is a very diverse country with different cultures and peoples. 7 million or so Urdu speakers who came from India and settled in Pakistan should not define what 193 million other Pakistanis do.

The commonalities between Afghans and Pakistan is quite similar, especially between Khyber Pakthunkhwa and eastern Afghanistan.

When you have the decency to educate yourself, drop be a quote.
 
Strange that people can write so much yet make little sense or are saying the same thing as the person they dispute!! I know for goodness sake that they have the same culture but nationality is more important to me. I did say they do have the same culture so what are you crying about?? What I am saying is Pakistani Pashtuns have no interest in acquiring Afghani nationality, do you have a problem with that? So what if you are a Pashtun? I am Punjabi and have no love for India or their Punjab at all and never will do.

Where did I say the he two Pashtuns have no similarities? I said they do just like the two Punjabis have a similar language and culture as well. Rather your comments are so silly that they make no sense, in your disagreement you are just repeating what I said. That is what I said that Afghan Pathans wanted Pashtunistan but Pak ones told them where to go that killed the movement. Afghan Pashtuns didn't care that Pushtunistan would split their Afghanistan at all but were stopped by the Pak Pashtuns who showed no interest in it. I am as calm as ice, it would be nice if you made some sense though.

I still don't get what you're trying to argue. Like what exactly is your problem with what I've said above?

Do you want us to pretend that Afghan Pashtuns are foreigners? Sorry, that's not happening...they are related to us and that's something one cannot ignore. I don't even like Afghan Pashtuns (we call them Kabuly all the time), but I can't ignore the fact they have the same blood and genes as me.

You're so filled with insecurity that you think a minority Pashtun population in Afghanistan is going to change our opinions about wanting to remain part of Pakistan? Is that it? Then get a life kid...we made Pakistan, it's our country....if we had our way, Pashtuns would be ruling Pakistan, since you Punjabis have all but destroyed it.

Also, why do you have no love for East Punjab? You do know that India is making it into a desert right and diverting all its rivers towards the "Hindi belt". This also affects Pakistan somewhat, but the Indus Water Treaty essentially protects Pakistan. Sadly, it ruins East Punjab.

If I were Punjabi like you, I would be doing everything to get closer to East Punjabis so they realize they have nothing in common with Indians. Luckily Imran Khan is in power (what do you know a Pashtun) and he realized this. That's why he opened Kartarpur corridor. He wants Indian Punjabis to realize the mistake they made in 1947.

Furthermore, an independent East Punjab would work in everyone's favour.

See > Final Assault

See > Khalistan
 
Despite being a Pashtun with non favorable views of Afghan refugees, you lot make me ashamed to be Pakistani.

This type of attitude is no different than Afghans who hate us. Quit being so narrow minded.
 
I still don't get what you're trying to argue. Like what exactly is your problem with what I've said above?

Do you want us to pretend that Afghan Pashtuns are foreigners? Sorry, that's not happening...they are related to us and that's something one cannot ignore. I don't even like Afghan Pashtuns (we call them Kabuly all the time), but I can't ignore the fact they have the same blood and genes as me.

You're so filled with insecurity that you think a minority Pashtun population in Afghanistan is going to change our opinions about wanting to remain part of Pakistan? Is that it? Then get a life kid...we made Pakistan, it's our country....if we had our way, Pashtuns would be ruling Pakistan, since you Punjabis have all but destroyed it.

Also, why do you have no love for East Punjab? You do know that India is making it into a desert right and diverting all its rivers towards the "Hindi belt". This also affects Pakistan somewhat, but the Indus Water Treaty essentially protects Pakistan. Sadly, it ruins East Punjab.

If I were Punjabi like you, I would be doing everything to get closer to East Punjabis so they realize they have nothing in common with Indians. Luckily Imran Khan is in power (what do you know a Pashtun) and he realized this. That's why he opened Kartarpur corridor. He wants Indian Punjabis to realize the mistake they made in 1947.

Furthermore, an independent East Punjab would work in everyone's favour.

See > Final Assault

See > Khalistan

I genuinely think most threads and opinions such as these are from insecure Pakistanis who arent even pashtuns.

Just calm down. I'm pretty sure every Pashtun has a soft spot for Afghans as we share a hell of a lot with them culturally. In fact, there are Pashtun tribes in Pakistan migrated from Afghanistan centuries ago.
 
And if any afghani is reading this, rest assured not all Pakistanis are like this. Please ignore these
 
Where exactly are you getting your information from?


What country are you from? Like how do you not know that Urdu is not the majority spoken language in Pakistan? Not even by a long shot. It's the lingua franca only.

Largest spoken mother tongues in Pakistan
Punjabi (45%)
Pashto (15%)
Sindhi (12%)
Saraiki (10%)
Urdu (8%)
Balochi (3.6%)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Pakistan


No we don't. Pakistanis eat halal and are heavily meat oriented. Furthermore, cuisine in Pakistan differs from region to region. Pakistani cuisine can be characterized by a blend of various regional cooking traditions of the subcontinent, Central Asia as well as elements from its Mughal legacy. The various cuisines are derived from Pakistan's ethnic and cultural diversity. Cuisine from the eastern provinces of Punjab and Sindh are characterized as "highly seasoned" and "spicy", which is characteristic of flavors of the subcontinent. Cuisine from the western and northern provinces of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are characterized as "mild" which is characteristic of flavors of the Central Asian region.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_cuisine



Says who? The only people who have 5 day weddings are Urdu speakers who immigrated from India to Pakistan in 1947 and kept that tradition alive from where they are from. Ever been to a Pashtun wedding? A Baloch wedding? A Kashmiri wedding? A Gilgiti wedding?

Hosting the marriage ceremony differs among different cultures. In Punjabi weddings, the ceremony traditionally hosted by the family of the bride, while in Baloch weddings the ceremony is traditionally hosted by the family of the groom. Nowadays, it has become common to hold the event at a marriage hall, restaurant or hotel.

Most marriages in Pakistan only consist of Nikah and Walima and the honeymoon (Shab-i-Zifaf). Then you have regional variations like Mobaraki, Attan, Dholki etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Pakistan



Oh I see...so Australians must also be Indians by your logic.



I don't know where you're from, but the comments you wrote above prove what arrogance you have. Pakistan is a very diverse country with different cultures and peoples. 7 million or so Urdu speakers who came from India and settled in Pakistan should not define what 193 million other Pakistanis do.

The commonalities between Afghans and Pakistan is quite similar, especially between Khyber Pakthunkhwa and eastern Afghanistan.

When you have the decency to educate yourself, drop be a quote.

No, I have better things to do with my time. The official language of Pakistan is Urdu, taught at all schools within Pakistan. I don't even get where you are going. This all started with Pakistan being closer to Indians, as a whole than Afghanis. Pakistan is diverse, India is probably 100x more diverse, what is your point? No city or neighbor is the same in the sub continent, we were ruled by the british and not the soviets but still we all fell within the 'indian subcontinent' category.
 
Lol, that's like declaring some random child on your street as your enemy.
 
Why is the ignorance of angraiz being labelled at a fact? By your logic, Japanese and Chinese are the same. We share similarities but we're not the same. Get that into your head.

Genetically we are different, ethnically we are different, and culturally we are different. Just because the British came and clumped us together into colony called "British India" for 90 years doesn't erase over 3000 years of Indus history.

You seem to live in your fantasy world.
Any factual links to backup your claims?

To repeat:
A) Vast majority of Pakistanis are non Pakhtuns (Check Wikipedia for exact stats)
B) Ethnically and genetically these Pakistani folks (other than Pakhtuns and Baloch) are the same as their kinsmen across the border in india. There are many scientific researches done on Muslims in Indian subcontinent and found them to be largely the same as non-muslims living in this part of the world.
C) Culturally and Linguistically, again do i need to provide the proofs?

You as a pathan may have more in common with Afghans but vast majority of Pakistanis dont.

Lastly i dont need to provide my Pakistani origins to your highness. Just focus on the topic discussed here.
 
You seem to live in your fantasy world.
Any factual links to backup your claims?

To repeat:
A) Vast majority of Pakistanis are non Pakhtuns (Check Wikipedia for exact stats)
B) Ethnically and genetically these Pakistani folks (other than Pakhtuns and Baloch) are the same as their kinsmen across the border in india. There are many scientific researches done on Muslims in Indian subcontinent and found them to be largely the same as non-muslims living in this part of the world.
C) Culturally and Linguistically, again do i need to provide the proofs?

You as a pathan may have more in common with Afghans but vast majority of Pakistanis dont.

Lastly i dont need to provide my Pakistani origins to your highness. Just focus on the topic discussed here.


Pashtuns and baloch are a sizable minority. Also, let me tell you something. Whole province of balochistan and Kpk along with south Punjab has more common with eastern Afghanistan than India.

You've probably never been to siraiki belt or kpk or balochistan.
 
Or 'Punjabi', which is the most common and bizarre insult they give out. Then cry racism themselves.


It may seem bizarre to you but going to school in Pakistan I cant tell you the amount of times I'd get in a fight with someone to hear the other kid (usually punjabi) say something like "oi pathan!"

It's often used to bully pashtun people. Just like you I always found it odd. They are trying to insult me with something I'm proud of.

This sort of racism is all over Punjab. Even small things people will say "pathan se glasses liye" or "pathan bori me le jaye ga" to kids.
 
It may seem bizarre to you but going to school in Pakistan I cant tell you the amount of times I'd get in a fight with someone to hear the other kid (usually punjabi) say something like "oi pathan!"

It's often used to bully pashtun people. Just like you I always found it odd. They are trying to insult me with something I'm proud of.

This sort of racism is all over Punjab. Even small things people will say "pathan se glasses liye" or "pathan bori me le jaye ga" to kids.

Yes that racism is there. Its disgusting and not excusable.

I'm from kpk and I have heard first hand that pashtuns also hold stereotypical views about punjabis.

Pakistanis in general are a xenophobic bunch. We need to learn to be more accepting.
 
You seem to live in your fantasy world.
Any factual links to backup your claims?

To repeat:
A) Vast majority of Pakistanis are non Pakhtuns (Check Wikipedia for exact stats)
B) Ethnically and genetically these Pakistani folks (other than Pakhtuns and Baloch) are the same as their kinsmen across the border in india. There are many scientific researches done on Muslims in Indian subcontinent and found them to be largely the same as non-muslims living in this part of the world.
C) Culturally and Linguistically, again do i need to provide the proofs?

You as a pathan may have more in common with Afghans but vast majority of Pakistanis dont.

Lastly i dont need to provide my Pakistani origins to your highness. Just focus on the topic discussed here.

Bhai pakistanis don't want anything to do with both Afghanistan or india.

Please stop trying to link us to india over afghanistan. Both don't like us, so who you feel more connected to is irrelevant.
 
No, I have better things to do with my time. The official language of Pakistan is Urdu, taught at all schools within Pakistan. I don't even get where you are going. This all started with Pakistan being closer to Indians, as a whole than Afghanis. Pakistan is diverse, India is probably 100x more diverse, what is your point? No city or neighbor is the same in the sub continent, we were ruled by the british and not the soviets but still we all fell within the 'indian subcontinent' category.

Ueah you have nothing to say. Just talpunh2as usual. Like I said when you have half the IQ I have, drop me a quote. I have no time to waste with people who refute facts for myths.

You might be an indian immigrant, I'm not and a majority of us are not.

Thanks.
 
You seem to live in your fantasy world.
Any factual links to backup your claims?

To repeat:
A) Vast majority of Pakistanis are non Pakhtuns (Check Wikipedia for exact stats)
B) Ethnically and genetically these Pakistani folks (other than Pakhtuns and Baloch) are the same as their kinsmen across the border in india. There are many scientific researches done on Muslims in Indian subcontinent and found them to be largely the same as non-muslims living in this part of the world.
C) Culturally and Linguistically, again do i need to provide the proofs?

You as a pathan may have more in common with Afghans but vast majority of Pakistanis dont.

Lastly i dont need to provide my Pakistani origins to your highness. Just focus on the topic discussed here.

Yeah probably because you're an indian immigrant. You don't decide what Pakistanis are. We ain't indian. Period. Don't like it? Go back to Bihar or wherever you dasyus come from.

The land of the Indus has its own unique culture, people and history. Deal with it.
 
"pAkIsTaNiS aRe tHe sAmE aS iNdIaNs"

Seriously if you don't have any background in the history of the Indus Valley, then don't talk like you know what you're talking about. You're only going to end up embarrassing yourselves further.


Genetic variations between Europe, Middle East, Central Asia and Indus Valley.
29542427_1853395151387127_2790476905462104064_n.jpg

Photo: Consensus Neighbor-Joining Tree of Populations. The thickest edges have at least 95% bootstrap support, and the edges of intermediate thickness have at least 75% support. If all of the groups subtended by an edge have majority membership in the same cluster in Figure 2A (or only plurality membership in the cases of Hazara , Makrani, and Uygur), the edge is drawn in the same color as was used for the cluster.
29542148_1853395511387091_3795510703108915200_n.jpg

Photo: Population Structure Inferred from Microsatellite and Insertion/Deletion Polymorphisms. Representative estimate of population structure for Pakistan. The plot represents the highest-likelihood run among ten STRUCTURE runs with K = 7 clusters.
29472774_1853395468053762_6545369905284251648_n.jpg

Photo: Results of ADMIXTURE analysis (K8) of world populations with a zoom-in on Iranian, Parsis, Pakistanis and other South Asian populations.
29497979_1853395591387083_6063915959872126976_n.jpg

Sources:
- http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020215
- https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-017-1244-9


The “Genetic Journey of Pakistan” illustrates how the genetic makeup of Pakistan’s various ethnic groups was forged by successive waves of immigration from Central Asia and South Asia since the end of the last Ice Age. Throughout its long ancient history, the Indus Valley has been known welcome different peoples, faiths and cultures. The Indus was a region that our early human ancestors encountered soon after they left Africa between 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. Evidence of these early humans can be found throughout Pakistan today at Soan, Riwat, Makli Hill, Bajaur and Sanghao. Approximately 9000 years ago they began establishing cities such as Mehrgarh, which eventually expanded to represent the Harappan culture (Indus Valley Civilization) in 3000 BCE, rivaling the early city-states of Mesopotamia. Shortly after the fall of the Harappan civilization in 1500 BCE, a massive migration is said to have taken place from Eurasia to the Indus Valley, known today as the Aryan migration theory. This eventually led to the formation of the Vedic civilization by 1200 BCE. After 500 BCE, the Indus Valley would come under the influence of the Achaemenid Persians, Alexander’s Macedonian Empire, Greeks, Buddhists (Mauryans), Central Asians (Sycthians, White Huns), Mongols, Iranians, Arabs and Turks.

It was through these various influences by which our nation would be forged into its multi ethnic society today. Pakistanis are divided genetically into 11 distinct groups: Baloch, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Kashmiri, Makrani, Parsi, Pashton, Punjabi and Sindhi. Other groups are also being investigated at present such as the Kho (Chitrali) and Baltis. The studies show that these ethnic groups share about 40% to 60% of their DNA with South Asians, about 40% to 60% with Eurasians and about 20% to 40% with East Asians, West Asians or Sub-Saharan Africans. These percentages vary between various ethnic groups and subgroups.

~ Kalash people ~
The Kalash people represent an enigmatic isolated population of Indo-European speakers who have been living for centuries in the Hindu Kush mountain range. Genetic analysis of Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) by Firasat et al. (2007) on Kalash individuals found high and diverse frequencies of these Y-DNA Haplogroups: L3a (22.7%), H1* (20.5%), R1a (18.2%), G (18.2%), J2 (9.1%), R* (6.8%), R1* (2.3%), and L* (2.3%). Genetic analysis of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) by Quintana-Murci et al. (2004) stated that "the western Eurasian presence in the Kalash population reaches a frequency of 100%" with the most prevalent mtDNA Haplogroups being U4 (34%), R0 (23%), U2e (16%), and J2 (9%). The study asserted that no East or South Asian lineages were detected and that the Kalash population is composed of western Eurasian lineages (as the associated lineages are rare or absent in the surrounding populations). The authors concluded that a western Eurasian origin for the Kalash is likely, in view of their maternal lineages. A study of ASPM gene variants by Mekel-Bobrov et al. (2005) found that the Kalash people of Pakistan have among the highest rate of the newly evolved ASPM Haplogroup D, at 60% occurrence of the approximately 6000-year-old allele. The Kalash also have been shown to exhibit the exceedingly rare 19 allele value at autosomal marker D9S1120 at a frequency higher than the majority of other world populations which do have it. A study by Rosenberg et al. (2006) employing genetic testing among the Kalash population concluded that they are a distinct (and perhaps aboriginal) population with only minor contributions from outside peoples. In one cluster analysis with (K = 7), the Kalash formed one cluster, the others being Africans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, East Asians, Melanesians, and Native Americans. A study by Li et al. (2008) with geneticists using more than 650,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) samples from the Human Genome Diversity Panel, found deep rooted lineages that could be distinguished in the Kalash. The results showed them clustered within the Central/South Asian populations at (K = 7). The study also showed the Kalash to be a separated group, having no membership within European populations. The estimates by Qamar et al. of Greek admixture has been dismissed by Toomas Kivisild et al. (2003) stating that "some admixture models and programs that exist are not always adequate and realistic estimators of gene flow between populations ... this is particularly the case when markers are used that do not have enough restrictive power to determine the source populations ... or when there are more than two parental populations. In that case, a simplistic model using two parental populations would show a bias towards overestimating admixture".[41] The study came to the conclusion that the Kalash population estimate by Qamar et al. "is unrealistic and is likely also driven by the low marker resolution that pooled southern and western Asian–specific Y-chromosome Haplogroup H together with European-specific Haplogroup I, into an uninformative polyphyletic cluster 2". A study by Firasat et al. (2006) concluded that the Kalash lack typical Greek Haplogroups such as Haplogroup 21 (E-M35). Previous Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers provided no support for their claimed Greek descent following Alexander’s invasion of this region in 330 BCE, and analysis of autosomal loci provided evidence of a strong genetic bottleneck. The studies show that the Kalash share genetic drift with the Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers and might represent an extremely drifted ancient northern Eurasian population that also contributed to European and Near Eastern ancestry. Since the split from other South Asian populations, the Kalash have maintained a low long-term effective population size (2319–2603) and experienced no detectable gene flow from their geographic neighbours in Pakistan or from other extant Eurasian populations. The mean time of divergence between the Kalash and other populations currently residing in this region was estimated to be 11,800 (95% confidence interval = 10,600−12,600) years ago, and thus they represent present-day descendants of some of the earliest migrants into the Indus Valley from Western Asia.

~ Hazara people ~
The Hazara people sample set showed a total of 189 distinct haplotypes, belonging mainly to West Eurasian (51.72%), East & Southeast Asian (29.78%) and South Asian (18.50%) haplogroups. Compared with other populations from Pakistan, the Hazara population had a relatively high haplotype diversity (0.9945) and a lower random match probability (0.0085). The dataset has been incorporated into EMPOP database under accession number EMP00680. The data herein comprises the largest, and likely most thoroughly examined, control region mtDNA dataset from Hazaras of Pakistan. Genetically, the Hazara are a mixture of western Eurasian and eastern Eurasian components. While it has been found that "at least third to half of their chromosomes are of East Asian origin, PCA places them between East Asia and Caucasus/Middle East/Europe clusters". Genetic research suggests that the Hazaras cluster closely with the Uzbek population, while both groups are at a notable distance from Tajik and Pashtun populations. There is evidence of both a patrimonial and maternal relation to Turkic Peoples and Mongols. Mongol male and female ancestry is supported by studies in genetic genealogy as well, which have identified a particular lineage of the Y﷓chromosome characteristic of people of Mongolian descent ("the Y-chromosome of Genghis Khan"). This chromosome is virtually absent outside the limits of the Mongol Empire except among the Hazara, where it reaches its highest frequency anywhere. These results indicate that the Hazara are also characterized by very high frequencies of eastern Eurasian mtDNAs at 35%, which are virtually absent from bordering populations, suggesting that the male descendants of Genghis Khan, or other Mongols, were accompanied by women of East Asian ancestry. Women of Non-eastern Eurasian mtDNA in Hazaras are at 65% most which are West Eurasians and some South Asian The most frequent paternal Haplogroup type found amongst the Hazara was haplogroup C-M217 at 40% (10/25) with Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) at 8% (2/25) both which are Eastern Eurasian males ancestry associated with the Mongoloid ethnicity.

~ Brahui people ~
Brahuis display a variety of Y-DNA haplogroups, the most important being haplogroup R1a1a-M17 (35% to 39.09%) – with its mass diffusion among populations of Central and South Asia and associated with the early eastern migrations of Indo-Iranian nomads. Haplogroup J, which is found among other South Asian people, occurs at 28%. Other, relatively minor, low frequency haplogroups among the Brahui are those of G, L, E1b1a, and N. These haplogroups show that the Brahui population genetics are indistinguishable from those of neighboring Indo-Iranian speakers, in particular of that of the Baloch. Given the high affinity of Brahui to the other Indo-European Pakistani populations and the absence of population admixture with any of the examined Indian Dravidian groups, we conclude that Brahui are an example of cultural (linguistic) retention following a major population replacement. Hence, while the Brahui are ethnically an Indo-Iranian group, they speak a language with a Dravidian origin.

~ Makrani people ~
The Makrani people show a high genetic diversity (0.9688) and, consequently, a high power of discrimination (0.9592). The results revealed a strongly admixed mtDNA pool composed of African haplogroups (28%), West Eurasian haplogroups (26%), South Asian haplogroups (24%), and East Asian haplogroups (2%), while the origin of the remaining individuals (20%) could not be confidently assigned. The analysis also found that the Makranis studied share ancestry with peoples living in modern Kenya, Tanzania (Zanzibar) and South Africa, and with members of the Baloch people. The Asian and African ancestral groups are estimated to have begun mixing genetically about 300 years ago. Owing to their African ancestry, a large proportion of Makranis carry DNA variants common in Africa that protect against malaria infection.

~ Burusho people ~
The Burusho, also known as the Hunza or Botraj, live in the Hunza and Nagar valleys of Gilgit–Baltistan. A variety of Y-DNA haplogroups are seen among certain random samples of people in Hunza. Most frequent among these are R1a1 and R2a, which probably originated in either South Asia, Central Asia or Iran and Caucasus. R2a, unlike its extremely rare parent R2, R1a1 and other clades of haplogroup R, is now virtually restricted to South Asia. Two other typically South Asian lineages, haplogroup H1 and haplogroup L3 (defined by SNP mutation M20) have also been observed from few samples. Other Y-DNA haplogroups reaching considerable frequencies among the Burusho are haplogroup J2, associated with the spread of agriculture in, and from, the neolithic Near East, and haplogroup C3, of Siberian origin and possibly representing the patrilineage of Genghis Khan. Also present at lower frequency are haplogroups O3, an East Eurasian lineage, and Q, P, F, and G. DNA research groups the male ancestry of some of the Hunza inhabitants with speakers of Pamir languages and other mountain communities of various ethnicites, due primarily to the M124 marker (defining Y-DNA haplogroup R2a), which is present at high frequency in these populations. However, they have also an East Asian genetic contribution, suggesting that at least some of their ancestry originates north of the Himalayas. While genetic evidence supports a 2% Greek genetic component among the Pashton ethnic group of Pakistan, it does not support any for the Burusho.

~ Kho people ~
The Kho are an Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group associated with the Dardistan region. They speak Khowar (Chitrali), which is a member of the Dardic subgroup of the Indo-Aryan language family. Most Kho people live in the Chitral District of Khyber Pakthunkhwa, while others live in Jammu & Kashmir as well as in Badakhshan. Y-DNA haplogroup R1a (M420) is found at a high frequency among the Kho people. Many are in haplogroup R1b (M343), also found in some Central Asian and South Asian people.

~ Pashton people ~
The Pashton are the composite mosaic of West Eurasian ancestry of numerous geographic origins. They received substantial gene flow during different invasive movements and have a high element of the Western provenance. The most common haplogroups reported in this study are: South Asian haplogroups M (28%) and R (8%); whereas, West Asians haplogroups are present, albeit in high frequencies (67%) and widespread over all; HV (15%), U (17%), H (9%), J (8%), K (8%), W (4%), N (3%) and T (3%). Moreover, we linked the unexplored genetic connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Pashtun. The presence of specific haplotypes J1b (4%) and K1a1b1a (5%) pointed to a genetic connection of Jewish conglomeration in the Khattak tribe. This was a result of an ancient genetic influx in the early Neolithic period that led to the formation of a diverse genetic substratum in present day Pashton. The haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) is found at a frequency of 51.02% among the Pashtun people. Paragroup Q-M242 (xMEH2, xM378) (of Haplogroup Q-M242 (Y-DNA)) was found at 16.3% in Pashtuns.

~ Sindhi people ~
The study of Sindhis was undertaken to investigate the control region of mitochondrial DNA for forensic discrimination and to explore the ethno-linguistic affiliations among ethnic groups of Sindh. A total of 115 individuals, from six major ethnic/isonym groups, namely, Bijarani, Chandio, Ghallu, Khoso, Nasrani and Solangi, were studied. The most common South Asian haplogroup in six ethnic groups of Sindh, were; M (42%) and R (6.9%), whereas West Eurasian haplogroups were N (6.9%), W (6.9%), J (1.7%), U (23.4%), H (9.5%) and T (0.86%). A random match probability between two unrelated individuals was found to be 0.06%, while genetic diversity varied from 0.991 to 0.998.

~ Punjabi people ~
The study of Punjabis was undertaken to investigate the control region of mitochondrial DNA for forensic discrimination and to explore the ethno-linguistic affiliations among ethnic groups of Punjab. However, only two groups were initially studied – the Arains and Gujars. Punjabi groups are primarily a composite of substantial South Asian, East Asian and West Eurasian lineages. A homogenous dispersal of Eurasian haplogroup uniformity in Punjab was found and exhibited a strong connotation with European populations. Moreover, for the first time the new sub-haplogroup M52b1 was characterized by 16223-T, 16275-G and 16438-A in the Gujar group. The vast array of mtDNA variants displayed in this study suggested that the haplogroup composition radiates signals of extensive genetic conglomeration, population admixture and demographic expansion that was equipped with diverse origin, whereas matrilineal gene pool was phylogeographically homogenous across the Punjab. This context was further fully acquainted with the facts supported by PCA scatterplot that Punjabi population clustered with South Asian populations. Finally, the high power of discrimination (0.8819) and low random match probability (0.0085%) proposed a worthy contribution of mtDNA control region dataset as a forensic database that considered a gold standard of today to get deeper insight into the genetic ancestry of contemporary matrilineal phylogeny.

~ Parsi people ~
Among present-day populations, the Parsis are genetically closest to Iranian and the Caucasus populations. They also share the highest number of haplotypes with present-day Iranians and it is estimated that the admixture of the Parsis with South Asian populations occurred 1200 years ago. Enriched homozygosity in the Parsi reflects their recent isolation and inbreeding. 48% South-Asian-specific mitochondrial lineages among the ancient samples was also observed, which might have resulted from the assimilation of local females during the initial settlement. Most surprisingly, Parsis are genetically closer to Neolithic Iranians than to modern Iranians, who have witnessed a more recent wave of admixture from the Near East. It has been suggested previously that the Islamic conquest had a major genomic impact on several Middle Eastern populations, including Iranians. Since Parsis diverged from Iranians just after this conquest, they may represent the genetic strata of Iran before the Islamic conquest.

~ Sources ~
-Kalash Genetic Isolate: Ancient Divergence, Drift, & Selection by Q. Ayub (2015)

-mtDNA sequence diversity of Hazara ethnic group from Pakistan by A. Rakha (2017)

-An Ethnolinguistic and Genetic Perspective on the Origins of the Dravidian-Speaking Brahui in Pakistan by L. Pagani (2017)

-Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a by P.A. Underhill (2010)

-Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan by R. Qamar; Q. Ayub; A. Mohyuddin (2002)

-Whole genome sequencing of an ethnic Pathan (Pakhtun) from the north-west of Pakistan by M. Ilyas (2015)

-Genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region variations in four tribes of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan by S. Bhatti (2016)

-Genetic characterization of the Makrani people of Pakistan from mitochondrial DNA control-region data by M.H. Siddiqui (2015)

-Mitochondrial DNA variation in the Sindh population of Pakistan by S. Bhatti (2015)

-Genetic perspective of uniparental mitochondrial DNA landscape on the Punjabi population, Pakistan by S. Bhatti (2017)

-“Like sugar in milk”: reconstructing the genetic history of the Parsi population by Gyaneshwer Chaubey
 
Yeah probably because you're an indian immigrant. You don't decide what Pakistanis are. We ain't indian. Period. Don't like it? Go back to Bihar or wherever you dasyus come from.

The land of the Indus has its own unique culture, people and history. Deal with it.

Lol, its like trying to explain something to a teenager. Try to see things beyond the face value and you’ll see the logic thats more interesting to debate rather than wasting time in copying and pasting stuff from Wikipedia.

Mere bhai, what has Indus Valley Civilisation’s “unique culture” gotta do with current day Pakistan or India? It was many moons ago and since then many civilisations and people have come and gone. Its like saying we are all Africans because that’s where Humans started their journey.

Btw: Land of Indus is probably also where Hinduism & Hindus started their journey.

Anyway good luck with whatever you are trying to prove. Just keep your mind and ears open to a different perspective.
 
Lol, its like trying to explain something to a teenager. Try to see things beyond the face value and you’ll see the logic thats more interesting to debate rather than wasting time in copying and pasting stuff from Wikipedia.

I have a career in archeology. I get paid to do this.

Mere bhai, what has Indus Valley Civilisation’s “unique culture” gotta do with current day Pakistan or India?

Indus Valley Civilization to Pakistan, is what the Nile River is to Egypt and what Mesopotamia is to Iraq. Indus Valley Civilization has nothing to do with India at all. Pakistan is just a name invented in 1947, but this land has a history stretching back to over 6000 BCE and some of the earliest farmers in human history come from this land. Reading isn't illegal. Try it out sometime.

It was many moons ago and since then many civilisations and people have come and gone. Its like saying we are all Africans because that’s where Humans started their journey.

The present day Pakistani population are comprised of Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians. This formed when the population of the Indus Valley (Harappans) merged with the migrating Aryans, giving rise to a new culture...Vedic civilization.

Btw: Land of Indus is probably also where Hinduism & Hindus started their journey.

Umm no, the Indus Valley Civilization practiced the ancient Indus religion, which is postulated as being similar to the ancient Sumerian religion of Mesopotamia.

After the fall of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Vedic civilization took root here. Vedic religion is not Hinduism, infact its the polar opposite so much so that the Indus Vedics referred to the Ganges as "Dasyu". Vedic religion shares similarities with the ancient Avestan religion of Persia...many of their gods are were the same.

Anyway good luck with whatever you are trying to prove. Just keep your mind and ears open to a different perspective.

I don't care about colonial perspectives or perspectives of people who have no knowledge. Pakistanis are not the same as Indians. I've proven it above, and yobs like you insist on ignoring facts for colonial myths.

Not my problem you don't have the intelligence to read.
 
It may seem bizarre to you but going to school in Pakistan I cant tell you the amount of times I'd get in a fight with someone to hear the other kid (usually punjabi) say something like "oi pathan!"

It's often used to bully pashtun people. Just like you I always found it odd. They are trying to insult me with something I'm proud of.

This sort of racism is all over Punjab. Even small things people will say "pathan se glasses liye" or "pathan bori me le jaye ga" to kids.

Its a stupid insult was my point. I say the same thing when people make silly pathan jokes, its sly racism against Pathans nothing else.

My point was, from the Afghan side their hate is based on race. You had idiot Afghani supporters calling Shaheen Punjabi, I mean come on he's as Pashtun as they come :))
 
Ueah you have nothing to say. Just talpunh2as usual. Like I said when you have half the IQ I have, drop me a quote. I have no time to waste with people who refute facts for myths.

You might be an indian immigrant, I'm not and a majority of us are not.

Thanks.

Is there anything wrong with being an Indian migrant? My family migrated from India in 1947 and in process sacrificed much more than many, who were native to the land.

And your slogan of “go back to where you came from” is the one why we have ethnic based politics in Pakistan and why many we have MQM. Remember its a sign of ignorance and lack of intellect, when you have to resort to that racist Tag line. You can easily be at the receiving end, if you were ever to live in a foreign country. Grow up.
 
wHaT hAs InDus VaLleY CiViLiSaTiOn’S gOTtA dO wItH cUrReNt dAy PaKiStaN?

Between 2600 BCE and 1900 BCE, more than a thousand settlements of the Indus civilization, including at least five cities, covered at least 800,000 square kilometres in Pakistan. Only 10% of sites have been excavated, partly because many lie near the tense border with India.
44201121_2131673473559292_5837894555755610112_n.jpg

Distribution map of Indus seals in the Indus Valley and Persian Gulf region showing intricate links between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia.
29695411_1869346026458706_3912621146872217600_o.jpg

The Vedic civilization developed in the Indus Valley following the collapse of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization in around ~1500 BCE. During this collapsing period, the Aryan people had already been migrating en masse into the Indus Valley from Eurasia between 1700 BC to 1500 BCE. Along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which appears to have syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs. This fusion between Aryan and Harappans essentially gave rise to the Vedic civilization (Vedic tribes, Vedic religion and Vedic Sanskrit).

30623607_1875880889138553_6481163992499748864_n.jpg

~ Vedic religion ~
The Vedic religion is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. The hymns composed for the Vedas by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today. For example, the Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, had no idols and no caste system. In fact, the Rig Veda forbade idolatry and the region of Sindhu (Sindh) and Sapta Sindhu (Punjab) was considered the sacred Vedic homeland. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor - they were mainly adopted from the Bactria–Margiana Culture and Zoroastrianism (along with its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) from the migrating Aryans, along with local Harappan beliefs. These Vedic gods included:

- Mitra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity "Mithra")
- Varuna (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity "Ahura Mazda")
- Indra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity "Verethraghna")
- Sorya (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Hvare-Khshaeta”)
- Agni or Matarisvan (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Atar”)
- Soma (borrowed from the Bactria–Margiana culture)

The Vedic people were more culturally and religiously related to the Avestan Iranians in the west than the Gangetic Dravidians in the east (known in the Vedas as Dasyu, Dasa or Dasya). Most strikingly, Vedic society made a strong emphasis to differentiate themselves (Sindhu + Sapta Sindhu) from others, particularly the region east of the Indus which was the Ganges plain and Deccan. That region was referred to by the Vedics as "Dasya Varta".

~ Vedic tribes ~
From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley (Sindhu and Saptha Sindhu). They formed a warrior society, engaging in endemic warfare and cattle raids ("gaviṣṭi") among themselves and against their enemies, the Dasyu (also known as Dasa or Dasya). When not on the move, they were subdivided into tribal settlements (vish) composed of several villages, and each village was composed of several families. These settlements were headed by a tribal chief (raja) assisted by warriors (kshatra) and a priestly caste (brahma). Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in ~1300 BC and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes which included the Alinas (from Nuristan), Anu (from upper Punjab), Bhrigus (from Punjab), Bhalanas (from Bolan), Druhyus (from Swat), Matsya (from Cholistan), Parsu (from western Balochistan), Purus (from Thar) and Panis (from Sibi). The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced some Vedic tribes to consider migrating out of the Indus. The Bharatas and Purus were among the first to do so.

~ Late Vedic period ~
Up until 1100 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (Dasyu, which could possibly be the Dravidians). After 1100 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and thus forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society had transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture and now tribes had a choice to remain in the Indus or migrate. The majority stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while some such as the Bharatas and Purus, migrated east towards the Ganges plain.

~ Ganges migration ~
There is significant controversy about what occurred during the migration of these Vedic tribes from the Indus Valley into the Ganges plain.

~~ Theory A ~~
As these migrating tribes left the Indus Valley to settle in the Ganges plain, they attempted to take complete control over the local population. The Vedas were abandoned with new texts - namely the Puranas and Mahabharata - in which Vedic titles were adopted, along with indigenous Dravidian culture. This was done to entrench themselves as the new ruling order. Vedic titles (castes) were now given hierarchical status, whereby the Vedic migrants were considered of "high caste" while the local Dravidians were considered of "lower castes".

~~ Theory B ~~
In another version of history, it is theorized that within a few generations, the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges were made to surrender whatever little political rule they had acquired and and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants (Sudra) of their Dravidian masters. Through religious manipulation, the small number Vedic tribes that had migrated into the Ganges plain were forced to abandoned there Vedic faith and culture in favour of the indigenous Gangetic/Dravidian faith and customs.

~ List of Vedic Tribes ~

> Alinas - Suggested that they lived the northeast of Nurestan. The historian S. Talageri identifies them with the Greeks (Hellenes).
> Anu: see Druhyus.
> Ayu
> Bhajeratha
> Bhalanas - Suggested that they lived by the Bolan Pass.
> Bharatas - Mentioned in the Rigveda, Mandala 3. They appear to have engaged in various battles and early power-struggles between the various tribes. Following a large battle on the Ravi River, the Bharatas are said to have migrated out of the Indus Valley and into the Ganges plain. Hence, it's no surprise why they dominated Gangetic texts such as the Mahabharata, where Emperor Bharata is said to be the "conqueror of all of India", and his tribe and kingdom is called Bharata. "Bharat" today is the official name of the Republic of India.
> Bhrigus
> Chedi
> Druhyus - Mentioned together with the Anu. Some early scholars have placed them in the northwestern region (:I 395) which most likely would mean Gandhara. Some writers have historically asserted that the Druhyu are the ancestors of the Iranian, Greek or European peoples, or of the Celtic Druid class. The word Druid (Gallic Celtic druides), however, is derived from Proto-Indo-European.
> Gandhari
> Gungu
> Iksvaku
> Krivi
> Kikata
> Kuru
> Mahina
> Malankhara
> Matsya
> Nahusa
> Paktha - Suspected as merging with the Hephthalite (White Huns) and giving rise to the Pashtun people.
> Panis - possibly related to the Iranian Parni.
> Paravata
> Parsu - Have been connected with the Persians. This is based on the evidence of an Assyrian inscription from 844 BCE referring to the Persians as Parshu, and the Behistun Inscription of Darius I of Persia referring to Parsa as the home of the Persians.
> Puru - related to the Bharatas.
> Rusama
> Tritsu - were a sub-group of the Puru and mentioned in Mandala 7 of the Rigveda (in hymns 18, 33 and 83).
> Turvasa
> Yadu - claimed to have been a Vedic tribe, but not mentioned in the Vedas.
 
Is there anything wrong with being an Indian migrant? My family migrated from India in 1947 and in process sacrificed much more than many, who were native to the land.

There is nothing wrong with that. The Indus Valley has always been welcoming to foreign peoples and cultures and ideas. That's what made this land multicultural today.

And your slogan of “go back to where you came from” is the one why we have ethnic based politics in Pakistan and why many we have MQM. Remember its a sign of ignorance and lack of intellect, when you have to resort to that racist Tag line. You can easily be at the receiving end, if you were ever to live in a foreign country. Grow up.

You see here's the problem I have with that. I have no issues with you (Urdu speakers) at all. Even having the MQM in power isn't so bad, since you all should be represented in politics. That being said, I'm a little annoyed as to why 7 million or so Indians who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 are now dictating to the other 192 million people who and what they are.

YES YOU MIGHT BE INDIAN...but WE'RE NOT. That's something you have to understand. Urdu speakers in general are so arrogant and look down upon other Pakistani groups as if we're uneducated animals and that our languages and culture don't matter.

Sorry, this isn't 1960s anymore. We've come a long way too. Respect the original inhabitants of this land and their cultures please.

Thank you.
 
Not sure what exactly is your point and why you are going round in circles.

From your own posts above:
- There is ethnic, genetic and Linguistic distinction between “Indo-iranians” (Persia incl. modern day Afghanistan) and “Indo-Aryans” (Northern Indian Subcontinent)
- From current Pakistans ethnical group only Pathans and Balochs belong to Indo-Iranians. All the rest are of Indo-Aryan origin. This is a 20/80 Ration in terms of numbers.
- Religion commonality with Iran/Afghanistan comes much much later into the picture (only last 1000 years) before that all the people living east of Indus were part of the same group.

The only reason why we have Pathans and Balochs in Pak today is the legacy of British empire, who were gradually expanding their territory by seizing Lands from Iran (Balochistan) and Afghanistan (Durand line). They left it as part of Pakistan.

This proves 1 thing:

80 % of Pakistans population is of north Indian origin and hence are naturally similar to Indians living in that part of India.

Its simple as that. If you are trying to prove otherwise, then keep living on your cloud # 9. Despite having the Archeology degree that you claim to have, i would suggest going back to Primary school again.
 
You see here's the problem I have with that. I have no issues with you (Urdu speakers) at all. Even having the MQM in power isn't so bad, since you all should be represented in politics. That being said, I'm a little annoyed as to why 7 million or so Indians who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 are now dictating to the other 192 million people who and what they are..

That isn't true at all, I'm of both punjabi-kashmiri and urdu descent and Punjabis are the majority in Pakistan and have the most influence.

YES YOU MIGHT BE INDIAN...but WE'RE NOT.
Um....most urdu people don't identify as indian and it's rather offensive because it's associated with the modern day republic of india, if you come to America you will a lot of Pakistanis of various backgrounds but especially those from Karachi take pride of being originally from Pakistan.

That's something you have to understand. Urdu speakers in general are so arrogant and look down upon other Pakistani groups as if we're uneducated animals and that our languages and culture don't matter.

You can say that about any ethnicity dude, lately it's been pashtuns looking down on Punjabis, sindhis hating on Punjabis and so on and so forth, you can't generalize. Idk about urdu people being "arrogant", I mean even Punjabis and Pashtuns can be very arrogant, like I know Punjabis that look down on urdu speakers and vice versa, if you let the opinions of a few bigots or racists get to your head then you're too soft.

Sorry, this isn't 1960s anymore. We've come a long way too. Respect the original inhabitants of this land and their cultures please.

Thank you

Lol dude, how old are you? It's 2019, no point keepin grudges from your time in the 60s, that was like forever ago. I feel like instead of wasting your energy and time attacking fellow Pakistanis of different backgrounds perhaps you can spend that energy countering racist Afghans that look down on Pakistans (especially Punjabis).
 
There is nothing wrong with that. The Indus Valley has always been welcoming to foreign peoples and cultures and ideas. That's what made this land multicultural today.



You see here's the problem I have with that. I have no issues with you (Urdu speakers) at all. Even having the MQM in power isn't so bad, since you all should be represented in politics. That being said, I'm a little annoyed as to why 7 million or so Indians who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 are now dictating to the other 192 million people who and what they are.

YES YOU MIGHT BE INDIAN...but WE'RE NOT. That's something you have to understand. Urdu speakers in general are so arrogant and look down upon other Pakistani groups as if we're uneducated animals and that our languages and culture don't matter.

Sorry, this isn't 1960s anymore. We've come a long way too. Respect the original inhabitants of this land and their cultures please.

Thank you.


Guess, there’s not much point wasting time in addressing on your “Archaeological findings”.
Lastly LOL @ your Indus Valley Bongiyaan. And Good that in process your racist attitude and bias comes to light.
Good luck.
 
Not sure what exactly is your point and why you are going round in circles.

From your own posts above:
- There is ethnic, genetic and Linguistic distinction between “Indo-iranians” (Persia incl. modern day Afghanistan) and “Indo-Aryans” (Northern Indian Subcontinent)
- From current Pakistans ethnical group only Pathans and Balochs belong to Indo-Iranians. All the rest are of Indo-Aryan origin. This is a 20/80 Ration in terms of numbers.
- Religion commonality with Iran/Afghanistan comes much much later into the picture (only last 1000 years) before that all the people living east of Indus were part of the same group.

The only reason why we have Pathans and Balochs in Pak today is the legacy of British empire, who were gradually expanding their territory by seizing Lands from Iran (Balochistan) and Afghanistan (Durand line). They left it as part of Pakistan.

This proves 1 thing:

80 % of Pakistans population is of north Indian origin and hence are naturally similar to Indians living in that part of India.

Its simple as that. If you are trying to prove otherwise, then keep living on your cloud # 9. Despite having the Archeology degree that you claim to have, i would suggest going back to Primary school again.

Idk dude I feel like religion plays a big a role in culture. North Indians may be the most similar but there are some apparent differences, I can just tell from the way the talk, to their mannerism, to the food they eat that they aren't Pakistani. Like they're similar to Pakistan but you can tell something is different, it's like going to Walmart and Krogers, both stores are very similar but there's still a difference. The differences between Pakistan and India are very nuanced, and subtle and people that are Pakistani and Indian can pick up those minor differences.
 
True, but it depends on who and where in North India are they from. I ve met Hindu indian people from Delhi and UP and found them quite Similiar to a typical Karachiite. Even the slang and Gaaliya are the sane. Even indian punjabis in the UK are very similar to our own Pakistani Punjabis.

Living in the west for many years, i ve observed that for most people religion (and religious identity) in getting less and less important. You are ought to adapt a secular mindset to survive in a multicultural and multifaith environment and thats where all other “commonalities” come into play. Iyswim

A good example of this is the Gujrati community in many parts of the world (Uk-Leicester, South Africa, USA...)., they stick together regardless of religion.
 
Last edited:
True, but it depends on who and where in North India are they from. I ve met Hindu indian people from Delhi and UP and found them quite Similiar to a typical Karachiite. Even the slang and Gaaliya are the sane. Even indian punjabis in the UK are very similar to our own Pakistani Punjabis.

Lol this exactly what I'm addressing. There are still noticeable differences betwen Indians and Pakistanis even if they're from the same ethnic background, like I mentioned there are religious differences - Islam has a big influence in how people live and Hinduism/Sikhism also have a big influence on Indian culture, dietary laws, holidays, values etc You're also forgetting that Pakistanis and Indians grew up in different countries, an Indian raised in India and Pakistani raised in Pakistan are going to be culturally different even if they're from the same ethnic background. It's like the experiences of a Pakistani-American will be very different from that of a British-Pakistani even if they speak the same language, their parents could be from the exact same town in Pakistan, may even be relatives but just the experience of growing up in different countries has a huge impact on a person. My Punjabi relatives that grew up in Pakistani Punjabi can easily tell if somebody is Indian Punjabi just by their accent and some may even say they look different since some castes are more common in indian punjab.


I don't understand your rant about secularism, the fact is that religion has had a huge influence on the cultures in the subcontinent and you can't deny regardless of whatever you wish. I'm not here to have some philosphical discussion about cultures with you cause that's boring, I'm just stating facts.
 
Last edited:
I got my statistics directly from the World Bank. I can see now why your reputation is in the trash bin on this forum. You don't seem too bright at all.

View attachment 93499
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=PK-AF

My God you are thick arent you and reading is NOT your friend.
I wrote clearly
For the half decade ending in 2025 projected fertility in Afghanistan is 3.85 and Pakistan 3.25. Afghanistan fertility rate is reducing faster than Pakistans.

and what do you do, talk about year ending 2015, which is 4 friggin years ago.

My God , if my reputation is in the trash and yours is on a pedestal, lol that pedestal is as flimsy as you are thick.
 
No rant buddy. Just saying that living in West requires one to adapt a “more” secular mindset. Which means leaving the religious identity aside for most part. Many Pakistani children growing in West have a different outlook as a result of it.

The rest i agree with what you saying abt Indians being similar but not exactly the same.
 
No rant buddy. Just saying that living in West requires one to adapt a “more” secular mindset. Which means leaving the religious identity aside for most part. Many Pakistani children growing in West have a different outlook as a result of it.

The rest i agree with what you saying abt Indians being similar but not exactly the same.

I don't understand how "secularism" has anything to do with this discussion lmaoo, we're talkin about cultures :)) Do you happen to be Indian? They have this habit of bringing up "Secularism" into a every other discussion regardless of its relevance, maybe they don't know how to use that word in the right context lol.
 
I still don't get what you're trying to argue. Like what exactly is your problem with what I've said above?

Do you want us to pretend that Afghan Pashtuns are foreigners? Sorry, that's not happening...they are related to us and that's something one cannot ignore. I don't even like Afghan Pashtuns (we call them Kabuly all the time), but I can't ignore the fact they have the same blood and genes as me.

You're so filled with insecurity that you think a minority Pashtun population in Afghanistan is going to change our opinions about wanting to remain part of Pakistan? Is that it? Then get a life kid...we made Pakistan, it's our country....if we had our way, Pashtuns would be ruling Pakistan, since you Punjabis have all but destroyed it.

Also, why do you have no love for East Punjab? You do know that India is making it into a desert right and diverting all its rivers towards the "Hindi belt". This also affects Pakistan somewhat, but the Indus Water Treaty essentially protects Pakistan. Sadly, it ruins East Punjab.

If I were Punjabi like you, I would be doing everything to get closer to East Punjabis so they realize they have nothing in common with Indians. Luckily Imran Khan is in power (what do you know a Pashtun) and he realized this. That's why he opened Kartarpur corridor. He wants Indian Punjabis to realize the mistake they made in 1947.

Furthermore, an independent East Punjab would work in everyone's favour.

See > Final Assault

See > Khalistan

My argument is that Pakistani Pashtuns today are Pashtuns and Afghan ones are Afghans, simple. What is your argument? What point are you trying to make pother then showing me ancient maps?? My issue is that you are trying to tell me that Pak Pashtuns want to be Afghans or something like that which is simply not true. Afghan Pashtuns are foreigners in Pakistan today...yes they are coz they are Afghans. Afghanistan not Pakistan is there country, Pak Pashtuns are not that....they are Pakistanis just like Punjabis, Sindhis and Baloch. I don't know what your opinion is baby so can't comment on it! You are not making it clear enough. What you mean Punjabis have destroyed Pakistan or you should be ruling it with your regressive culture!!?. My point is simple that Afghan people as a whole if it makes it easier for you have no right on Pakistan at all, never!

So I supposed to have love for Indian Punjab coz of water issues?? I can't stand India as a whole! Next you'll tell me to love India coz of Bhangra Music or Sidhu being a Punjabi, don't be silly man! I don't know why you are showing me Khalistan maps for goodness sake what's the matter with you! What point of mines do you disagree with? I don't want bad relations with India yet we are no stooges of there's either. I see Imran Khan as a Pakistani not a Pushtoon, strangely he does of remain quiet on all the thinngs that go on in your region taking it easy on terrorists like Manzoor Pashteen and that kind.
 
I meant that Pakistani Pashtuns are Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns are Afghani. Indian Punjabis are Indians and Pakistani Punjabis are Pakistanis as well.
 
Not sure what exactly is your point and why you are going round in circles.

My point is Pakistanis are not Indians. Something you still haven't comprehended.

- There is ethnic, genetic and Linguistic distinction between “Indo-iranians” (Persia incl. modern day Afghanistan) and “Indo-Aryans” (Northern Indian Subcontinent)

Indo-Aryans are those with a heavy Eurasian component. What "north indian subcontinent" are you talking about? It's practically the population of the Trans-Indus regions (modern-day Pakistani groups). I just provided you with evidence above and you AGAIN failed to either comprehend it or just ignored it.

- From current Pakistans ethnical group only Pathans and Balochs belong to Indo-Iranians. All the rest are of Indo-Aryan origin. This is a 20/80 Ration in terms of numbers.

Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryans are similar since they have a common ancestor (Harappans). Refer to the genetic map in my previous post.

- Religion commonality with Iran/Afghanistan comes much much later into the picture (only last 1000 years) before that all the people living east of Indus were part of the same group.

I don't care about religion. I'm an atheist.

The only reason why we have Pathans and Balochs in Pak today is the legacy of British empire, who were gradually expanding their territory by seizing Lands from Iran (Balochistan) and Afghanistan (Durand line). They left it as part of Pakistan.

Balochistan was never part of Iran, it was always an independent territory that was commonly invaded by Persians, but could never control. The Pashtuns had a choice in 1947 to rejoin Afghanistan and they refused. Just goes to show how little you actually know.

80 % of Pakistans population is of north Indian origin and hence are naturally similar to Indians living in that part of India.

And your evidence is where? I just showed you above how the genetic map clearly states Pakistani groups (Indo-Aryans) are not similar to North Indians (Gangetic groups). But keep perpetuating your silly colonial myths.

Its simple as that. If you are trying to prove otherwise, then keep living on your cloud # 9. Despite having the Archeology degree that you claim to have, i would suggest going back to Primary school again.

You're just upset because you have nothing in common with the Indus groups of Pakistan. Just because you're a Dasyu doesn't mean the rest of us are. Our ancestors were Harappans...when we were building cities like Moenjdho Daro and Harappa and trading with Mesopotamia and Egypt, your ancestors in ghe Ganges were still shooting arrows at the sun.

Don't you dare associate the Indus to some dasyu backwater called the "ganges". Thanks.
 
You're not very good at it, claiming Vedic era people are beef.
Give it a rest.

Oh look, you're back again...after shutting you up about your Awgonistan, now you want me to shut you up about the Vedic era?

The Indus Vedic faith is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today.

"The Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, and had no idols and no caste system. In fact, there is no evidence in the Vedas for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system,” Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies, states.

“The Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth,” Ram Sharan Sharma, an eminent historian and academic of Ancient and early Medieval India, states. “… [it] was primarily organized on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage.”

The Vedic gods mentioned in the Vedas are also starkly different what we consider “modern Hindu gods” today. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor – they were mainly adopted from the Bactria-Margiana Culture, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) and local Harappan beliefs.


If you're in the mood to get shut up again, drop me quote Mr. Dasyu.
 
My God you are thick arent you and reading is NOT your friend.
I wrote clearly

and what do you do, talk about year ending 2015, which is 4 friggin years ago.

My God , if my reputation is in the trash and yours is on a pedestal, lol that pedestal is as flimsy as you are thick.

Well you said you got your information from the World Bank. I gave you the World Bank statistics that goes up to 2015/2016 for both countries. So where did you get statistics from the future? Do you have a time machine?

I asked you twice to provide me a direct link to the source you used and you still haven't done that. Rather you're just indulging in name calling.

Nothing surprising here. Typical Gangetic genes on display.
 
That isn't true at all, I'm of both punjabi-kashmiri and urdu descent and Punjabis are the majority in Pakistan and have the most influence.

Punjabis only gained influence AFTER Zia ul Haq died in 1988 and his pooch Nawaz Sharif was put into power to counter Benazir Bhutto. Before Zia ul Haq, Urdu speakers practically ruled everything.

Um....most urdu people don't identify as indian and it's rather offensive because it's associated with the modern day republic of india

Tell that to Knight Rider not me. I'm the one who has consistently been saying that the ethnic groups of Pakistan are different from Indian groups. Yes, similarities exist, but that doesn't mean they're the same. Koreans and Japanese share similarities, should they be called the same?

if you come to America you will a lot of Pakistanis of various backgrounds but especially those from Karachi take pride of being originally from Pakistan.

I'm well aware of that. Tell that to Knight Rider who insists on calling himself and others Indians.

You can say that about any ethnicity dude, lately it's been pashtuns looking down on Punjabis, sindhis hating on Punjabis and so on and so forth, you can't generalize. Idk about urdu people being "arrogant"

I'm not labeling an entire ethnicity, I'm referring to the ruling elites. Common people are just common people, I have no issue with any of them.

I mean even Punjabis and Pashtuns can be very arrogant, like I know Punjabis that look down on urdu speakers and vice versa, if you let the opinions of a few bigots or racists get to your head then you're too soft.

Again, I'm referring to the ruling elite - past and present.

Lol dude, how old are you? It's 2019, no point keepin grudges from your time in the 60s, that was like forever ago. I feel like instead of wasting your energy and time attacking fellow Pakistanis of different backgrounds perhaps you can spend that energy countering racist Afghans that look down on Pakistans (especially Punjabis).

Scroll up...I've already made it clear I couldn't careless about Afghans and Afghanistan despite being a Pashtun. If it were up to me, I'd invade it and merge all Pashtun areas into KP and become the largest province in Pakistan. :lol:

But that's just me.

It's Knight Rider and uSaqaf who are being rather ignorant, with one claiming we're all indian and the other claiming that Afghans have a right to be racist and hurl abuses at Pakistanis.

Go lecture them.
 
This is a very dense thread to get through. Ppl who lionize Bacha Khan are Pakistan’s enemies
 
I have a career in archeology. I get paid to do this.



Indus Valley Civilization to Pakistan, is what the Nile River is to Egypt and what Mesopotamia is to Iraq. Indus Valley Civilization has nothing to do with India at all. Pakistan is just a name invented in 1947, but this land has a history stretching back to over 6000 BCE and some of the earliest farmers in human history come from this land. Reading isn't illegal. Try it out sometime.



The present day Pakistani population are comprised of Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians. This formed when the population of the Indus Valley (Harappans) merged with the migrating Aryans, giving rise to a new culture...Vedic civilization.



Umm no, the Indus Valley Civilization practiced the ancient Indus religion, which is postulated as being similar to the ancient Sumerian religion of Mesopotamia.

After the fall of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Vedic civilization took root here. Vedic religion is not Hinduism, infact its the polar opposite so much so that the Indus Vedics referred to the Ganges as "Dasyu". Vedic religion shares similarities with the ancient Avestan religion of Persia...many of their gods are were the same.



I don't care about colonial perspectives or perspectives of people who have no knowledge. Pakistanis are not the same as Indians. I've proven it above, and yobs like you insist on ignoring facts for colonial myths.

Not my problem you don't have the intelligence to read.

My point is Pakistanis are not Indians. Something you still haven't comprehended.



Indo-Aryans are those with a heavy Eurasian component. What "north indian subcontinent" are you talking about? It's practically the population of the Trans-Indus regions (modern-day Pakistani groups). I just provided you with evidence above and you AGAIN failed to either comprehend it or just ignored it.



Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryans are similar since they have a common ancestor (Harappans). Refer to the genetic map in my previous post.



I don't care about religion. I'm an atheist.



Balochistan was never part of Iran, it was always an independent territory that was commonly invaded by Persians, but could never control. The Pashtuns had a choice in 1947 to rejoin Afghanistan and they refused. Just goes to show how little you actually know.



And your evidence is where? I just showed you above how the genetic map clearly states Pakistani groups (Indo-Aryans) are not similar to North Indians (Gangetic groups). But keep perpetuating your silly colonial myths.



You're just upset because you have nothing in common with the Indus groups of Pakistan. Just because you're a Dasyu doesn't mean the rest of us are. Our ancestors were Harappans...when we were building cities like Moenjdho Daro and Harappa and trading with Mesopotamia and Egypt, your ancestors in ghe Ganges were still shooting arrows at the sun.

Don't you dare associate the Indus to some dasyu backwater called the "ganges". Thanks.

Oh bhai indus valley civilization is part of hindus vedic civilization. Hinduism and veds are one and same thing. There are many parts of hinduism. In fact hinduism is not even a religion. It's ved which we hindus have worshipped since thousands of years.
You guys have identity crisis. Do you know who your great grand parents were? Do you know why still most of the pakistanis use hindus sur names?? Like chauhans , cheemas, sethis, rana, thakur, jatts etc etc.
Do you know how come lahore the name of city come?
You are claiming that hindus or indians doesn't belong to indus valley civilization but Pakistan belongs to them. There is nothing like Pakistan existed. Bharat existed since centuries. It's mentioned in all old thousand books.
I dnt even want to debate. It's like debating with a child on this topic. Have fun. god bless your history teacher lolz
 
I have a career in archeology. I get paid to do this.



Indus Valley Civilization to Pakistan, is what the Nile River is to Egypt and what Mesopotamia is to Iraq. Indus Valley Civilization has nothing to do with India at all. Pakistan is just a name invented in 1947, but this land has a history stretching back to over 6000 BCE and some of the earliest farmers in human history come from this land. Reading isn't illegal. Try it out sometime.



The present day Pakistani population are comprised of Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians. This formed when the population of the Indus Valley (Harappans) merged with the migrating Aryans, giving rise to a new culture...Vedic civilization.



Umm no, the Indus Valley Civilization practiced the ancient Indus religion, which is postulated as being similar to the ancient Sumerian religion of Mesopotamia.

After the fall of the Indus Valley Civilization, the Vedic civilization took root here. Vedic religion is not Hinduism, infact its the polar opposite so much so that the Indus Vedics referred to the Ganges as "Dasyu". Vedic religion shares similarities with the ancient Avestan religion of Persia...many of their gods are were the same.



I don't care about colonial perspectives or perspectives of people who have no knowledge. Pakistanis are not the same as Indians. I've proven it above, and yobs like you insist on ignoring facts for colonial myths.

Not my problem you don't have the intelligence to read.

My point is Pakistanis are not Indians. Something you still haven't comprehended.



Indo-Aryans are those with a heavy Eurasian component. What "north indian subcontinent" are you talking about? It's practically the population of the Trans-Indus regions (modern-day Pakistani groups). I just provided you with evidence above and you AGAIN failed to either comprehend it or just ignored it.



Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryans are similar since they have a common ancestor (Harappans). Refer to the genetic map in my previous post.



I don't care about religion. I'm an atheist.



Balochistan was never part of Iran, it was always an independent territory that was commonly invaded by Persians, but could never control. The Pashtuns had a choice in 1947 to rejoin Afghanistan and they refused. Just goes to show how little you actually know.



And your evidence is where? I just showed you above how the genetic map clearly states Pakistani groups (Indo-Aryans) are not similar to North Indians (Gangetic groups). But keep perpetuating your silly colonial myths.



You're just upset because you have nothing in common with the Indus groups of Pakistan. Just because you're a Dasyu doesn't mean the rest of us are. Our ancestors were Harappans...when we were building cities like Moenjdho Daro and Harappa and trading with Mesopotamia and Egypt, your ancestors in ghe Ganges were still shooting arrows at the sun.

Don't you dare associate the Indus to some dasyu backwater called the "ganges". Thanks.

Plus it's not necessary in hinduism to worship idols. One can be hindus without worshipping idols and following vedas only. We read vedas during death or birth or many places. Vedas is like potato in vegetables list of hinduism. It's the base. You got it all incorrect. 99 percent of pakistanis and indians are same. We have same DNA and shared same religion.
Plus be aware of sharing some article from google. Because these days you can obviously find one damn article to support your agenda from Google. Whatever you want to believe can be supported from some ignorant author article. But truth remains same. It has consistency .
 
Urdu saying: Bhens k aage been bajane ka koi faida nahee.
Sorry to break the bad news but all your copy paste from Wikipedia are useless because you are unable to see the basic point and just going round in circles. Hence ppl aren't bothering with reading the crap.

True that it feels like having a debate with a Child. Leave it for others to discuss.
 
Well you said you got your information from the World Bank. I gave you the World Bank statistics that goes up to 2015/2016 for both countries. So where did you get statistics from the future? Do you have a time machine?

I asked you twice to provide me a direct link to the source you used and you still haven't done that. Rather you're just indulging in name calling.

Nothing surprising here. Typical Gangetic genes on display.

Hah you cleverly deleted the word " projected" from my post .
You know people use models to 'project' future data points so go plug in the years and put the countries and see for yourself.

You have the intellect of a door knob goodbye, not wasting my time on a mutton head.
 
Oh bhai indus valley civilization is part of hindus vedic civilization. Hinduism and veds are one and same thing. There are many parts of hinduism. In fact hinduism is not even a religion. It's ved which we hindus have worshipped since thousands of years.
You guys have identity crisis. Do you know who your great grand parents were? Do you know why still most of the pakistanis use hindus sur names?? Like chauhans , cheemas, sethis, rana, thakur, jatts etc etc.
Do you know how come lahore the name of city come?
You are claiming that hindus or indians doesn't belong to indus valley civilization but Pakistan belongs to them. There is nothing like Pakistan existed. Bharat existed since centuries. It's mentioned in all old thousand books.
I dnt even want to debate. It's like debating with a child on this topic. Have fun. god bless your history teacher lolz

Indus Valley wasn't part of any of Hinduism. Keep the RSS myths in india.
 
Hah you cleverly deleted the word " projected" from my post .
You know people use models to 'project' future data points so go plug in the years and put the countries and see for yourself.

You have the intellect of a door knob goodbye, not wasting my time on a mutton head.

Show me your "projected" sources Einstein. This is the third time I'm asking you. If you have no intention of backing up your claims with evidence, don't waste my time further.
 
Lol Vedas called you DASYU and your ganges was called Dasyu Varta. Like I said keep the RSS myths in your Bharat. The Indus script hasnt even been deciphered yet and here you are thinking everything is Hindu.

Let me guess you probably think airplanes were invented 50,000 years ago right.

Take a hike pal.
 
Indus Valley wasn't part of any of Hinduism. Keep the RSS myths in india.
Hahaha vedic culture is part of hinduism man. Keep your isis agenda to yourself. It won't work here. Crores of pandits recite vedas daily in their lives. Hinduism or vedas are world oldest religion, practiced by bharti people since centuries.
 
Indus Valley wasn't part of any of Hinduism. Keep the RSS myths in india.

Lol Vedas called you DASYU and your ganges was called Dasyu Varta. Like I said keep the RSS myths in your Bharat. The Indus script hasnt even been deciphered yet and here you are thinking everything is Hindu.

Let me guess you probably think airplanes were invented 50,000 years ago right.

Take a hike pal.

So you trying to say pakistani muslims used to recite vedas but indian hindus were not used to recite vedas?
So who were indian people used to worship? You mean to say Hinduism is older than vedas?? Because pakistani muslims had belief in vedas but indian used to worship some other religion called Hinduism? Hahahahaha
At least try to put some sense man. At every ceremony of birth, death and many other things vedas are base of Hinduism.
Hinduism is not one small philosophy. It is very wide thing. You just quoting one part of Hinduism and ignoring all other things.

Between now you will say budhism, jainism, sikhism are also not born in bharat. We all dharma religions have many things in common . Similarly vedas ,indus valley civilization is heart of India.
Why dnt you try to teach vedas to isis philosophy people?
 
This is a very dense thread to get through. Ppl who lionize Bacha Khan are Pakistan’s enemies

What are you talking about? He is well respected by many. Wish we had leader like him instead of Establishment stooges.
 
This is a very dense thread to get through. Ppl who lionize Bacha Khan are Pakistan’s enemies

Don't know about Bacha Khan, but this is certainly a very dense thread to get through. I was expecting some casual racism banter which would have provided some entertainment, but we are getting long essays with maps and stats. I will plough through it at some point, should be interesting, and hopefully less confusing by the time I have got through it. See you on the other side!
 
So why does the Vedas call you Dasyu? Why did Indra wage war on your Tamil gods? Why did we destroy your Dasyu puras?

Vedic religion had more in common with Avestan religion. Your Hinduism (Brahminism) was invented out of Vedic faith, which the Vedas outright rejected.

Vedics ate beef, buried their dead and worshiped Vedic, Avestan and Bactrian gods.

Stop embarrassing yourself any further.
 
So you trying to say pakistani muslims used to recite vedas but indian hindus were not used to recite vedas?
So who were indian people used to worship? You mean to say Hinduism is older than vedas?? Because pakistani muslims had belief in vedas but indian used to worship some other religion called Hinduism? Hahahahaha
At least try to put some sense man. At every ceremony of birth, death and many other things vedas are base of Hinduism.
Hinduism is not one small philosophy. It is very wide thing. You just quoting one part of Hinduism and ignoring all other things.

Between now you will say budhism, jainism, sikhism are also not born in bharat. We all dharma religions have many things in common . Similarly vedas ,indus valley civilization is heart of India.
Why dnt you try to teach vedas to isis philosophy people?

Indus people were the Vedics and only accept Vedas as absolute truth since they regard Sindhu (Indus) as the holy land.

You Ganges Dasyus are Puranic Hindus who invented their own religion and wrote myths like Puranas, Manusmirti and Mahabharata.

Vedics rejected your nonsense. In response the Ganges Dasyus called is Mlecha and our land Vahika Desa.

Stop conflicting Vedic faith with your Puranic myths.
 
Indus people were the Vedics and only accept Vedas as absolute truth since they regard Sindhu (Indus) as the holy land.

You Ganges Dasyus are Puranic Hindus who invented their own religion and wrote myths like Puranas, Manusmirti and Mahabharata.

Vedics rejected your nonsense. In response the Ganges Dasyus called is Mlecha and our land Vahika Desa.

Stop conflicting Vedic faith with your Puranic myths.

Even sikhism rejected some hinduism philosophies. Budhism rejected some. Jainism rejected some. So these all are not Indian religions. Oh bhai, you dnt have brains to understand these things.
Even in South India people recite vedas since thousands of years.
Why did pakistani muslims then rejected their own civilization vedas??? And you are telling indians who has hold on to their civilization since centuries.
Picking up few words from Google won't make facts.
Hindus all over India recite vedas.
So basically as per you indians have adopted pakistani vedas religion, and culture and meanwhile pakistanis have adopted islamic culture. Oh c'mmon use your 1 percent of sense and you would get your logics right.
In hinduism there are many sects. One can be athiest and still be hindus, bone can follow vedas and still be hindus, one can worship idols and still be called hindu.
Plus many religions and the great oldest civilization indus valley took birth in bharat.there was nothing called Pakistan. Bharat existed way back since centuries..
Try your best next time.
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about? He is well respected by many. Wish we had leader like him instead of Establishment stooges.

Bacha Khan and the ppl like him who are lionized post independence do not deserve a seat at the table now. They were smart ppl with the intellect of giants, but once Pakistan came in to being, anyone who lionized ethnic identity as a tool against the state, need to go.
To be clear you can be Sindhi, Muhajir, Punjabi, Pathan etc. but if your celebration of your ethnic identity means you dreaming of a mythical separate homeland for your ppl, then you really need to sit down.
 
Bacha Khan and the ppl like him who are lionized post independence do not deserve a seat at the table now. They were smart ppl with the intellect of giants, but once Pakistan came in to being, anyone who lionized ethnic identity as a tool against the state, need to go.
To be clear you can be Sindhi, Muhajir, Punjabi, Pathan etc. but if your celebration of your ethnic identity means you dreaming of a mythical separate homeland for your ppl, then you really need to sit down.

I agree. Also being a 'great leader' means neither here nor there. [MENTION=74419]Badsha[/MENTION] Mujeeb was a great leader, but led to our nation being broken. Stalin was a great leader yet led to suffering. Modi is touted as a great leader by India but has done nothing but try and provoke war.

Anyone championing ethnicity has no right to be called a great leader. I say the same thing when Punjabis speak this nonsense or the Sindhis speak this nonsense. I'm thankful Bacha Khan isn't alive today. He would have led us to another broken province.
 
Bacha Khan and the ppl like him who are lionized post independence do not deserve a seat at the table now. They were smart ppl with the intellect of giants, but once Pakistan came in to being, anyone who lionized ethnic identity as a tool against the state, need to go.
To be clear you can be Sindhi, Muhajir, Punjabi, Pathan etc. but if your celebration of your ethnic identity means you dreaming of a mythical separate homeland for your ppl, then you really need to sit down.

Listen you do not have the slightest clue about bacha Khan and what he stood for. Like I suggested read a history book rather than pakpassion posts or listening to uncles in a drawing room.
 
Listen you do not have the slightest clue about bacha Khan and what he stood for. Like I suggested read a history book rather than pakpassion posts or listening to uncles in a drawing room.

For some bizarre reason my post was removed but anyway, he did not want creation of Pakistan. Then when it became obvious we would be created he wanted Pashtun regions to be independent or join Afghanistan.

And also wanted to be buried in his 'home' ie Afghanistan even after pledging himself to Pakistan.

If I'm wrong please correct me. Maybe I'm missing something. ,(I mean that genuinely btw)
 
Even sikhism rejected some hinduism philosophies. Budhism rejected some. Jainism rejected some. So these all are not Indian religions. Oh bhai, you dnt have brains to understand these things.

I do have the brains. Sadly you don't.

Even in South India people recite vedas since thousands of years.

And why am I supposed to care if foreigners recite Vedas? Non-Arabs recite Quran, what's your point?

Why did pakistani muslims then rejected their own civilization vedas?

Pakistan didn't exist when the Vedic civilization reigned. What has existed throughout history is a territory called the Indus Valley...a land with over 8000 years of human history...a history that has seen many religions, ideologies, peoples, cultures and languages mix. Who said anything about rejection? We just moved on.

And you are telling indians who has hold on to their civilization since centuries.

I'm telling Bharatis to be proud of their own history. Your history is the Ganges/Deccan Puranic Hinduism, not the Indus Valley.

Picking up few words from Google won't make facts.

What exactly are you denying? I'll be happy to destroy your claims in 2 seconds, like I did above to the two other yobs who are too scared to reply to me now.

Hindus all over India recite vedas.

I don't care. Foreigners can recite the Vedas all they want, it doesn't make them Vedic.

So basically as per you indians have adopted pakistani vedas religion, and culture and meanwhile pakistanis have adopted islamic culture.

No, the people of the Indus Valley throughout history have adopted various religions. The first religion to be practiced was the ancient Indus religion, which had relations to the old Sumerian religion of Mesopotamia. Then came the Vedic religion, then came Buddhism, then came Puranic Hinduism and then came Islam. Religions have come and gone throughout the Indus Valley for centuries. What are you talking about "rejection"?

2vzi541ygyk21.jpg

Oh c'mmon use your 1 percent of sense and you would get your logics right.

"logics"...right.

In hinduism there are many sects. One can be athiest and still be hindus, bone can follow vedas and still be hindus, one can worship idols and still be called hindu.

That doesn't make much sense, but then again you are regurgitating RSS material, so I'm not surprised. Hinduism has many sects, Vedic isn't one of them...it's a religion that predates modern Hinduism.

Plus many religions and the great oldest civilization indus valley took birth in bharat.there was nothing called Pakistan. Bharat existed way back since centuries..Try your best next time.

Show me a map of where your "Bharat" was? There was nothing called Bharat ever in history...what did exist was the Indus Valley (Sindhu).

Nice try Dasyu. But your RSS myths are just that. This is the reason why Indian historians and archeologists are a laughing stock in the world.

Indians invented planes 7,000 years ago — and other startling claims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ongress/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1cada0d9da20
 
What is the difference between Hinduism in Pakistan vs Hinduism in India?

The difference is so stark, that they might as well be two different religions. The difference is that Pakistani Hindus still practice authentic Vedic beliefs, whereas Indian Hindus practice Puranic Hinduism or Brahmanism. The difference between the two is quite significant and historical and even violent.


30623607_1875880889138553_6481163992499748864_n.jpg

Early Vedic period
The Vedic religion was formed during the Vedic civilization, which developed in the Indus Valley following the collapse of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization in around ~1500 BC. During this collapsing period, the Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1000 BC, and along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which appears to have syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs. This essentially gave rise to Vedic civilization (Vedic tribes, Vedic religion and Vedic Sanskrit).

Indus Vedic faith
The Indus Vedic faith is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today. For example, the Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, and had no idols and no caste system. In fact, the Vedas forbade idolatry and the term “varna” (caste) is nowhere to be found.

“There is no evidence in the Vedas for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system,” Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies, states.

“The Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth,” Ram Sharan Sharma, an eminent historian and academic of Ancient and early Medieval India, states. “… [it] was primarily organized on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage.”

The Vedic gods mentioned in the Vedas are also starkly different what we consider “modern Hindu gods” today. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor – they were mainly adopted from the Bactria-Margiana Culture, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) and local Harappan beliefs.

These Vedic gods included:
Mitra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Mithra”)
Varuna (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Ahura Mazda”)
Indra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Verethraghna”)
Sorya (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Hvare-Khshaeta”)
Agni or Matarisvan (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Atar”)
Soma (borrowed from the Bactria-Margiana culture)

If anything, the Vedic people were more culturally and religiously related to the Avestan Iranians in the west than the Gangetic Dravidians in the east. Most strikingly, Vedic society made a strong point to differentiate themselves (Sindhu and Sapta Sindhu) from others, particularly the region east of the Indus which was the Ganges plain and Deccan. The people living in that region were referred to by the Vedics as "Dasyas". Keep this in mind for later.

Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in ~1300 BC and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes which included the Alinas (from Nuristan), Anu (from upper Punjab), Bhrigus (from Punjab), Bhalanas (from Bolan), Druhyus (from Swat), Matsya (from Cholistan), Parsu (from western Balochistan), Purus (from Thar) and Panis (from Sibi). The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating out of the Indus. The Bharatas and Purus were among the first to do so.

Late Vedic period & Ganges migration
Up until 1100 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (the Dravidians). After 1100 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and thus forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society had transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture and now tribes had a choice to remain in the Indus or migrate. The majority stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while others such as the Bharatas and Purus, migrated east towards the Ganges plain.

As these migrating tribes migrated and settled in the Ganges plain, they began breaking Vedic norms. They attempted to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order against the native Dravidians, but were unsuccessful. Within a few generations, the minority Vedic tribes had been completely usurped by the indigenous culture and faith. Their original Vedic faith, gods and customs were completely abandoned in favour of the indigenous Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs. Their original Vedic social order (as explained above) was replaced with the preexisting caste system. Through religious manipulation, the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges were made to surrender whatever little political rule they had acquired and and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants (Sudra caste) of their Dravidian masters. In another version of history, it is claimed that the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges plain successfully entrenched themselves into the ruling order, by adopting Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs, while subjecting the original native Dravidian population to the Sudra caste, though this seems highly unlikely. Regardless of who ruled who and who Brahmins really are (Vedic immigrants or native Gangetic Dravidians), the fact remains is that they abandoned Vedic faith and customs.

Puranic Hinduism/Brahminism vs Indus Vedic
None of the Dravidian and Gangetic gods such as Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma are mentioned in Rig Veda hymns nor do they appear in Vedic texts, Avestan texts or Hittite tablets. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharata and Varna Ashram Dharma of Manu refer to the Indus Vedics as 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'. These texts forbade Brahmans from even visiting the Indus Valley (Vahika-desa). Mahabharata texts also depict Dravidian gods like Krishna clashing with and defeating Vedic gods like Indra. Similarly, the Rig Veda contains taboos and injunctions against the Ganges plain and Deccan which Vedics referred to as "Dasya-varta" and regularly sung praises of Indra (god of thunderbolt) destroying "'Dasya-purahs' or cities in the Ganges plain and Deccan.

Clash of ideologies
Both Indus Vedic and Gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' between the two, indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture, Brahmanical caste ideology or the Puranas. Vice versa, the Puranic Hindus did not accept Vedic culture or beliefs either.

End result
Eventually by 500 BC, Persian rule took over much of the Indus Valley and Zoroastrianism began to spread and influence Vedic beliefs. Similarly under Greek and Macedonian rule, the Indus Vedics would be influenced by Paganism (Hellenism) and later under the Ashoka would eventually begin adopting Buddhism. On the flip side, the Ganges plain and Deccan did not have this outside influence, and hence Puranic Hinduism/Brahmanism would become the dominant form of Hinduism, while the Vedic faith would slowly fade away.

Hinduism in Pakistan
Most Hindus in Pakistan still incorporate some aspect of the Vedic faith. This can be proven from the gods that are worshiped among the different communities of Hindus in Pakistan:

- In Sindh, the most revered god among Sindhi Hindus is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda.

- In Kashmir, Pandits worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani.

- In KP, the Kalash tribe (although not Hindus) revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted by the Vedic culture originally from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna.

Vedic culture is still prevalent among the Hindus in Pakistan and the Kalash. A large percentage of Hindus in Pakistan are non vegetarian and some Hindu clans in Pakistan bury their dead. In Hyderabad you can find the famous graveyard of Thakur Jaati Hindus. Laal Chand Raybari, the first Pakistani Hindu soldier to be martyred, was buried rather than cremated.

At the same time, there is also a small population of Hindus in Pakistan who worship mainstream Hindu gods, similar to those found in India. However, this Hindu population arrived in Sindh and Punjab during the British Raj after 1857, mainly from places like Delhi, Bengal, eastern Rajasthan and southern Gujarat. During British rule, Brahmanism experianced a revival. They were chosen by the British to rule the colony, and were educated in English and placed in British government offices throughout the colony. The British also passed laws supporting and aiding Brahmanism. The British also created a myth that Brahmans were Aryans and a superior race, which oddly enough is still believed to this day, despite the fact that Aryans migrated into the Indus Valley and fused culturally with the remaining Harappans. How Aryans ended up in the Ganges is anyone's guess...yet the myth prevails.

Hinduism in India
In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman - all these gods were originally from Dravidian/South Indian culture, which were worshipped by them long before the Vedic faith had even been established. Vishnu is a god of the Ganges culture. The Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and others are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus, as they are among most Hindus in Pakistan.
 
For some bizarre reason my post was removed but anyway, he did not want creation of Pakistan. Then when it became obvious we would be created he wanted Pashtun regions to be independent or join Afghanistan.

And also wanted to be buried in his 'home' ie Afghanistan even after pledging himself to Pakistan.

If I'm wrong please correct me. Maybe I'm missing something. ,(I mean that genuinely btw)


Pakistan treated him like crap despite him pledging allegiance. Of course he wanted to get buried in Afghanistan
 
Pakistan treated him like crap despite him pledging allegiance. Of course he wanted to get buried in Afghanistan

Agreed. Bacha Khan wasn't against Pakistan. He first supported the idea of a new "United India", but when local support for it failed, he then pledged allegiance to Pakistan and fought for what some say was "Pashtun separatism", when in reality he was fighting for provincial autonomy. He was opposed against Pashtuns joining Afghanistan at that time.

Problem was in 1947, everything was controlled by the centre and the formation of "West Pakistan" was the biggest, stupidest decision in our history...it essentially abolished all the provincial legislatures and formed one big state.

Pakistan's provinces needed more autonomy and more say from the centre back then. This would have only helped the country, because when provinces have more say in their own affairs, they tend to cater to that local population.

Say for example Sindh. When language was demoted from the centre to the provinces, Sindh made Sindhi an official language of the province alongside English and Urdu. Today Sindhi children are educated in all three languages. Balochistan has also now enacted that Brahui and Balochi be taught in schools. KP is in the process of doing the same with Pashto, but is beind opposed by Hindko speakers of Hazara and Khowar speakers in Chitral. Meanwhile I have no idea what Punjab is doing.

Same thing with health and education. Both were under control from the federal government and we all see what good that did. I think it was under Musharraf that both health and education were demoted to the provinces to handle.

This is what Bacha Khan was advocating...more provincial autonomy.
 
Agreed. Bacha Khan wasn't against Pakistan. He first supported the idea of a new "United India", but when local support for it failed, he then pledged allegiance to Pakistan and fought for what some say was "Pashtun separatism", when in reality he was fighting for provincial autonomy. He was opposed against Pashtuns joining Afghanistan at that time.

Problem was in 1947, everything was controlled by the centre and the formation of "West Pakistan" was the biggest, stupidest decision in our history...it essentially abolished all the provincial legislatures and formed one big state.

Pakistan's provinces needed more autonomy and more say from the centre back then. This would have only helped the country, because when provinces have more say in their own affairs, they tend to cater to that local population.

Say for example Sindh. When language was demoted from the centre to the provinces, Sindh made Sindhi an official language of the province alongside English and Urdu. Today Sindhi children are educated in all three languages. Balochistan has also now enacted that Brahui and Balochi be taught in schools. KP is in the process of doing the same with Pashto, but is beind opposed by Hindko speakers of Hazara and Khowar speakers in Chitral. Meanwhile I have no idea what Punjab is doing.

Same thing with health and education. Both were under control from the federal government and we all see what good that did. I think it was under Musharraf that both health and education were demoted to the provinces to handle.

This is what Bacha Khan was advocating...more provincial autonomy.

There was a lot to Bacha Khan and he was looking out for the interest of the masses than himself. It is unfortuante what the popular narrative has become. Dare I say this is the result of recent punjabi dominance in power
 
Indus people were the Vedics and only accept Vedas as absolute truth since they regard Sindhu (Indus) as the holy land.

You Ganges Dasyus are Puranic Hindus who invented their own religion and wrote myths like Puranas, Manusmirti and Mahabharata.

Vedics rejected your nonsense. In response the Ganges Dasyus called is Mlecha and our land Vahika Desa.

Stop conflicting Vedic faith with your Puranic myths.

What is the difference between Hinduism in Pakistan vs Hinduism in India?

The difference is so stark, that they might as well be two different religions. The difference is that Pakistani Hindus still practice authentic Vedic beliefs, whereas Indian Hindus practice Puranic Hinduism or Brahmanism. The difference between the two is quite significant and historical and even violent.


View attachment 93571

Early Vedic period
The Vedic religion was formed during the Vedic civilization, which developed in the Indus Valley following the collapse of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization in around ~1500 BC. During this collapsing period, the Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1000 BC, and along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which appears to have syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs. This essentially gave rise to Vedic civilization (Vedic tribes, Vedic religion and Vedic Sanskrit).

Indus Vedic faith
The Indus Vedic faith is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today. For example, the Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, and had no idols and no caste system. In fact, the Vedas forbade idolatry and the term “varna” (caste) is nowhere to be found.

“There is no evidence in the Vedas for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system,” Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies, states.

“The Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth,” Ram Sharan Sharma, an eminent historian and academic of Ancient and early Medieval India, states. “… [it] was primarily organized on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage.”

The Vedic gods mentioned in the Vedas are also starkly different what we consider “modern Hindu gods” today. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor – they were mainly adopted from the Bactria-Margiana Culture, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) and local Harappan beliefs.

These Vedic gods included:
Mitra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Mithra”)
Varuna (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Ahura Mazda”)
Indra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Verethraghna”)
Sorya (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Hvare-Khshaeta”)
Agni or Matarisvan (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Atar”)
Soma (borrowed from the Bactria-Margiana culture)

If anything, the Vedic people were more culturally and religiously related to the Avestan Iranians in the west than the Gangetic Dravidians in the east. Most strikingly, Vedic society made a strong point to differentiate themselves (Sindhu and Sapta Sindhu) from others, particularly the region east of the Indus which was the Ganges plain and Deccan. The people living in that region were referred to by the Vedics as "Dasyas". Keep this in mind for later.

Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in ~1300 BC and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes which included the Alinas (from Nuristan), Anu (from upper Punjab), Bhrigus (from Punjab), Bhalanas (from Bolan), Druhyus (from Swat), Matsya (from Cholistan), Parsu (from western Balochistan), Purus (from Thar) and Panis (from Sibi). The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating out of the Indus. The Bharatas and Purus were among the first to do so.

Late Vedic period & Ganges migration
Up until 1100 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (the Dravidians). After 1100 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and thus forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society had transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture and now tribes had a choice to remain in the Indus or migrate. The majority stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while others such as the Bharatas and Purus, migrated east towards the Ganges plain.

As these migrating tribes migrated and settled in the Ganges plain, they began breaking Vedic norms. They attempted to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order against the native Dravidians, but were unsuccessful. Within a few generations, the minority Vedic tribes had been completely usurped by the indigenous culture and faith. Their original Vedic faith, gods and customs were completely abandoned in favour of the indigenous Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs. Their original Vedic social order (as explained above) was replaced with the preexisting caste system. Through religious manipulation, the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges were made to surrender whatever little political rule they had acquired and and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants (Sudra caste) of their Dravidian masters. In another version of history, it is claimed that the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges plain successfully entrenched themselves into the ruling order, by adopting Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs, while subjecting the original native Dravidian population to the Sudra caste, though this seems highly unlikely. Regardless of who ruled who and who Brahmins really are (Vedic immigrants or native Gangetic Dravidians), the fact remains is that they abandoned Vedic faith and customs.

Puranic Hinduism/Brahminism vs Indus Vedic
None of the Dravidian and Gangetic gods such as Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma are mentioned in Rig Veda hymns nor do they appear in Vedic texts, Avestan texts or Hittite tablets. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharata and Varna Ashram Dharma of Manu refer to the Indus Vedics as 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'. These texts forbade Brahmans from even visiting the Indus Valley (Vahika-desa). Mahabharata texts also depict Dravidian gods like Krishna clashing with and defeating Vedic gods like Indra. Similarly, the Rig Veda contains taboos and injunctions against the Ganges plain and Deccan which Vedics referred to as "Dasya-varta" and regularly sung praises of Indra (god of thunderbolt) destroying "'Dasya-purahs' or cities in the Ganges plain and Deccan.

Clash of ideologies
Both Indus Vedic and Gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' between the two, indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture, Brahmanical caste ideology or the Puranas. Vice versa, the Puranic Hindus did not accept Vedic culture or beliefs either.

End result
Eventually by 500 BC, Persian rule took over much of the Indus Valley and Zoroastrianism began to spread and influence Vedic beliefs. Similarly under Greek and Macedonian rule, the Indus Vedics would be influenced by Paganism (Hellenism) and later under the Ashoka would eventually begin adopting Buddhism. On the flip side, the Ganges plain and Deccan did not have this outside influence, and hence Puranic Hinduism/Brahmanism would become the dominant form of Hinduism, while the Vedic faith would slowly fade away.

Hinduism in Pakistan
Most Hindus in Pakistan still incorporate some aspect of the Vedic faith. This can be proven from the gods that are worshiped among the different communities of Hindus in Pakistan:

- In Sindh, the most revered god among Sindhi Hindus is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda.

- In Kashmir, Pandits worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani.

- In KP, the Kalash tribe (although not Hindus) revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted by the Vedic culture originally from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna.

Vedic culture is still prevalent among the Hindus in Pakistan and the Kalash. A large percentage of Hindus in Pakistan are non vegetarian and some Hindu clans in Pakistan bury their dead. In Hyderabad you can find the famous graveyard of Thakur Jaati Hindus. Laal Chand Raybari, the first Pakistani Hindu soldier to be martyred, was buried rather than cremated.

At the same time, there is also a small population of Hindus in Pakistan who worship mainstream Hindu gods, similar to those found in India. However, this Hindu population arrived in Sindh and Punjab during the British Raj after 1857, mainly from places like Delhi, Bengal, eastern Rajasthan and southern Gujarat. During British rule, Brahmanism experianced a revival. They were chosen by the British to rule the colony, and were educated in English and placed in British government offices throughout the colony. The British also passed laws supporting and aiding Brahmanism. The British also created a myth that Brahmans were Aryans and a superior race, which oddly enough is still believed to this day, despite the fact that Aryans migrated into the Indus Valley and fused culturally with the remaining Harappans. How Aryans ended up in the Ganges is anyone's guess...yet the myth prevails.

Hinduism in India
In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman - all these gods were originally from Dravidian/South Indian culture, which were worshipped by them long before the Vedic faith had even been established. Vishnu is a god of the Ganges culture. The Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and others are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus, as they are among most Hindus in Pakistan.
Neither I nor nobody would read your essay. To sum it up your paragraph there is very much difference between hinduism of my street in my city of India and next street.
I told you thousand times that hinduism is not one belief. There are hundreds of philosphies in hinduism. Nobody is bound to belief one system. Vedas are core basic of hinduism.
Pakistani and hindustani people have same ancestors and used to follow different philophies of hinduism. Everybody knows this.
But saying indians people dnt own Vedas but muslims of Pakistan own Vedas ,is like I dnt kw what to say.
Between I am proud that at least there are some people of present Pakistan who are still proud of their civilization. Every one in Pakistan should read Vedas.
We indians i mean hinduism people won't mind pakistani people following Vedas religion. 😄
 
Listen you do not have the slightest clue about bacha Khan and what he stood for. Like I suggested read a history book rather than pakpassion posts or listening to uncles in a drawing room.

I really don’t need to read a book: his legacy seems to inspire the separatists of today who consider the APS massacre to be a false flag and who don’t recognize the borders of the country. His final act of defiance was how he should be remembered by any one who believes in the physical idea of Pakistan
 
I really don’t need to read a book: his legacy seems to inspire the separatists of today who consider the APS massacre to be a false flag and who don’t recognize the borders of the country. His final act of defiance was how he should be remembered by any one who believes in the physical idea of Pakistan

Which "separatists" are you referring to exactly?
 
Agreed. Bacha Khan wasn't against Pakistan. He first supported the idea of a new "United India", but when local support for it failed, he then pledged allegiance to Pakistan and fought for what some say was "Pashtun separatism", when in reality he was fighting for provincial autonomy. He was opposed against Pashtuns joining Afghanistan at that time.

Problem was in 1947, everything was controlled by the centre and the formation of "West Pakistan" was the biggest, stupidest decision in our history...it essentially abolished all the provincial legislatures and formed one big state.

Pakistan's provinces needed more autonomy and more say from the centre back then. This would have only helped the country, because when provinces have more say in their own affairs, they tend to cater to that local population.

Say for example Sindh. When language was demoted from the centre to the provinces, Sindh made Sindhi an official language of the province alongside English and Urdu. Today Sindhi children are educated in all three languages. Balochistan has also now enacted that Brahui and Balochi be taught in schools. KP is in the process of doing the same with Pashto, but is beind opposed by Hindko speakers of Hazara and Khowar speakers in Chitral. Meanwhile I have no idea what Punjab is doing.

Same thing with health and education. Both were under control from the federal government and we all see what good that did. I think it was under Musharraf that both health and education were demoted to the provinces to handle.

This is what Bacha Khan was advocating...more provincial autonomy.

If there is no local support for your big idea, then you are not much of a politician. To be clear even Jinnah was not pro Independence, but he changed his mind not for political expediency, but because he saw the writing on the wall in majority united India.
As for Bacha Khan, the more time passes the more irrelevant him, GM Syed, altaf Hussain, bugti will and need to become.
If the only way their heirs can channel their grievance is by acting against Pakistan in word and deed, then these ppl really need their legacy to be protected by such imposters.
 
Why is the ignorance of angraiz being labelled at a fact? By your logic, Japanese and Chinese are the same. We share similarities but we're not the same. Get that into your head.

Genetically we are different, ethnically we are different, and culturally we are different. Just because the British came and clumped us together into colony called "British India" for 90 years doesn't erase over 3000 years of Indus history.

Are you sure Indian and Pakistani Punjabis are genetically different? Is this something you just decided was true or do you have a reference to an actual scientific paper that says so?
 
Are you sure Indian and Pakistani Punjabis are genetically different? Is this something you just decided was true or do you have a reference to an actual scientific paper that says so?

I'm talking about the Indus and Ganges, not Pakistan and India.

Punjabis are all Indus origin people. They make up less than 2% of the Indian population. They're about as Indian as a Russian is.

As for your evidence, scroll up. I've posted several sources and graphics for people to read.
 
If there is no local support for your big idea, then you are not much of a politician. To be clear even Jinnah was not pro Independence, but he changed his mind not for political expediency, but because he saw the writing on the wall in majority united India.
As for Bacha Khan, the more time passes the more irrelevant him, GM Syed, altaf Hussain, bugti will and need to become.
If the only way their heirs can channel their grievance is by acting against Pakistan in word and deed, then these ppl really need their legacy to be protected by such imposters.

It's people like you which will destroy Pakistan in the end. Filled with conspiracy theory and paranoia.
 
What is the difference between Hinduism in Pakistan vs Hinduism in India?

The difference is so stark, that they might as well be two different religions. The difference is that Pakistani Hindus still practice authentic Vedic beliefs, whereas Indian Hindus practice Puranic Hinduism or Brahmanism. The difference between the two is quite significant and historical and even violent.


View attachment 93571

Early Vedic period
The Vedic religion was formed during the Vedic civilization, which developed in the Indus Valley following the collapse of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization in around ~1500 BC. During this collapsing period, the Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1000 BC, and along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which appears to have syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs. This essentially gave rise to Vedic civilization (Vedic tribes, Vedic religion and Vedic Sanskrit).

Indus Vedic faith
The Indus Vedic faith is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today. For example, the Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, and had no idols and no caste system. In fact, the Vedas forbade idolatry and the term “varna” (caste) is nowhere to be found.

“There is no evidence in the Vedas for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system,” Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies, states.

“The Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth,” Ram Sharan Sharma, an eminent historian and academic of Ancient and early Medieval India, states. “… [it] was primarily organized on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage.”

The Vedic gods mentioned in the Vedas are also starkly different what we consider “modern Hindu gods” today. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor – they were mainly adopted from the Bactria-Margiana Culture, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) and local Harappan beliefs.

These Vedic gods included:
Mitra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Mithra”)
Varuna (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Ahura Mazda”)
Indra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Verethraghna”)
Sorya (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Hvare-Khshaeta”)
Agni or Matarisvan (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Atar”)
Soma (borrowed from the Bactria-Margiana culture)

If anything, the Vedic people were more culturally and religiously related to the Avestan Iranians in the west than the Gangetic Dravidians in the east. Most strikingly, Vedic society made a strong point to differentiate themselves (Sindhu and Sapta Sindhu) from others, particularly the region east of the Indus which was the Ganges plain and Deccan. The people living in that region were referred to by the Vedics as "Dasyas". Keep this in mind for later.

Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in ~1300 BC and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes which included the Alinas (from Nuristan), Anu (from upper Punjab), Bhrigus (from Punjab), Bhalanas (from Bolan), Druhyus (from Swat), Matsya (from Cholistan), Parsu (from western Balochistan), Purus (from Thar) and Panis (from Sibi). The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating out of the Indus. The Bharatas and Purus were among the first to do so.

Late Vedic period & Ganges migration
Up until 1100 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (the Dravidians). After 1100 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and thus forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society had transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture and now tribes had a choice to remain in the Indus or migrate. The majority stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while others such as the Bharatas and Purus, migrated east towards the Ganges plain.

As these migrating tribes migrated and settled in the Ganges plain, they began breaking Vedic norms. They attempted to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order against the native Dravidians, but were unsuccessful. Within a few generations, the minority Vedic tribes had been completely usurped by the indigenous culture and faith. Their original Vedic faith, gods and customs were completely abandoned in favour of the indigenous Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs. Their original Vedic social order (as explained above) was replaced with the preexisting caste system. Through religious manipulation, the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges were made to surrender whatever little political rule they had acquired and and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants (Sudra caste) of their Dravidian masters. In another version of history, it is claimed that the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges plain successfully entrenched themselves into the ruling order, by adopting Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs, while subjecting the original native Dravidian population to the Sudra caste, though this seems highly unlikely. Regardless of who ruled who and who Brahmins really are (Vedic immigrants or native Gangetic Dravidians), the fact remains is that they abandoned Vedic faith and customs.

Puranic Hinduism/Brahminism vs Indus Vedic
None of the Dravidian and Gangetic gods such as Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma are mentioned in Rig Veda hymns nor do they appear in Vedic texts, Avestan texts or Hittite tablets. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharata and Varna Ashram Dharma of Manu refer to the Indus Vedics as 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'. These texts forbade Brahmans from even visiting the Indus Valley (Vahika-desa). Mahabharata texts also depict Dravidian gods like Krishna clashing with and defeating Vedic gods like Indra. Similarly, the Rig Veda contains taboos and injunctions against the Ganges plain and Deccan which Vedics referred to as "Dasya-varta" and regularly sung praises of Indra (god of thunderbolt) destroying "'Dasya-purahs' or cities in the Ganges plain and Deccan.

Clash of ideologies
Both Indus Vedic and Gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' between the two, indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture, Brahmanical caste ideology or the Puranas. Vice versa, the Puranic Hindus did not accept Vedic culture or beliefs either.

End result
Eventually by 500 BC, Persian rule took over much of the Indus Valley and Zoroastrianism began to spread and influence Vedic beliefs. Similarly under Greek and Macedonian rule, the Indus Vedics would be influenced by Paganism (Hellenism) and later under the Ashoka would eventually begin adopting Buddhism. On the flip side, the Ganges plain and Deccan did not have this outside influence, and hence Puranic Hinduism/Brahmanism would become the dominant form of Hinduism, while the Vedic faith would slowly fade away.

Hinduism in Pakistan
Most Hindus in Pakistan still incorporate some aspect of the Vedic faith. This can be proven from the gods that are worshiped among the different communities of Hindus in Pakistan:

- In Sindh, the most revered god among Sindhi Hindus is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda.

- In Kashmir, Pandits worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani.

- In KP, the Kalash tribe (although not Hindus) revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted by the Vedic culture originally from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna.

Vedic culture is still prevalent among the Hindus in Pakistan and the Kalash. A large percentage of Hindus in Pakistan are non vegetarian and some Hindu clans in Pakistan bury their dead. In Hyderabad you can find the famous graveyard of Thakur Jaati Hindus. Laal Chand Raybari, the first Pakistani Hindu soldier to be martyred, was buried rather than cremated.

At the same time, there is also a small population of Hindus in Pakistan who worship mainstream Hindu gods, similar to those found in India. However, this Hindu population arrived in Sindh and Punjab during the British Raj after 1857, mainly from places like Delhi, Bengal, eastern Rajasthan and southern Gujarat. During British rule, Brahmanism experianced a revival. They were chosen by the British to rule the colony, and were educated in English and placed in British government offices throughout the colony. The British also passed laws supporting and aiding Brahmanism. The British also created a myth that Brahmans were Aryans and a superior race, which oddly enough is still believed to this day, despite the fact that Aryans migrated into the Indus Valley and fused culturally with the remaining Harappans. How Aryans ended up in the Ganges is anyone's guess...yet the myth prevails.

Hinduism in India
In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman - all these gods were originally from Dravidian/South Indian culture, which were worshipped by them long before the Vedic faith had even been established. Vishnu is a god of the Ganges culture. The Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and others are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus, as they are among most Hindus in Pakistan.

Neither I nor nobody would read your essay. To sum it up your paragraph there is very much difference between hinduism of my street in my city of India and next street.
I told you thousand times that hinduism is not one belief. There are hundreds of philosphies in hinduism. Nobody is bound to belief one system. Vedas are core basic of hinduism.
Pakistani and hindustani people have same ancestors and used to follow different philophies of hinduism. Everybody knows this.
But saying indians people dnt own Vedas but muslims of Pakistan own Vedas ,is like I dnt kw what to say.
Between I am proud that at least there are some people of present Pakistan who are still proud of their civilization. Every one in Pakistan should read Vedas.
We indians i mean hinduism people won't mind pakistani people following Vedas religion. 😄

Akki, you are right, not many would read his essay. A lot of fanciful nonsense about how Hinduism is borrowed from the Iranians.

It is true that the people of ancient India and Iran had many cultural and ethnic links. However the poor Iranians got serially conquered by Arabs, Mongols and Turks so that very little of the ancient people remain, especially the paternal line. That is the reason the paternal line (Y-chromosome R) is still strongly present in India and Europe while is very limited in modern Iran and Turkey.
 
Back
Top