What's new

Renaming spree: Erasing Muslim heritage in India

nextover666666

First Class Captain
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Runs
4,257
Found this article I had no idea was an interesting read

Renaming spree: Erasing Muslim heritage in India
Inadequacies of the Modi government may have left no option but play the Hindu card

Published: November 17, 2018 16:28
By Amulya Ganguli


Mughalsarai Junction was officially renamed as Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar Junction.
Image Credit: RAIL NEWS
The chief minister of the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Yogi Adityanath, has lived up to his reputation as a Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) hawk. His attitude has not mellowed after ascending to power. Instead, he has used his political clout to state that Hindu symbols and signs are of overriding importance. Hence, the concept of a huge statue of Rama on the banks of the Saryu, the wholehearted support to the Ram temple movement and the erasure of Muslim names of towns.

Starting with the renaming of the Mughal Sarai railway junction, familiar to countless travellers, after a person who is little known outside the Hindutva camp — Deen Dayal Upadhyay — the Adityanath government has been energetically changing the names of other places as well. These include Allahabad, which has become Prayagraj, Faizabad is now Ayodhya, and Muzaffarnagar, which may soon be called Laxmi Nagar if the government accepts the suggestion by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of legislature Sangeet Som, who had called the Taj Mahal a “blot” on Indian culture.

Encouraged by Adityanath, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani has suggested the name Karnavati for Ahmedabad. Not to be left behind, the BJP’s ally, Shiv Sena, has sought a time-frame for renaming Aurangabad and Osmanabad. Hyderabad too is under the Hindutva scanner: The BJP has said that if it wins the assembly elections in Telangana, it will rename the city Bhagyanagar.

Although cities have been renamed in the past — Chennai for Madras, Mumbai for Bombay, Kolkata for Calcutta — the idea was generally to revive an old name such as the association of Madras/Chennai with a 16th-century ruler, Chennappa Naicker. Or to pay homage to a local deity, Mumbadevi, as in the case of Bombay. Or to bring a name phonetically close to the way it is locally pronounced like Kolkata. But rarely has a city been renamed to highlight a Hindu name and snub Muslims.

True, the names of roads and localities (such as Clive Street or Connaught Place) associated with the British rulers were changed. But that was to sever a colonial connection although the names of “friendly” foreigners were retained, as in the case of the Corbett National Park. But the saffron brotherhood’s drive is solely motivated by a desire to erase all signs of Muslim heritage, presumably because of the belief that the community does not — or at least should not — have any place in the country. Hence, BJP MP Vinay Katiyar’s advice to Muslims living in India to go to Pakistan or Bangladesh.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP hold the view that the Mughals and the Muslim rulers before them, as well as their co-religionists today, are aliens, although the Mughals and the others made India their home unlike the British. Although RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat argued at a conclave in Delhi earlier this year that Hindutva is incomplete without Muslims — thereby acknowledging the country’s multi-religious identity — Adityanath’s acts show that the case for accommodation is not accepted by the Hindutva hawks.

To them, the replacement of the signs of Muslim presence is an expression of Hindu pride just as the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the Gujarat riots of 2002 were cited as instances of Hindu “awakening”. Multicultural tenets are anathema to the Hindutva brigade as they militate against the “one nation, one people, one culture” ideals of a Hindu Rashtra, where the minorities will be second class citizens. The Hindus-only tunnel-vision of the hardliners ignores the fact that India is the birthplace of four religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism — and the home of the followers of three other faiths — Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, not to mention the animism of the tribals.

The urgency to erase Muslim signs in the twilight years of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government may be due to the apprehension that the inadequacies of the government have left it with no option but to play the Hindu card with greater fervour. The tactic has only brought to the fore the long-standing anti-minority outlook of the Sangh Parivar (family). It is also evident that the occasional homilies of the RSS bigwigs in favour of accommodating Muslims and the lectures favouring pluralism have had little effect.

The humiliating wiping out of little bits of India’s past with their Muslim associations can only widen the gulf between the Hindus and the country’s largest minority community, even if Muslims understand the crass political intent of the provocative acts, which have the support of only saffron outfits and not of Hindus in general.

For the political saffronites, it has been a step-by-step process of rewriting history. When Murli Manohar Joshi was the Union human resources development minister, the Middle Ages were presented as a time of constant conflict between Hindus and the “invaders”. The latest attempt is to obliterate the concept of a composite culture or the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb (culture), as it is known in Uttar Pradesh.

— IANS

Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst in India.
 
Don't see any problem in renaming cities to their older names, as not a fan of the murderous invaders, except that it is being done by bjp, therefore the intent cannot be ignored. they came on the promise of development and are now reduced to playing their old card of hindu victimization.
 
It's okay to rename cities but if your mission is to erase a history of a certain group of people than that is wrong especially if they people are a strong population in the country and have contributed to the country in many different ways as well
 
It's okay to rename cities but if your mission is to erase a history of a certain group of people than that is wrong especially if they people are a strong population in the country and have contributed to the country in many different ways as well

History can be both good or bad and one must be aware of both. but those who left bad memories on the communities should not be honoured by having cities and institutions named after them.
 
History can be both good or bad and one must be aware of both. but those who left bad memories on the communities should not be honoured by having cities and institutions named after them.

maybe you guys should destroy the taj mahal, muslim invaders built it.
 
maybe you guys should destroy the taj mahal, muslim invaders built it.

it should only be renamed, not detroyed, as it was built with the wealth of the local population, it is not like the mughals brought money with them and invested in india.
 
it should only be renamed, not detroyed, as it was built with the wealth of the local population, it is not like the mughals brought money with them and invested in india.

Need to get rid of that dome and those minaret looking things though, cos they deffo brought that with them.

Also redirect new visitors towards that new barefoot statue
 
this is only the beginning. Now that the RSS mentality has taken full root within modern india, every trace of modern Indias previous rich Muslim heritage will be wiped out. Pakistan should be making a bit more noise about this as we are the true inheritors of the legacy of the Muslims in the subcontinent.
 
it should only be renamed, not detroyed, as it was built with the wealth of the local population, it is not like the mughals brought money with them and invested in india.

The Taj Mahal should be handed over to pakistan and Bangladesh as part of a unified trust. The Muslims of India can also participate. All proceedings from tourism to this site should be depostied into the accounts of the waqf who can then use this money to refurbish and maintain this historical site. Pakistan with Bangladesh (if they want) should setup a Mughal heritage trust that takes voer all Mughal and Muslim heritage buildings in India. The Indian state should give up all revenues generated by any visitors coming to these sites.
 
Need to get rid of that dome and those minaret looking things though, cos they deffo brought that with them.

Also redirect new visitors towards that new barefoot statue

the opposition is not against architecture or even religion but against specific people who dont deserve any place of honour in the country.
 
The Taj Mahal should be handed over to pakistan and Bangladesh as part of a unified trust. The Muslims of India can also participate. All proceedings from tourism to this site should be depostied into the accounts of the waqf who can then use this money to refurbish and maintain this historical site. Pakistan with Bangladesh (if they want) should setup a Mughal heritage trust that takes voer all Mughal and Muslim heritage buildings in India. The Indian state should give up all revenues generated by any visitors coming to these sites.

It should be renamed to Ram Mahal as it was hindus money that was used. Then it should be handed over to the hindu waqf board of the RSS.
 
this is only the beginning. Now that the RSS mentality has taken full root within modern india, every trace of modern Indias previous rich Muslim heritage will be wiped out. Pakistan should be making a bit more noise about this as we are the true inheritors of the legacy of the Muslims in the subcontinent.

As long as we have parhe likhe jaahils in India these things will continue to happen. I mean if you don't have anything else to show for your next election campaign you just rename cities, build statues and that will solve all the problems. I am sure after renaming all these architectures, buildings and cities they will start issuing a new aadhar card to every muslim citizen with a new name too.

Our economy and standard of living are improving but so are the number of jaahils who support these actions. :inti
 
this is only the beginning. Now that the RSS mentality has taken full root within modern india, every trace of modern Indias previous rich Muslim heritage will be wiped out. Pakistan should be making a bit more noise about this as we are the true inheritors of the legacy of the Muslims in the subcontinent.

the mughal left india with very little heritage. thank god for the british who came and reversed the damages and introduced scientific thought and modern education. just an example, mughals didnt care to investigate the ruins of harappa as they didnt have intellectual curiosity, but the british formed archaelogical survey and found wealth of history. Can't thank enough for the coming of the British and it is my dream to see British Raj 2.0 once again.
 
the mughal left india with very little heritage. thank god for the british who came and reversed the damages and introduced scientific thought and modern education. just an example, mughals didnt care to investigate the ruins of harappa as they didnt have intellectual curiosity, but the british formed archaelogical survey and found wealth of history. Can't thank enough for the coming of the British and it is my dream to see British Raj 2.0 once again.

It may seem unlikely, but who knows? If we British are welcomed back as ruling elite once more, with our exquisite dinner parties where we are served by locals in our summer retreats in the hills, I am optimistic we could bring order and sanity to your country.
 
As long as we have parhe likhe jaahils in India these things will continue to happen. I mean if you don't have anything else to show for your next election campaign you just rename cities, build statues and that will solve all the problems. I am sure after renaming all these architectures, buildings and cities they will start issuing a new aadhar card to every muslim citizen with a new name too.

Our economy and standard of living are improving but so are the number of jaahils who support these actions. :inti

agreed. the parhe likhe jaahils are those who think mughals equals muslims..when the mughal rule was etablished by killing other muslims.
 
It may seem unlikely, but who knows? If we British are welcomed back as ruling elite once more, with our exquisite dinner parties where we are served by locals in our summer retreats in the hills, I am optimistic we could bring order and sanity to your country.

not you my fellow desi friend. unless a true british like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] decides to give you a higher post to rule over the native indians, you are just one of us..ex servants of the glorious British Raj.
 
it should only be renamed, not detroyed, as it was built with the wealth of the local population, it is not like the mughals brought money with them and invested in india.

So it is ok to attract millions of tourist to your country with the creation of Muslims but not credit them.
 
It's defn unfortunate and stupid petty politics , hopefully it would be corrected soon, people should challenge such decisions in court about time.
 
not you my fellow desi friend. unless a true british like [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] decides to give you a higher post to rule over the native indians, you are just one of us..ex servants of the glorious British Raj.

One of the first acts upon resuming rule of the jewel in the crown of Empire will be to repeal laws ensuring protection of endangered animals. How grand it will be to follow in the footsteps of our forefathers by taking part in tiger hunts with Indian natives beating a clear path through the bush before us.
 
I’m sure that a lot of ppl feel justified about doing such things. At the end of the day it’s their country and as long as it doesn’t cause violence or any other human rights violation to the minorities then I can understand their desire to do such things. Doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. Unfortunately that is how the societies with the history of religious/ideological conflicts work.
 
Challenge what? And on what basis?

On basis of why it's being changed, highlight the bias of Hindutva govns.. India as a country is formed in 1947 all religions, races, history is part of it, Invaders or no Invaders someone or other was invader at some.poijt of time.
 
On basis of why it's being changed, highlight the bias of Hindutva govns.. India as a country is formed in 1947 all religions, races, history is part of it, Invaders or no Invaders someone or other was invader at some.poijt of time.

a nation is founded on bias. deal with it.
 
Pakistan is the continuation of muslim heritage of the Indian subcontinent, It is only right for those in a position of power to maintain and preserve their Heritage, Pakistan being the central power of muslims in the Subcontinant has to preserve this.
 
the mughal left india with very little heritage. thank god for the british who came and reversed the damages and introduced scientific thought and modern education. just an example, mughals didnt care to investigate the ruins of harappa as they didnt have intellectual curiosity, but the british formed archaelogical survey and found wealth of history. Can't thank enough for the coming of the British and it is my dream to see British Raj 2.0 once again.

Thank God for the British?? LOL!! Time for you to see some.of their atrocities on YouTube. Knowledge is freely available. You just have to tap it. If people like me who knew nothing about this just a few years ago can access this info, I'm sure you can too. Google the name Shashi Tharoor and watch his videos about British atrocities.
 
Don't see any problem in renaming cities to their older names, as not a fan of the murderous invaders, except that it is being done by bjp, therefore the intent cannot be ignored. they came on the promise of development and are now reduced to playing their old card of hindu victimization.

There won’t be a single Hindu today in India if those were actual murderous invaders. I recently was impressed by all
Muslims leaders who never let go of their mixed representation in armies which included Hindus.

Murderous invaders were the Spaniards and French who left no Muslim alive in Andalusia. Or what Indian army is trying to do in Kashmir these days.
 
I really dont know why they are wasting their time. Chances are because it's India some other army will come, invade and rule changing the names of towns, so Bombay to Mumbai to Shangbaio is likely.
 
I really dont know why they are wasting their time. Chances are because it's India some other army will come, invade and rule changing the names of towns, so Bombay to Mumbai to Shangbaio is likely.

That is the beauty of the Hindu faith, it is ever adaptive and presentable wherever it surfaces, hence why we Brits admire them so much and give them star billings over Tom Cruise and Emma Watson.
 
That is the beauty of the Hindu faith, it is ever adaptive and presentable wherever it surfaces, hence why we Brits admire them so much and give them star billings over Tom Cruise and Emma Watson.

Coz you ruled them for centuries also helps in admiring them!:sarf2
 
Thank God for the British?? LOL!! Time for you to see some.of their atrocities on YouTube. Knowledge is freely available. You just have to tap it. If people like me who knew nothing about this just a few years ago can access this info, I'm sure you can too. Google the name Shashi Tharoor and watch his videos about British atrocities.

Atrocities so what? At least they came from a civilized nation and brought scientific temper and modern education with them. They formed many educational institutes and brought acts and policies for social and educational reform , founded Archaelogical survey of India, geological survey of india, gave parliament, railroads and the best language English, which I have been trying to learn as a kid. Every imperial power committed atrocities, but the British were the most civilized among them. It was them who sowed the seeds of india's revival and if they were still ruling, we would be an advanced country by now. the mughals brought backwardness and barbarism with them and the indians post british have brought corruption and communalism.
 
Coz you ruled them for centuries also helps in admiring them!:sarf2

To be fair it was the Mughals that ruled India, not the darker skinned Indian converts which makes up majority of the current muslim population aka > :sarf2. There is a reason why people of Imran Khan's physical appearance is like hen's tooth :angel:....
 
Last edited:
There won’t be a single Hindu today in India if those were actual murderous invaders. I recently was impressed by all
Muslims leaders who never let go of their mixed representation in armies which included Hindus.

Murderous invaders were the Spaniards and French who left no Muslim alive in Andalusia. Or what Indian army is trying to do in Kashmir these days.

The sheer number of hindus and the vast territories and the resolve of hindus to fight back preserved hinduism. Else the muslim invaders wiped out non muslims from Afghanistan and almost wiped them out from what is now pakistan.

Pray tell me since when Muslims were residing in Andalusia?
 
I really dont know why they are wasting their time. Chances are because it's India some other army will come, invade and rule changing the names of towns, so Bombay to Mumbai to Shangbaio is likely.

There are More chances of this happening to Lahore and Islamabad.
 
I really dont know why they are wasting their time. Chances are because it's India some other army will come, invade and rule changing the names of towns, so Bombay to Mumbai to Shangbaio is likely.

We don't even allow foreign Army in our country but some country's jus allow drones, armies all over theirs so take your wet drram and enjoy your sahib's country.
 
There are More chances of this happening to Lahore and Islamabad.

Lahore and Islamabad are already fabulously developed cities where the property value rivals that of western cities. I am happy for invasion of the more backward rural areas, the invading armies can rename them whatever they want. Although apparently Alexander the Great was stopped at Multan by an arrow and turned back so the savages who lived there didn't know a good thing when they saw one.
 
Aurangzeb integrated Hindus into his bureaucracy for pragmatic reasons, not for religious tolerance, mainly in order to extend his grip on the Deccan plateau. When there was the Aurangzeb/Dara Shikoh rift, the Hindu Rajputs in the administration sided with the latter, while the Hindu Marathas chose the former. Hindus also represented the highest percentage of the Mughal nobility under him, at nearly 30%, more than Akbar, at 22%, and it was again due to the integration of Marathas for pragmatic reasons, a rise which also created intra-Hindu rivalries, upsetting the Rajputs, who for the first time since Akbar were no more the Mughal's prime Hindu collaborators. Audrey Truschke discusses it in her book on the emperor.

truschke is a poor academic and her hagiography of barbarians has been debunked.
 
truschke is a poor academic and her hagiography of barbarians has been debunked.

Yes I also disagree with propensity to show our emperor as politically correct and nearly Hinduphile, but there are interesting points in the book as well.
 
I am a little worried that Indians will start wiping out all signs of British architecture as well in this drive for Hindu identity. [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION], did you ever see the video on YT called India 2030 incredible India? The one where white people were sweeping floors and begging on the streets? The computer generated image of the buildings wasn't impressive in my opinion I am oping that British architects might be invited to redesign some of the bigger cities, we are master road planners and many of India's more impressive structures were legacies left by British empire. Thoughts?
 
I am a little worried that Indians will start wiping out all signs of British architecture as well in this drive for Hindu identity. [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION], did you ever see the video on YT called India 2030 incredible India? The one where white people were sweeping floors and begging on the streets? The computer generated image of the buildings wasn't impressive in my opinion I am oping that British architects might be invited to redesign some of the bigger cities, we are master road planners and many of India's more impressive structures were legacies left by British empire. Thoughts?

I would worry too if it happens. British and Europeans in general are the standard we hindus should strive to reach. I am jealous of you captain, my fellow desi brown brother, as you live right under their superior administration and culture. I have been thinking of ways we could have the British look after us once again..maybe they feel betrayed by what happened in 1947 and don't care about us anymore, but we need them more than ever. indians are not fit to rule this country.
 
There are More chances of this happening to Lahore and Islamabad.

We don't even allow foreign Army in our country but some country's jus allow drones, armies all over theirs so take your wet drram and enjoy your sahib's country.

Those are incursions. China reguarly crosses Indias border. Pakistan has never been invaded or conquered, India first by Muslims and then by Christians who only had less than 50,000 troops inside the country.

Seriously Indians stop wasting your time changing names because you cant change history and your history also shows how easily you are taken over.
 
Lahore and Islamabad are already fabulously developed cities where the property value rivals that of western cities. I am happy for invasion of the more backward rural areas, the invading armies can rename them whatever they want. Although apparently Alexander the Great was stopped at Multan by an arrow and turned back so the savages who lived there didn't know a good thing when they saw one.

Property prices in mumbai and delhi are among the most expensive in the world. Mumbai is among top 20 if i am not wrong.

Lahore and Islamabad are nowhere close to those in prices.

Alexander's troops revolted near the banks of the Beas river. Megasthenes mentions that his army was not willing to go to war againist the Gangiridai empire who and also the Nanda empire. Also they were tired of fighting and wanted to finally go home.
 
To be fair it was the Mughals that ruled India, not the darker skinned Indian converts which makes up majority of the current muslim population aka > :sarf2. There is a reason why people of Imran Khan's physical appearance is like hen's tooth :angel:....

I am saying that the Brits ruled India which is why they love India so much even today. What have the Mughals or IK got to do with it?:narine
 
Its interesting how pakistanis say its “your” history. When in fact, Pakistan and India share the same history. At least have some respect for your own forefathers who faced the brutality and genocide by these Islamic invaders.

India is perhaps the only country where barbarians are applauded. Imagine Germany prasing, naming cities after Hitler. So good for India to correct its own history...
 
The Taj Mahal should be handed over to pakistan and Bangladesh as part of a unified trust. The Muslims of India can also participate. All proceedings from tourism to this site should be depostied into the accounts of the waqf who can then use this money to refurbish and maintain this historical site. Pakistan with Bangladesh (if they want) should setup a Mughal heritage trust that takes voer all Mughal and Muslim heritage buildings in India. The Indian state should give up all revenues generated by any visitors coming to these sites.

Exactly idea. Just what I hought some time back. Since, hearing knowing those hindutvas so anti muslims in India and doing all sorts evil to Muslims for eating beef and are against many muslim Related stuffs!

But I find the sad part is the muslims there are still asleep. Then again when you have extremist having you locked down, there’s no other option for some. They are forced to show nationalism or get beat up by hindutvas.
 
Last edited:
The 100 000s of Persian/Arab migrants during the Islamic rule, where did you think they went ?

Why do you think that in cities like Hyderabad, with a lot of those migrants, some Muslims have looks way different from the local Hindus ?

That is something that BJP, RSS and other radical hindu groups will always have to accept and live with. There is a 90% chance that their ancestors served as concubines to these Muslim rulers.
 
[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] Indo Europeans are going extinct because of demography, and the Semitic races have been way more influential than them, building the first civilizations and being superior to them whether as conquerors (Arabs) or as intellectuals (Jews). In fact even in the European modernity it was a Semitic ethnoreligious minority which punched way above its weight, the Jews. After all the Indo Europeans in their majority either follow the prophet Muhammad (s) or consider a dead Jew as their God. You also have to keep in mind that some of the most "fanatical" Muslims are found among the Pashtuns, Persians, Kurds, etc who are the closest to the original Aryans, many of them being conquerors of the Hindus as well.

Btw the majority of Hindus are only Indo Europeans in terms of culture, by adopting a language, not genetics (like "Bobby" Jindal is not a WASP because he speaks the language), because they're either fully or partially mixed with the natives, incorporating their beliefs, culture, etc as well later on (remark how Vedic deities slowly disappear in normative Hinduism, and a minor god of the Vedic pantheon, Vishnu, has the main role, while nowadays specialists dismiss the idea of Shiva continuing Rudra, etc)
 
The sheer number of hindus and the vast territories and the resolve of hindus to fight back preserved hinduism. Else the muslim invaders wiped out non muslims from Afghanistan and almost wiped them out from what is now pakistan.

Pray tell me since when Muslims were residing in Andalusia?
Muslims lived in Spain for 700 years, mere 100 years after the start of Islam (believe it or not). There was none in the year 1500 due to the barbaric nature of Ferdinand and other Spanish/French leaders who massacred even children and babies.

If that was the reality of the so called "Islamic Invaders", then I assure you, you won't be here today (I am glad though you are).

The Shahs and Moghuls of India basically made quite an infrastructure in Greater India (Both India and Pakistan). People from both the countries proudly flaunt it in the west as their history and the government of both countries earn tourism money through it.
 
Muslims lived in Spain for 700 years, mere 100 years after the start of Islam (believe it or not). There was none in the year 1500 due to the barbaric nature of Ferdinand and other Spanish/French leaders who massacred even children and babies.

If that was the reality of the so called "Islamic Invaders", then I assure you, you won't be here today (I am glad though you are).

The Shahs and Moghuls of India basically made quite an infrastructure in Greater India (Both India and Pakistan). People from both the countries proudly flaunt it in the west as their history and the government of both countries earn tourism money through it.

What has andalucia to do with mughals? muslims were not monoliths.. don't know why you see criticism of mughals as an attack on muslims. babar had to give his sister to the victor who defeated him and he used to erect pillars of skulls whenever he won a battle, but seems he is a hero for you.
 
What has andalucia to do with mughals? muslims were not monoliths.. don't know why you see criticism of mughals as an attack on muslims. babar had to give his sister to the victor who defeated him and he used to erect pillars of skulls whenever he won a battle, but seems he is a hero for you.

Al Andalus and Mughals or Abbassids, or Safavids, or Ottomans, etc are all representatives of the Islamic civilization, like a Tamil can claim the Maurya dynasty or a Bihari can claim Adi Shankara because they belong to Hindu civilization, so that the Mughal power was cemented by overthrowing the Lodi's or that some individuals went against Islamic precepts (Akbar) is irrelevant to the fact that they represented the Islamic civilization and its ethos/cultural paradigm for/on the conquering peoples.

Hindu nationalists are actually cognizant of this fact, that's why they talk of "Islamic conquerors" with no breakdown on ethnic basis, because the conquerors chose Islam as the vehicle of their imperialism, whether honestly or not (which doesn't matter, because at the end glory of Islam was somehow achieved)
 
Muslims lived in Spain for 700 years, mere 100 years after the start of Islam (believe it or not).

They did not "live" in Spain, they "invaded" and "conquered" Spain. However civil war destroyed the power of the Umayyad Caliphate, like it has done to all previous empires (Muslim and non-Muslim), and later the Christian kingdoms of the north Reconquista-ed Spain.

There was none in the year 1500 due to the barbaric nature of Ferdinand and other Spanish/French leaders who massacred even children and babies.

I believe Isabella and Ferdinand expelled those who would not convert to Christianity to North Africa, not sure about the massacre of children.

If that was the reality of the so called "Islamic Invaders", then I assure you, you won't be here today (I am glad though you are).

The Shahs and Moghuls of India basically made quite an infrastructure in Greater India (Both India and Pakistan). People from both the countries proudly flaunt it in the west as their history and the government of both countries earn tourism money through it.

Not sure what special infrastructure the Mughals built that the Cholas, Mauryas and Guptas hadn't built? Nor did the British do much to modernize India other than build railways which arguably was necessary for economic exploitation. Many modern European ideas did arrive with the British.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] Indo Europeans are going extinct because of demography, and the Semitic races have been way more influential than them, building the first civilizations and being superior to them whether as conquerors (Arabs) or as intellectuals (Jews). In fact even in the European modernity it was a Semitic ethnoreligious minority which punched way above its weight, the Jews. After all the Indo Europeans in their majority either follow the prophet Muhammad (s) or consider a dead Jew as their God. You also have to keep in mind that some of the most "fanatical" Muslims are found among the Pashtuns, Persians, Kurds, etc who are the closest to the original Aryans, many of them being conquerors of the Hindus as well.

Btw the majority of Hindus are only Indo Europeans in terms of culture, by adopting a language, not genetics (like "Bobby" Jindal is not a WASP because he speaks the language), because they're either fully or partially mixed with the natives, incorporating their beliefs, culture, etc as well later on (remark how Vedic deities slowly disappear in normative Hinduism, and a minor god of the Vedic pantheon, Vishnu, has the main role, while nowadays specialists dismiss the idea of Shiva continuing Rudra, etc)

Your grasp of science is weak. You have bits and pieces of scientific knowledge, but lack an overall picture. There is a lot of population genetics data available now, and if you make a statement like "majority of Hindus are only Indo Europeans in terms of culture, by adopting a language, not genetics" you need to back it up with data.

You seem to confuse WASP with Indo-European. WASPs are the Northern European branch of Indo-Europeans, a mixture of the original Indo-European population (Y-chromosome haplogroup R) and the Scandinavian population (Y-chromosome haplogroup I). WASPs are an Indo-European population with R and I ancestry, Bobby Jindal is an Indo-European with R and H ancestry. Modern day Greeks are Indo-Europeans with R, J and E ancestry.

No doubt the intellectual achievements of Jews are impressive. Ashkenazi Jews are Indo-Europeans with R and J ancestry. In fact Jews of the tribe Levite were found to be majority R in at least one study.

Not sure where you get the idea of Arabs especially being conquerors. They were successful at one point about 1,300 years ago but then were conquered by the Mongols, the Turks and the Europeans.

Modern nations that are doing well mostly Indo-European and East Asian. The Semitic nations are mostly Mideastern dictatorships that are continuing tragedies.
 
Your grasp of science is weak. You have bits and pieces of scientific knowledge, but lack an overall picture. There is a lot of population genetics data available now, and if you make a statement like "majority of Hindus are only Indo Europeans in terms of culture, by adopting a language, not genetics" you need to back it up with data.

You seem to confuse WASP with Indo-European. WASPs are the Northern European branch of Indo-Europeans, a mixture of the original Indo-European population (Y-chromosome haplogroup R) and the Scandinavian population (Y-chromosome haplogroup I). WASPs are an Indo-European population with R and I ancestry, Bobby Jindal is an Indo-European with R and H ancestry. Modern day Greeks are Indo-Europeans with R, J and E ancestry.

I know how these haplogroups are used to give a false picture, you should look at the autosomal analysis (both yDNA/mtDNA as well as general admixture taken into account), as if an average Tamil was as Indo European as a Pashtun or Ukrainian.

I'm telling you that the majority of Hindus are Dravidians or mixed with Dravidians, even if the genetic studies show the "right" haplogroups it doesn't mean that they're close to the Aryans, you just have to look at them. Why do the Brahmins always look different from the other members of their ethnicity ? Would you say Bengali Brahmins and Bengali Dalits look the same ? No, because the former have retained their Aryan features more while the latter are either full or mixed Dravidians.

Like Bobby Jindal doesn't become English by speaking their language, by adopting an Indo European language shaped by their conquerors the majority of Hindus (Shudras and Dalits) don't become Indo Europeans either.

No doubt the intellectual achievements of Jews are impressive. Ashkenazi Jews are Indo-Europeans with R and J ancestry. In fact Jews of the tribe Levite were found to be majority R in at least one study.

Actually the Levite argument is a counter example, because in the Jewish tradition the Levites can only marry fellow Levites, so there's no way they would have married Indo Europeans and that too integrated their males into the priestly caste, because you speak of the yDNA here.

A 2017 genetic study would be interesting to you, read it fully but the interesting bits I take out for you :

The proposed Middle Eastern origin of the Ashkenazi Levite lineage based on what was previously a relatively limited number of reported samples, can now be considered firmly validated. While the highest frequencies of haplogroup R1a are found in Eastern Europe, our data revealed a rich variation of haplogroup R1a outside of Europe which is phylogenetically separate from the typically European R1a branches.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5668307/

You just have to look at Nazi caricatures : the kinky dark hair, big lower lip, nose and ears are all traits associated with the Semitic populations in popular imagination.

So a Semitic group basically outshone all other Indo European groups in the same given conditions.

Not sure where you get the idea of Arabs especially being conquerors. They were successful at one point about 1,300 years ago but then were conquered by the Mongols, the Turks and the Europeans.

In less than 100 years they conquered more than the Roman during their whole history and their apex under emperor Trajan. What do you need more ?

Modern nations that are doing well mostly Indo-European and East Asian. The Semitic nations are mostly Mideastern dictatorships that are continuing tragedies.

We're talking of Indo Europeans and Semites, why bring in the Mongoloid or Turanian populations into it ?

Also you can't compare Hindus with Swedes in the HDI galaxy, there are variable factors influencing all of this, but at the end of the day majority of Indo Europeans either follow prophet Muhammad (s) or consider a dead Jew as their God, that says more than any other argument.
 
Are south Indians considered Indo European?

why do you think that Tamil nationalist Periyar hated Hinduism so much that he asked the peoples to better convert to Islam/Christianity, even if he was himself a skeptical rationalist ? Because peoples like [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] not only continue upholding the imperialistic faith of the Aryan conquerors with pride, but enforce the caste system on basically the majority of the population in the name of Hinduism, the caste system being nothing less than racial apartheid (that's why in Bollywood the leading South Indian actresses are ALWAYS Brahmins.)
 
Al Andalus and Mughals or Abbassids, or Safavids, or Ottomans, etc are all representatives of the Islamic civilization

True. but they are representatives of something greater too..money and power. otherwise the safavids would not be fighting against the mughals (mughal safavid war). If they can disobey Allah, then it surely means they represent something greater than mere religion.
 
True. but they are representatives of something greater too..money and power. otherwise the safavids would not be fighting against the mughals (mughal safavid war). If they can disobey Allah, then it surely means they represent something greater than mere religion.

again that doesn't mean much in the wider picture, read my post again.

There's an interesting pov on the Umayyads in Islamic historiography : many said they were morally bad (Karbala, etc), but at the end of the day, they were the motors of the futuhat (Islamic conquests, litt. "openings"), and the reason the initial Islamic empire was so large, laying down the foundations for the others to come. In the same way the Mughals were not all objectively good, but it's Islam which won, because as Muslims, even if they had to fake it, they had to convert peoples, to build mosques, etc in few words to assert the dominance and glory of Islam upon the heathens.
 
again that doesn't mean much in the wider picture, read my post again.

There's an interesting pov on the Umayyads in Islamic historiography : many said they were morally bad (Karbala, etc), but at the end of the day, they were the motors of the futuhat (Islamic conquests, litt. "openings"), and the reason the initial Islamic empire was so large, laying down the foundations for the others to come. In the same way the Mughals were not all objectively good, but it's Islam which won, because as Muslims, even if they had to fake it, they had to convert peoples, to build mosques, etc in few words to assert the dominance and glory of Islam upon the heathens.

The point is they cannot be seen as representatives of Islam when they disobey Allah blatantly. Maybe you have very low standards in appointing someone as representative of Islam.
 
I know how these haplogroups are used to give a false picture, you should look at the autosomal analysis (both yDNA/mtDNA as well as general admixture taken into account), as if an average Tamil was as Indo European as a Pashtun or Ukrainian.

Tamils of course have a higher percentage ancestry from the Y-chromosome H haplogroup, and the vast majority of Indians have some ancestry from this population. Are Pashtuns more Indo-European (or Aryan as you would say) than the average Indian? It depends upon what precisely is Indo-European? Given that R2 occurs only in India, and populations with significant R2 ancestry speak Indo-European languages, there is scientific reasons to believe that R is the original Indo-European haplogroup. Given that Afghanistan has been repeatedly conquered by Mongols, Arabs and Turks, it is unclear what percentage ancestry of the modern Afghan is Indo-European.

I'm telling you that the majority of Hindus are Dravidians or mixed with Dravidians, even if the genetic studies show the "right" haplogroups it doesn't mean that they're close to the Aryans, you just have to look at them. Why do the Brahmins always look different from the other members of their ethnicity ? Would you say Bengali Brahmins and Bengali Dalits look the same ? No, because the former have retained their Aryan features more while the latter are either full or mixed Dravidians.

Your concept of "Aryan" is unscientific. Modern Indo-Europeans are mixtures of R populations with I, or E, or J or H. Dravidians are H. So it is quite possible for an Indo-European population to have a significant H ancestry.

Of course, you can define "Aryan" the way Hitler defined them, that is Scandinavians, who are mixtures of R and I. The reality is that Hitler stole the word "Aryan" for the ancient Indians, Greeks and Persians (R1a) as he wanted to give the Germans more of a history.

Like Bobby Jindal doesn't become English by speaking their language, by adopting an Indo European language shaped by their conquerors the majority of Hindus (Shudras and Dalits) don't become Indo Europeans either.

These are all your prejudices about what constitutes Indo-European and not really worthy of much comment. Suffice it to say that the South Indian Dravidian-speaking Adivasis have a 26% R1 ancestry, which is about the same as modern Greeks.

Actually the Levite argument is a counter example, because in the Jewish tradition the Levites can only marry fellow Levites, so there's no way they would have married Indo Europeans and that too integrated their males into the priestly caste, because you speak of the yDNA here.

"no way" is your belief, the foundation of the Ashkenazi Jews is not well documented. I am not sure if you are saying that R1 is actually an original Semite population. If you are, then you are much mistaken.

A 2017 genetic study would be interesting to you, read it fully but the interesting bits I take out for you :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5668307/

You just have to look at Nazi caricatures : the kinky dark hair, big lower lip, nose and ears are all traits associated with the Semitic populations in popular imagination.

So a Semitic group basically outshone all other Indo European groups in the same given conditions.

In less than 100 years they conquered more than the Roman during their whole history and their apex under emperor Trajan. What do you need more?

I am not clear about what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Trajan was Semitic? Rome was definitely Indo-European though some of the emperors may have had Semitic ancestry.

We're talking of Indo Europeans and Semites, why bring in the Mongoloid or Turanian populations into it?

Because modern Mideastern and neighboring populations, and the older Islamic invaders have significant Mongoloid and Turkic ancestry. You seem to regard modern Afghanis as especially Indo-European but they could have a significant Mongol and Turkic ancestry given that they were conquered by these people repeatedly.

Also you can't compare Hindus with Swedes in the HDI galaxy, there are variable factors influencing all of this, but at the end of the day majority of Indo Europeans either follow prophet Muhammad (s) or consider a dead Jew as their God, that says more than any other argument.

I can follow a Japanese philosopher and my wife can believe that Oprah is the best thing since sliced bread, but that doesn't change the fact that we are both Indo-Europeans.
 
why do you think that Tamil nationalist Periyar hated Hinduism so much that he asked the peoples to better convert to Islam/Christianity, even if he was himself a skeptical rationalist ? <b>Because peoples like [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] not only continue upholding the imperialistic faith of the Aryan conquerors with pride, but enforce the caste system on basically the majority of the population in the name of Hinduism</b>, the caste system being nothing less than racial apartheid (that's why in Bollywood the leading South Indian actresses are ALWAYS Brahmins.)

What? :)))
 
Tamils of course have a higher percentage ancestry from the Y-chromosome H haplogroup, and the vast majority of Indians have some ancestry from this population. Are Pashtuns more Indo-European (or Aryan as you would say) than the average Indian? It depends upon what precisely is Indo-European? Given that R2 occurs only in India, and populations with significant R2 ancestry speak Indo-European languages, there is scientific reasons to believe that R is the original Indo-European haplogroup. Given that Afghanistan has been repeatedly conquered by Mongols, Arabs and Turks, it is unclear what percentage ancestry of the modern Afghan is Indo-European.

lmao no R2 doesn't "originate" in India, stop making things up and stop using haplogroups/yDNA which don't mean much for these discussions. If you're great-great-great-etc-father was English yet he married a Tamil, and his offspring did the same over generation, they'll be something like R1b but that wouldn't give us much information on the descendants' actual cultural make-up.

Just give a simple answer why within the SAME ethnicity, let's say Bengalis, the Brahmins and Dalits look so different ? Let's go phenotypes and forget genotypes for a moment, it's a very simple question which needs a simple answer.

Of course, you can define "Aryan" the way Hitler defined them, that is Scandinavians, who are mixtures of R and I. The reality is that Hitler stole the word "Aryan" for the ancient Indians, Greeks and Persians (R1a) as he wanted to give the Germans more of a history.

He didn't "steal" anything, these words are found in all Indo European languages, it's just Germanic barbarians didn't have a well preserved, or a literature at all, so Nazi dignitaries like Himmler had to base themselves upon Tacitus' De Germania to reconstruct their history.

These are all your prejudices about what constitutes Indo-European and not really worthy of much comment. Suffice it to say that the South Indian Dravidian-speaking Adivasis have a 26% R1 ancestry, which is about the same as modern Greeks.

lmao that's what happen when you play with haplogroups too much, yeah now let's say that Adivasis are as much Indo Europeans as the Greeks.

"no way" is your belief, the foundation of the Ashkenazi Jews is not well documented. I am not sure if you are saying that R1 is actually an original Semite population. If you are, then you are much mistaken.

There are different phylogenetic divisions of an haplogroup, and the Ashkenazi one is certainly not Eastern Euro. Jews, Ashkenazi or not, have always been considered Semites by literally everyone, beginning with their Indo European neighbors, something which many "assimilated" Jews would have loved to change in the 40s. Again read the genetic study. I gave you a recent (2017) scientific source for a reason.

Btw there's more Semitic (particularly Levantine) blood in many Indo European populations than there ever was Indo European in Semites. For the southern Italians and Greeks it's well known, but look at the Spaniards as well :

Twenty percent of the population of the Iberian Peninsula has Sephardic Jewish ancestry and 11 percent have DNA reflecting Moorish ancestors, the geneticists have found. Historians have debated how many Jews converted and how many chose exile.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/science/05genes.html

I am not clear about what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Trajan was Semitic? Rome was definitely Indo-European though some of the emperors may have had Semitic ancestry.

No, you implied Arabs were not great conquerors and I reminded you that in less than 100 years Arabs conquered more than Rome at it apex, that is at its maximalist geographical expansion, which happened under emperor Trajan.

Because modern Mideastern and neighboring populations, and the older Islamic invaders have significant Mongoloid and Turkic ancestry. You seem to regard modern Afghanis as especially Indo-European but they could have a significant Mongol and Turkic ancestry given that they were conquered by these people repeatedly.

Yeah but at this point in the discussion we were basically contrasting Indo Europeans and Semites, so that's why I wondered why you brought Turko Mongols.

I can follow a Japanese philosopher and my wife can believe that Oprah is the best thing since sliced bread, but that doesn't change the fact that we are both Indo-Europeans.

You sure can, like you can be a fanatical Muslim while also being Indo European, and impose Islam upon the Hindus.


You can laugh all you want but that's what your national newspapers say :

The Indian caste system is based on racism

(...)
If indeed Indian casteism, particularly when directed at Dalits and other so-called ‘lower’ or backward castes, is a form of racism by other means then, like South Africa before the lifting of the racist policy of apartheid, India could also be made liable to international sanctions.

So far, India has managed to evade the caste-race equation by arguing that caste distinctions are based on social, occupational and economic considerations and not on genetic racial differences.

This view however might now be challenged by research done by the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics (NIBMG), a Kalyani-based institution headed by biogeneticist Partho Mazumdar.
(...)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/jugglebandhi/the-indian-caste-system-is-based-on-racism/

Still unwilling to tell why Bollywood actresses from the south are always Brahmins ?
 
What has andalucia to do with mughals? muslims were not monoliths.. don't know why you see criticism of mughals as an attack on muslims. babar had to give his sister to the victor who defeated him and he used to erect pillars of skulls whenever he won a battle, but seems he is a hero for you.

Read the context of the post before babbling and unleashing your verbal diarrhea.
 
They did not "live" in Spain, they "invaded" and "conquered" Spain. However civil war destroyed the power of the Umayyad Caliphate, like it has done to all previous empires (Muslim and non-Muslim), and later the Christian kingdoms of the north Reconquista-ed Spain.



I believe Isabella and Ferdinand expelled those who would not convert to Christianity to North Africa, not sure about the massacre of children.



Not sure what special infrastructure the Mughals built that the Cholas, Mauryas and Guptas hadn't built? Nor did the British do much to modernize India other than build railways which arguably was necessary for economic exploitation. Many modern European ideas did arrive with the British.

Yes, Muslims did conquered Spain. But come on, they lived there for a long time and it was their home. They built palaces and mosques that is a major Andalusia tourist attraction.

Ofcourse in the western books they are going to show that Muslims were expelled but reality from a lot of witnesses and even spaniards was that they were killed and not even a single one was spared. Conquest of Cordoba was one such occasion that comes to mind.


In regards to infrastruction, i meant Shahi Qila, Qutub Minar, Taj Mahal, Jamia Masjid etc. Obviously the so called "Muslim Invaders" who ruled India for a Millennia did make it their home. And my whole point was that if they were as barbaric as the Spanish and French leaders of Andalusia, there wouldn't be even a single Hindu there.
 
Yes, Muslims did conquered Spain. But come on, they lived there for a long time and it was their home. They built palaces and mosques that is a major Andalusia tourist attraction.

Ofcourse in the western books they are going to show that Muslims were expelled but reality from a lot of witnesses and even spaniards was that they were killed and not even a single one was spared. Conquest of Cordoba was one such occasion that comes to mind.

This is not really something I have studied in detail, so I will take your word for it.


In regards to infrastruction, i meant Shahi Qila, Qutub Minar, Taj Mahal, Jamia Masjid etc.

Okay, by infrastructure you meant a few tourist attractions. A few of the older Hindu temples were also destroyed by Muslim rulers so lets call it a wash.

Obviously the so called "Muslim Invaders" who ruled India for a Millennia did make it their home. And my whole point was that if they were as barbaric as the Spanish and French leaders of Andalusia, there wouldn't be even a single Hindu there.

The reality was that the the Muslim rulers had to compromise with the Hindus for the survival of their kingdoms. Akbar was very well aware of this reality and he was a successful king. His descendant Auranzeb was not, and was intolerant of Hinduism. The result was that this led to the inevitable decline of Mughal power, and 12 years after his death a Maratha army defeated the Mughal army in Delhi and dictated who the next Mughal emperor was to be. Even though the Mughals were for a time had the strongest individual military, there were significant non-muslim military powers such as the Sikhs, the Rajputs, the Jats, the southern Nayaks and the Marathas who were not simply going to roll over and accept genocide.
 
lmao no R2 doesn't "originate" in India, stop making things up and stop using haplogroups/yDNA which don't mean much for these discussions. If you're great-great-great-etc-father was English yet he married a Tamil, and his offspring did the same over generation, they'll be something like R1b but that wouldn't give us much information on the descendants' actual cultural make-up.

I did not say R2 originated in India. I said R2 is found only in India or South Asia (found outside South Asia in minor amounts) pointing to the origin of R as India/South Asia. If you are unable to follow simple scientific logic, then you need to find someone else to discuss these matters with.

Just give a simple answer why within the SAME ethnicity, let's say Bengalis, the Brahmins and Dalits look so different ? Let's go phenotypes and forget genotypes for a moment, it's a very simple question which needs a simple answer.

Phenotype is for unscientific minds infected with bias, as one finds in ample quantities in your posts. Go look at a picture of a kulin Bengali Bharmin Mamata Banerjee and get over your stereotypical ideas about looks.

He didn't "steal" anything, these words are found in all Indo European languages, it's just Germanic barbarians didn't have a well preserved, or a literature at all, so Nazi dignitaries like Himmler had to base themselves upon Tacitus' De Germania to reconstruct their history.

The lack of precision in your thinking is matched by your ignorance of basic historical facts. The word "Arya" was used by the ancient R1a Indo-European people, it was not used ancient R1b Indo-Europeans such as the Romans.

lmao that's what happen when you play with haplogroups too much, yeah now let's say that Adivasis are as much Indo Europeans as the Greeks.

You are unable to understand the implications of population genetics data.

There are different phylogenetic divisions of an haplogroup, and the Ashkenazi one is certainly not Eastern Euro. Jews, Ashkenazi or not, have always been considered Semites by literally everyone, beginning with their Indo European neighbors, something which many "assimilated" Jews would have loved to change in the 40s. Again read the genetic study. I gave you a recent (2017) scientific source for a reason.

Btw there's more Semitic (particularly Levantine) blood in many Indo European populations than there ever was Indo European in Semites. For the southern Italians and Greeks it's well known, but look at the Spaniards as well :



https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/science/05genes.html



No, you implied Arabs were not great conquerors and I reminded you that in less than 100 years Arabs conquered more than Rome at it apex, that is at its maximalist geographical expansion, which happened under emperor Trajan.



Yeah but at this point in the discussion we were basically contrasting Indo Europeans and Semites, so that's why I wondered why you brought Turko Mongols.



You sure can, like you can be a fanatical Muslim while also being Indo European, and impose Islam upon the Hindus.



You can laugh all you want but that's what your national newspapers say :

The Indian caste system is based on racism



https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/jugglebandhi/the-indian-caste-system-is-based-on-racism/

Still unwilling to tell why Bollywood actresses from the south are always Brahmins ?

How does it matter if actresses are Brahmins? This is a waste of time, bye.
 
I did not say R2 originated in India. I said R2 is found only in India or South Asia (found outside South Asia in minor amounts) pointing to the origin of R as India/South Asia. If you are unable to follow simple scientific logic, then you need to find someone else to discuss these matters with.

There's already a difference between saying "R2 is found only in India", "in South Asia" and "found outside South Asia in minor amounts" - you contradict yourself more than one time in the same sentence. R2 most likely originated from Pakistan, so now you talk in terms of "South Asia" instead of India lmao.

Phenotype is for unscientific minds infected with bias, as one finds in ample quantities in your posts. Go look at a picture of a kulin Bengali Bharmin Mamata Banerjee and get over your stereotypical ideas about looks.

Again, ANSWER me : do Brahmins and non-Brahmins WITHIN the same ethnic group look the same ? Yes or no ? What could be the reason(s) ?

The lack of precision in your thinking is matched by your ignorance of basic historical facts. The word "Arya" was used by the ancient R1a Indo-European people, it was not used ancient R1b Indo-Europeans such as the Romans.

I think I should make short sentences for you. I didn't say Tacitus used the word "Arya", but that German nationalists relied upon writers like him to know their own history, because they didn't have a old literature, like they relied elsewhere to take the word "Arya/Aryans" - but it doesn't mean that they "stole it", because the theory is that all Indo Europeans used initially, but it's "attested" only among the Indo-Iranians.

You are unable to understand the implications of population genetics data.

lmao yeah and Adivasis are Indo Euros. :virat

How does it matter if actresses are Brahmins? This is a waste of time, bye.

Stop running away, it's just a forum discussion, and give a simple answer to the simple question : WHY are the south Indian actresses always Brahmins ? What could be the reason(s) ?
 
There's already a difference between saying "R2 is found only in India", "in South Asia" and "found outside South Asia in minor amounts" - you contradict yourself more than one time in the same sentence. R2 most likely originated from Pakistan, so now you talk in terms of "South Asia" instead of India lmao.



Again, ANSWER me : do Brahmins and non-Brahmins WITHIN the same ethnic group look the same ? Yes or no ? What could be the reason(s) ?



I think I should make short sentences for you. I didn't say Tacitus used the word "Arya", but that German nationalists relied upon writers like him to know their own history, because they didn't have a old literature, like they relied elsewhere to take the word "Arya/Aryans" - but it doesn't mean that they "stole it", because the theory is that all Indo Europeans used initially, but it's "attested" only among the Indo-Iranians.



lmao yeah and Adivasis are Indo Euros. :virat



<b>Stop running away, it's just a forum discussion,</b> and give a simple answer to the simple question : WHY are the south Indian actresses always Brahmins ? What could be the reason(s) ?

Much as I would like to spend the rest of my natural life debating genotype and phenotype with you, there is an unfortunate accident called real life, hence bye.
 
Much as I would like to spend the rest of my natural life debating genotype and phenotype with you, there is an unfortunate accident called real life, hence bye.

Then you wonder how Muslims ruled 1000 years.
 
Back
Top