What's new

I suppose this makes it definitive....

You see thats the difference. I don't like ignoring parts of the argument people make if there is a vile (non scientific) end-objective to it (whatever scientific base they initially use for the agenda). I like keeping the conversation grounded within the envelope of what that science discovers and analyses....something that often itself changes over time as seen here. When that is used to promote a non-science, quite caustic agenda, I cannot ignore it (because ignoring it is dangerous from historic perspective a lot of the time)....especially if its being hammered again and again in some Goebbels-style approach by same person/people. Anyway, not really what I want to talk with you about per se, just a passing personal commentary.



Yes I do believe there were waves of this process and counter-process (each with different level of permeation, dependent on many factors but probably most correlated to the effective power projection available during the time with the tools available etc - something that definitely physical distances play a role as we see continually in history). It probably also explains the Dravidian/Prakrit reverse-influences found in classical sanskrit compared to Vedic Sanskrit. But ultimately prakrits became the dominant lingua franca (and what really developed over time that can be measured influence wise) anyway in the subcontinent given the rules sanskrit never relinquished.

So yes the vehicle of this cultural permeation on the back of Vedic mythologies (given Sanskrit use is indeed a very good marker of this one would assume) spanned a lot of time in the Tamil core area in the deep south....simply by physical distance from the northern river systems where the Vedic civ flourished and the presence of the mighty Deccan peninsula between the two. Its compounded by the various waves of Brahmin/vedic people migration to the south.....I think the story of Parashuram in Kerala (reclaiming the land from the sea) is really more of an allegory for a migration of Vedic people to the area for example. Similar stories are found in the references of the Alvar Saints regarding the puranic waves that happened later.

During the Tamil Sangam period after all, there was very heavy Jain and Buddhist presence in the kauvery and vaigai river systems...again I feel an overall allegory of it is included in the story of the saivite saint Appar who was originally a Jain monk. This initial presence is very indicative of the overall Deccan influence you talk of given the larger "void" found in Tamilakam for the original vedic culture (thus allowing such a Jain and Buddhist culture to really take root in the area insofar as non-indigenous cultural influences of the time are concerned). Its a matter of ongoing study and debate, I hope more is devoted it, its quite fascinating.

I hope that this very reasoned analysis will also help you to understand what our Pakistani friends, especially those who are not as articulate as Kaptaan, meant by saying that the western and northern parts of the sub-continent have far greater genetic affinity to parts west than the rest of the sub-continent. It is not merely racial, perhaps. It may be more the question that grips every sensitive Pakistani - why Pakistan? From that point of view, it seems to be the more rewarding route to simply acknowledge their sense of difference, and, ignoring the pejoratives that they feel impelled to add in order to strengthen a weak position, that this gives them superiority of some sort, simply to allow them their peace of mind.

This is with reference to the weaker intellects, of which they have one-seventh the number of simple-minded Indian posters, more or less. As far as the stronger intellects are concerned, one of whom is the subject of this sub-conversation, most of them, on having tactful enquiries made of them, have already realised the farcical nature of the question, the mind-numbing stupidity of trying to find an answer. They have come to the sane and rational conclusion that the people of Pakistan having shown their support for a sovereign Pakistan (albeit with a couple of features missing), Pakistan exists and shall continue to exist. There is no point any longer quibbling about fundamentals, for instance, except fundamentals and fundamentalists of the terrorist variety :-)
 
Interesting.

0MteBtO.png

That's not really anything surprising, I already had the opinion that we had more ANI in us than the Hindustanis since we were the ones migrants would come across first.

The Aryans were never blue eyed.

That is a figment of Hindu insecurity.

They were classically olive skinned, brown eyed brunettes.

Cheers, Doc

They would have been naturally white, but may have developed a tan from spending so much time in the sun, giving them a brown complexion. Similar thing seems to have happened to Alexander of Macedon, judging by the paintings of him.
 
I hope that this very reasoned analysis will also help you to understand what our Pakistani friends, especially those who are not as articulate as Kaptaan, meant by saying that the western and northern parts of the sub-continent have far greater genetic affinity to parts west than the rest of the sub-continent. It is not merely racial, perhaps. It may be more the question that grips every sensitive Pakistani - why Pakistan? From that point of view, it seems to be the more rewarding route to simply acknowledge their sense of difference, and, ignoring the pejoratives that they feel impelled to add in order to strengthen a weak position, that this gives them superiority of some sort, simply to allow them their peace of mind.

This is with reference to the weaker intellects, of which they have one-seventh the number of simple-minded Indian posters, more or less. As far as the stronger intellects are concerned, one of whom is the subject of this sub-conversation, most of them, on having tactful enquiries made of them, have already realised the farcical nature of the question, the mind-numbing stupidity of trying to find an answer. They have come to the sane and rational conclusion that the people of Pakistan having shown their support for a sovereign Pakistan (albeit with a couple of features missing), Pakistan exists and shall continue to exist. There is no point any longer quibbling about fundamentals, for instance, except fundamentals and fundamentalists of the terrorist variety :-)

They may be doing what they think needs doing.

But the fact of the matter is that the horse bolted quite some time ago.

And what stormed in through the open barn doors was not too pretty, nor remotely Hindustani.

Cheers, Doc
 
originated from India and spread to europe !

This is the dumbest theory I've ever heard Hindustani nationalists propagate.

Your ancestors got with foreigners, they may have even been raped and pillaged.

Deal with it.

1) Why are Afghanistan and Sri Lanka in the same color code as India

2) What is the significance of the LOC and the differently shaded area occupied by Pakistan to your gene flow theory

3) How do these findings impact your pet theory (stretch?) that modern day Pakistanis are the same people who built and populated the IVC before the Aryans streamed in

Remember the basic precepts:

The men came in. Only. And first.

The women that followed came in when residence had been established on the new land. A LOT later.

Cheers, Doc

Foreigners from Central/West Asia clearly got busy with the people of IVC. That is how we are still related to them (albeit distantly, especially people like me who have even more foreign blood in them).

most indians are fine with the gods they worshipped for millennia

Then they have a serious problem.

But how significant were thise migrations from inner india? Judging by the physical appearance of most Pakistanis I would think not much. If there is evidence to suggest otherwise please share it because I can't find any. This goes back to the OP wherby there is clear evidence of the huge migrations from the West of Pakistan into what is now modern day Pakistan. This tallies up with the physical appearance of modern day Pakistanis.

A fair amount of people did migrate, but most of them wouldn't have been too far from Pakistan, so their genetic makeup wouldn't have been too different.

Tbh, most Hindustanis of the north west will be very similar to us genetically (maybe not completely indistinguishable but still incredibly similar). However, we do have cultural differences.

Go to the Buddhist thread I started and read the neela lal highlighted paper I posted about the role the Brahmin upper caste played (with their Rajput sword arms) especially with regard to the Islamic invasions.

There were few bloody wars of resistance. The Muslim invaders literally walked in and stayed behind.

Ruling at the center and political dominion, enforced by the sword.

While the Brahmin clergy controlled the grassroot society as they had for centuries.

Cozy symbiosis. Some would even call it collaboration.

Cheers, Doc

Somewhat true, high caste Hindu's were typically allowed to retain some of their power, but the conquerors still spread their ideology among locals (especially Mahmud of Ghazni).
 
This is the dumbest theory I've ever heard Hindustani nationalists propagate.

Your ancestors got with foreigners, they may have even been raped and pillaged.

Deal with it.



Foreigners from Central/West Asia clearly got busy with the people of IVC. That is how we are still related to them (albeit distantly, especially people like me who have even more foreign blood in them).



Then they have a serious problem.



A fair amount of people did migrate, but most of them wouldn't have been too far from Pakistan, so their genetic makeup wouldn't have been too different.

Tbh, most Hindustanis of the north west will be very similar to us genetically (maybe not completely indistinguishable but still incredibly similar). However, we do have cultural differences.



Somewhat true, high caste Hindu's were typically allowed to retain some of their power, but the conquerors still spread their ideology among locals (especially Mahmud of Ghazni).

It was collaboration.

Most of Northern India.

Till they started moving south of Gujarat into Maharashtra.

Same story with the British.

Only this time, BOTH Hindus and Muslims collaborated.

Cheers, Doc
 
Thank you sir .......... by God I am seriously trying to learn something new here :D



I had asked a couple of times my dear friend @padamchen if ever people of sub continent had ventured out of this region ............ looking to expand their territorial boundaries or projecting their influence beyond their own lands. Seems like this region has been receiving people only and never got the opportunity be invading permanent guests sometimes for a change.

But there is one confusion though, the difference in architecture, and design ......... may be I am mistaken, but if people migrated from outside then why there is no resemblance in architecture? Was it that native people had impressed them with their own designs and skills?

I will drop the question about fair skin ...... its a recent obsession I guess post cinema and media ..... may be.




Sir is there a resemblance between this and East India Company? The only difference being this time the invaders were only after the resources (may be) and the local people weren't that much interested in exchanging Chromosomes? As usual like centuries ago no large full scale resistance offered ................ our mentality may have remained ancient? never to resist the invaders? Will I be right in assuming this as a ever existing weakness / inferiority complex that helped all the invaders, migrants and explorers?



Sir is there any mention this split in Persian history? Considering how Persians have been welcomed in subcontinent and how they feel like it being their second home .......... there is a connection. However, people who worshiped Ahura Mazda have a rich history, architecture and were an empire. The losers didn't try initiating the quarrel again, once they had found their new home and support ........ ? Sir I have no intent of offending anyone but one thing is common ....... natives have proven weak ............ they accepted losers beliefs.

The Mauryans did conquer Afghanistan, however, Afghanistan is considered of the sub continent by many. Mughals did the same (but many still consider them foreign even though they lived in the region for so long).

Other than that, nobody comes to mind lol.
 
It was collaboration.

Most of Northern India.

Till they started moving south of Gujarat into Maharashtra.

Same story with the British.

Only this time, BOTH Hindus and Muslims collaborated.

Cheers, Doc

Yeah, but Muslims still maintained thorough dominance (especially the ones who knew Farsi).

I can say this given the current state of the Muslim countries Islam has not solved anything

Used to be glorious for us, but ever since Muslim countries started becoming secular, things started going downhill real fast.

First, we lost our power in scientific, philosophical and mathematical fields, and were reduced to just really good conquerors.

Then, we lost that and became just run of the mill people, with nothing particularly grand about us.

After that, we ended up where we are today. A people mostly considered inferior by others. How depressing.

Sir that would be invaders doing it again............ my question is genuine native people specific. Why didn't they project themselves.

And sir if this region was / is rich then why it proved to be weak, defenseless?

That's a joke right?

South Asia was full of martial people who were great at fighting. The only problem is there has usually never been a centralised force to capitalise on this and unite the excellent fighters under one banner. When this happened under the Mauryans, Delhi Sultanate or Mughals among others, this region became a powerhouse that could defeat the likes of Ghenghis Khan's army.

Even the smaller kingdoms put up a huge fight. King Porus is the sole reason Alexander didn't conquer the rest of the region (Alexander's troops were too traumatised after fighting Porus to continue any further).

Also, the invaders weren't always evil. They sometimes united regions and offered them to become equal members of their grand empires, such as the Achaemenids from Iran. Under their rule, Punjab was one of their best provinces and was very wealthy, even providing foot soldiers for the Achaemenid military.
 
That's a joke right?

South Asia was full of martial people who were great at fighting. The only problem is there has usually never been a centralised force to capitalise on this and unite the excellent fighters under one banner. When this happened under the Mauryans, Delhi Sultanate or Mughals among others, this region became a powerhouse that could defeat the likes of Ghenghis Khan's army.

Even the smaller kingdoms put up a huge fight. King Porus is the sole reason Alexander didn't conquer the rest of the region (Alexander's troops were too traumatised after fighting Porus to continue any further).

Also, the invaders weren't always evil. They sometimes united regions and offered them to become equal members of their grand empires, such as the Achaemenids from Iran. Under their rule, Punjab was one of their best provinces and was very wealthy, even providing foot soldiers for the Achaemenid military.


This is mostly defensive and within sub continent, except for Mauryans (may be) the rest of what mentioned are outsiders no? ........... I was interested in their (this region's genuine people) reach and footprints out of the sub continent.
 
I have been reading an excellent book recently - re-reading would be a better description - called The Indian Ocean in World History, by Alpers, which I can recommend warmly to all interested, even to the saffron panties.

Thank you for the recommendation, sir my lack of interest in this region's history is basically rooted in having difficulty digesting alien, mythical narratives and characters, I find it hard to understand the concepts, beliefs and terms, there are so many of them. The whole thing looks fictitious to me, you can blame me for I failed but honestly I haven't ever figured out where to start ......... I got lost searching for the starting point and forgot about it all together. I deeply admire(d) the Katasraj site or any other site in Taxila or any historical site.......... merely looking at structures in those sites makes me mourn our backwardness in this technologically advanced era ....... they were normal humans like us right? No super powers etc?

A very complex question: may i hold it over till later?

Sure sir whenever its convenient for you.

However, concluding that the natives proved weak, and that they accepted the losers' beliefs is fallacious; the losers were opposing copper and bronze weaponry to steel, and that was a no-contest.

I will take the liberty to refer to how once considered weak, lizard eating Arabs took on two super powers of their time simultaneously ......... they were no match in the weapons department neither they had well established industry back home compared to this region. Sir with respect, but I disagree ....... there need to be more valid reasons

The other side of the story is that the invaders in question didn't face much resistance, not just from south Asia, but other parts of Asia as well. For instance, soon after the Alexandrine invasion, the Indo-Greeks started their own set of principalities in the region of Balkh, and conquered everything in sight, not just the Indians. The Scythians did similarly, as did the Kushans. So to conclude that during a period when all being swept along rather helplessly the south Asians were particularly effete is rather sweeping a conclusion.

Sir does this mean that none of them had concept of a regular disciplined army, they were scattered and divided? It wasn't a natural catastrophe that won't spare none. Humans were against humans face to face ..... nothing like modern times warfare.
 
First, we lost our power in scientific, philosophical and mathematical fields, and were reduced to just really good conquerors.

Sorry to have to burst this "Golden Age of Islam" bubble, but really it had very little to do with Islam, and more to do with the people Islam forcefully converted under its banner in its initial thrust.

Mainly the Persians.

A lot of Islam and its glory days piggybacks on the Persians. A Zoroastrian people.

Science. Philosophy. Literature. Poetry. Architecture. Astronomy. See where most of this originated.

The Arabs or the Persians.

Cheers, Doc
 
Used to be glorious for us, but ever since Muslim countries started becoming secular, things started going downhill real fast.

First, we lost our power in scientific, philosophical and mathematical fields, and were reduced to just really good conquerors.

Then, we lost that and became just run of the mill people, with nothing particularly grand about us.

After that, we ended up where we are today. A people mostly considered inferior by others. How depressing.

When were the Arabs ahead of the world in scientific, philosophical and mathematical fields ?
Which Muslim countries are you even talking about ?
 
Sorry to have to burst this "Golden Age of Islam" bubble, but really it had very little to do with Islam, and more to do with the people Islam forcefully converted under its banner in its initial thrust.

Mainly the Persians.

A lot of Islam and its glory days piggybacks on the Persians. A Zoroastrian people.

Science. Philosophy. Literature. Poetry. Architecture. Astronomy. See where most of this originated.

The Arabs or the Persians.

Cheers, Doc

I disagree with the word "forcefully" and that Arabs of that time were total barbarians who had no poetic sense. Though Politics and intrigues were something new to them.

If you still persist that it was forcefully then please next time drop the argument of blaming Pakistanis (Your side's favorite argument you know) for something similar ....... Zoroastrians were no stronger than Pakistanis then .....
 
I disagree with the word "forcefully" and that Arabs of that time were total barbarians who had no poetic sense. Though Politics and intrigues were something new to them.

If you still persist that it was forcefully then please next time drop the argument of blaming Pakistanis (Your side's favorite argument you know) for something similar ....... Zoroastrians were no stronger than Pakistanis then .....

I did not get your argument bro, with regard to Pakistanis and what exactly I am blaming them of (its a long list ...)

Cheers, Doc
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom