What's new

I suppose this makes it definitive....

Nice try at deception. the photo belongs to Andaman & Nicobar Jarawa tribe. There are mighy 400 of them


The Saudi royal family do not do that for all OIC members. They do it for their lap dogs

Kaptaan probably does not know that I grew up on the Chotanagpur plateau.

And never seen such tribals in my life.

Ours are santhals and sambalpuris. Fine athletic tall lithe women. Quite gorgeous some of them.

Sadly their men seem to prefer strutting around with long bows and poison tipped arrows ....

Cheers, Doc
 
Kaptaan probably does not know that I grew up on the Chotanagpur plateau.

And never seen such tribals in my life.

Ours are santhals and sambalpuris. Fine athletic tall lithe women.

Cheers, Doc

Kaptaan would not know either. Racial & linguistic divisions are not perfect. You can make generalizations.
there will be so many exceptions to the rule. you have to wonder if the generalization was worth it.
 
You do know that they were your ancestors as well who were raped, humiliated, enslaved and conquered by the foreign invaders, or you believe yourself to be a white race who actually invaded and looted the subcontinent. Stockholm syndrome.

Not to make too big a point of it, but knowing Hindus and their fixation on bloodlines, much like us, I doubt any of the raped remained Hindu thereafter. If alive.

But let's not disturb their favorite national fantasy.

Cheers, Doc
 
As the scientific facts and evidence of the OP points out, our ancestry is different to that of modern day indians and is more related to and in line with the "invaders" than to anyone else.
Sure. You can be if you wannabe
That's just a theory, like many other theories present out there.
Your love for foreign invading barbarians who most probably looted and vandalised your heritage is quite concerning.
As I' said Stockholm syndrome.
 
Sure. You can be if you wannabe
That's just a theory, like many other theories present out there.
Your love for foreign invading barbarians who most probably looted and vandalised your heritage is quite concerning.
As I' said Stockholm syndrome.

Easy on the barbarian bit though .... jeez :lol:

Cheers, Doc
 
Sure. You can be if you wannabe
That's just a theory, like many other theories present out there.
Your love for foreign invading barbarians who most probably looted and vandalised your heritage is quite concerning.
As I' said Stockholm syndrome.


But indians also claim that Pakistanis are low caste Hindus who converted to Islam. The scientific, anthropological and DNA evidence in the OP has completely destroyed that myth and lie forever. So indian claims about Pakistani heritage & culture are proven to always be false. Our history and heritage is not the same as that of modern day indians.

For argument sake, let's just say I'm a descendant of an enslaved conquered Hindu indian. I am not enslaved now and have the right and power to do what I want. Despite this, I would rather die horribly and brutally than become an indian or a hindu. I wouldn't even do it for all the wealth and pleasure in the world. If I can't be a Muslim, I would rather die. So I am not conquered now and I am a willing Muslim. Perhaps this was true for others in the past?
 
But indians also claim that Pakistanis are low caste Hindus who converted to Islam. The scientific, anthropological and DNA evidence in the OP has completely destroyed that myth and lie forever. So indian claims about Pakistani heritage & culture are proven to always be false. Our history and heritage is not the same as that of modern day indians.

For argument sake, let's just say I'm a descendant of an enslaved conquered Hindu indian. I am not enslaved now and have the right and power to do what I want. Despite this, I would rather die horribly and brutally than become an indian or a hindu. I wouldn't even do it for all the wealth and pleasure in the world. If I can't be a Muslim, I would rather die. So I am not conquered now and I am a willing Muslim. Perhaps this was true for others in the past?

You'd be surprised at how willing some humans can be with a sword to the neck.

It's really not the same after that, once you are born into a faith.

Cheers, Doc
 
Tony Joseph is a writer and former editor of BusinessWorld. Twitter: @tjoseph0010

@Joe Shearer i did not get you tag mate.[/QUOTE]

You were tagged! I remember you had not got it on earlier occasions as well; maybe your nick is in stealth mode?

@baajey
 
Last edited:
But indians also claim that Pakistanis are low caste Hindus who converted to Islam. The scientific, anthropological and DNA evidence in the OP has completely destroyed that myth and lie forever. So indian claims about Pakistani heritage & culture are proven to always be false. Our history and heritage is not the same as that of modern day indians.

For argument sake, let's just say I'm a descendant of an enslaved conquered Hindu indian. I am not enslaved now and have the right and power to do what I want. Despite this, I would rather die horribly and brutally than become an indian or a hindu. I wouldn't even do it for all the wealth and pleasure in the world. If I can't be a Muslim, I would rather die. So I am not conquered now and I am a willing Muslim. Perhaps this was true for others in the past?
Your history and heritage is not different but only partially complete as compared to modern day Indians. There were Hindu Kingdoms which ruled the land before bin qasim, Delhi sultanate and the Mughals.

Sure, you can be anything you want but history can never be altered, no matter how desperately you try. What you're now and what you prefer to be is based on your personal choice and judgment.

You'd be surprised at how willing some humans can be with a sword to the neck.
That's brutal doc.:rofl:
 
Your history and heritage is not different but only partially complete as compared to modern day Indians. There were Hindu Kingdoms which ruled the land before bin qasim, Delhi sultanate and the Mughals.

Sure, you can be anything you want but history can never be altered, no matter how desperately you try. What you're now and what you prefer to be is based on your personal choice and judgment.


That's brutal doc.:rofl:


But IT IS different. You are simply parroting the indian narrative that is provably false. indians also claim that Pakistanis have the same heritage as modern day indians but the scientific and anthropological evidence has completely dismissed these claims. Yes we do have a non-Muslim heritage but that goes back to the ancestors of the region that is modern day Pakistan. It is completely different to that of modern day indians. Where is the evidence that Pakistanis and modern day indians have the same heritage because the genuine proof doesn't suggest that.

You'd be surprised at how willing some humans can be with a sword to the neck.

It's really not the same after that, once you are born into a faith.

Cheers, Doc


No-one is holding a sword to my neck now. I would rather die brutally than become a hindu or an indian.
 
But IT IS different. You are simply parroting the indian narrative that is provably false. indians also claim that Pakistanis have the same heritage as modern day indians but the scientific and anthropological evidence has completely dismissed these claims. Yes we do have a non-Muslim heritage but that goes back to the ancestors of the region that is modern day Pakistan. It is completely different to that of modern day indians. Where is the evidence that Pakistanis and modern day indians have the same heritage because the genuine proof doesn't suggest that.




No-one is holding a sword to my neck now. I would rather die brutally than become a hindu or an indian.

I believe my English was pretty lucid.

Though yes, not a Brit like you.

Cheers, Doc
 
For what it's worth, @Kaptaan, the author mentions that the genetic analysis of the population is not complete. It is impressive evidence on one point of great interest to us: the possibility that the Indo-Aryan language was brought into south Asia by individuals, families, groups, perhaps even entire tribes of migrants from the region of the settlement of the Indo-Iranians. It has nothing to do with any sharp genetic divergence between the residents of present-day Pakistan and north India or west India; if you argue that present-day Pakistanis are genetically quite distant from south Indians and east Indians, you might be closer to the truth. A good point at which to start is to recall that there is no sharp gap that suddenly occurs in the genetic make-up of people living from 10 miles to the west of the Radcliffe Line to 10 miles to the east.

The point of the article is very simple; primitive OOI groupies like my friend @Srinivas (and many, many more) are left disarmed by precise, concrete scientific evidence that blows a hole through their fond theories of the greater part of human civilisation having originated within India, and was carried out to the rest of the world by prototypical Brahmins and Kshatriyas: a 'theory' so feckless and without foundation that it silenced the academic community by its brazen refusal to be bound by the normally prevailing rules of producing evidence.

Having said that, it is equally important to understand what the article does not say. The existing masses at the time of these widely spread 'migrations' were not wiped not; genetically speaking, they remained the majority. There is other evidence to believe that they were dominated, their divinities were co-opted, their culture was attacked and supplanted (a process that continues to this day), and they were placed socially at a disadvantage that was cast in concrete by a period roughly two thousand to two thousand five hundred years from the time that the migrants seem to have come into the sub-continent (going by the genetic evidence).

The article does not denigrate the contributions made by those earlier migrants; indeed, it holds up for mention those who trickled in around 35,000 years ago, out of Africa, and we know that there were those who migrated slightly later and contributed enormously to the genetic inventory, especially in west India, including what is today Pakistan. The point that those in the west were closer, genetically (and presumably better, laughable though that construct may seem), to the very diverse peoples of the Near East and the Middle East is astonishing, to say the least; how close are the Anatolians, the Turks, the Arabs and the Iranians to each other? Forget about 'western' Indians, they are not even a homogeneous group by themselves.

An argument that Pakistanis are closer to other non-Indians than they are to Indians necessarily depends on clubbing together the east and the south with the north and the west, with which the population of present-day Pakistan has a great difference. It starts creaking at the joints the moment one examines the population of Pakistan in juxtaposition to their immediate neighbours to the east. Leaving aside the Baluch and the Pashtun, there is in fact little or no difference between the Punjabi and the Sindhi and their immediate neighbours to the east. When we remember that besides the migration of the Aryan speakers that this article addresses, there were other, possibly larger migrations, in the Scythian-Pahlavi ones, closely followed by the Kushan migration, and that these are closely linked to the people of Gujarat and Sindh on the one hand and to the Pashtun on the other. Are we to believe that migrations, of any time or of any kind, had an absolutely unique impact on the dwellers of the present-day Pakistan, and absolutely no impact on the Gujaratis and the Rajputs?
 
For what it's worth, @Kaptaan, the author mentions that the genetic analysis of the population is not complete. It is impressive evidence on one point of great interest to us: the possibility that the Indo-Aryan language was brought into south Asia by individuals, families, groups, perhaps even entire tribes of migrants from the region of the settlement of the Indo-Iranians. It has nothing to do with any sharp genetic divergence between the residents of present-day Pakistan and north India or west India; if you argue that present-day Pakistanis are genetically quite distant from south Indians and east Indians, you might be closer to the truth. A good point at which to start is to recall that there is no sharp gap that suddenly occurs in the genetic make-up of people living from 10 miles to the west of the Radcliffe Line to 10 miles to the east.

The point of the article is very simple; primitive OOI groupies like my friend @Srinivas (and many, many more) are left disarmed by precise, concrete scientific evidence that blows a hole through their fond theories of the greater part of human civilisation having originated within India, and was carried out to the rest of the world by prototypical Brahmins and Kshatriyas: a 'theory' so feckless and without foundation that it silenced the academic community by its brazen refusal to be bound by the normally prevailing rules of producing evidence.

Having said that, it is equally important to understand what the article does not say. The existing masses at the time of these widely spread 'migrations' were not wiped not; genetically speaking, they remained the majority. There is other evidence to believe that they were dominated, their divinities were co-opted, their culture was attacked and supplanted (a process that continues to this day), and they were placed socially at a disadvantage that was cast in concrete by a period roughly two thousand to two thousand five hundred years from the time that the migrants seem to have come into the sub-continent (going by the genetic evidence).

The article does not denigrate the contributions made by those earlier migrants; indeed, it holds up for mention those who trickled in around 35,000 years ago, out of Africa, and we know that there were those who migrated slightly later and contributed enormously to the genetic inventory, especially in west India, including what is today Pakistan. The point that those in the west were closer, genetically (and presumably better, laughable though that construct may seem), to the very diverse peoples of the Near East and the Middle East is astonishing, to say the least; how close are the Anatolians, the Turks, the Arabs and the Iranians to each other? Forget about 'western' Indians, they are not even a homogeneous group by themselves.

An argument that Pakistanis are closer to other non-Indians than they are to Indians necessarily depends on clubbing together the east and the south with the north and the west, with which the population of present-day Pakistan has a great difference. It starts creaking at the joints the moment one examines the population of Pakistan in juxtaposition to their immediate neighbours to the east. Leaving aside the Baluch and the Pashtun, there is in fact little or no difference between the Punjabi and the Sindhi and their immediate neighbours to the east. When we remember that besides the migration of the Aryan speakers that this article addresses, there were other, possibly larger migrations, in the Scythian-Pahlavi ones, closely followed by the Kushan migration, and that these are closely linked to the people of Gujarat and Sindh on the one hand and to the Pashtun on the other. Are we to believe that migrations, of any time or of any kind, had an absolutely unique impact on the dwellers of the present-day Pakistan, and absolutely no impact on the Gujaratis and the Rajputs?

The important point for me -

So the IVC guys did not flee or get mass butchered?

But if they stayed on, even as slaves or vassals, what happened to the advanced for that time civilization?

Buildings. Granaries. Baths. Council halls. Roads. Drainage sewers.

Suddenly disappeared?

Why?

Indo Iranians did not favor good drainage and town planning? Stop cultivating grain and moved primarily to meat? Moved into mud and grass huts?

Cheers, Doc
 

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


Back
Top Bottom