Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


View Poll Results: Are the Pakistanis Indians?
Pakistanis are culturally Indian. 10 9.52%
Pakistanis aren't culturally Indian. 21 20.00%
Pakistanis are culturally and historically Indian. 59 56.19%
Pakistanis aren't culturally and historically Indian. 15 14.29%
Voters: 105. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2014, 07:12 AM   #31

anusername's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Beijing China
Posts: 331

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaheen View Post
I think its quite clear from looking at these maps that throughout history Pakistan has been a border region, sometimes part of the Iran-Afghan/Middle Eastern world and sometimes part of the Indian/South Asian world. Consequently cultural and ethnic influences come from both sides.
Thank you for your work,can you explain why the people of Pakistan believe in Islam?They are including the Muslim conqueror and Indus who changed believe,right?If most Pakistans are foreigner conqueror,then they don't share same history with native Indus.
The regions maybe be shared ,but the people and culture not.

Last edited by anusername; January 4th, 2014 at 07:14 AM.
anusername is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2014, 07:16 AM   #32

Shaheen's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Sweden
Posts: 2,426

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
It should however be pointed out that the Map of the Indus Valley is a bit dated. We know know that the extent of the IVC, in its mature phase, was as far east as Delhi and Eastern UP. Thus the map should ideally extend a little further Eastwards. Possibly it should extend a little more westwards as well, but there is little Archaeology happening in Pakistan these days, and it would be difficult to verify new IVC sites.
Many of these maps are probably not fully accurate, but I just posted the ones I got first haha. On a side note now that we are talking about cultural links with India, the government has recently restored the Katasraj temple

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klEGxvd3leQ]BBC News Pakistan government restores ancient Hindu temple - YouTube[/ame]
Shaheen is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 07:30 AM   #33
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Breakdancing on the Moon.
Posts: 898

Eh its an artificial state created from the blood of millions and something which will cause much more suffering in later times, who cares?

And no, in no way are FYROMese in any way Greek, nor have they been. They're the descendants of Slavs who moved into the area. Its one thing to use the name Macedonia - fine, sure, whatever, it was an important themi in the Byzantine Empire. But to steal history? Rot in hell.
World Focker is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 07:47 AM   #34

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,111
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by anusername View Post
Thank you for your work,can you explain why the people of Pakistan believe in Islam?They are including the Muslim conqueror and Indus who changed believe,right?If most Pakistans are foreigner conqueror,then they don't share same history with native Indus.
The regions maybe be shared ,but the people and culture not.
Islam is not an ethnic divider, its a religious one. Islam came both through conquerers/invaders as well as through perfectly peaceful means such as Arab Traders. Infact many traditions of Islam (Sufism in particular for example) were often as oppressed as the native religious traditions.

The Majority of Pakistanis today are Islamic because in 1947 Hindus and Sikhs were either massacred or forced to leave Pakistan, and few remained, mostly in the Major Punjabi cities, such as Lahore. India also say an exodus of Muslims, and massacres as well, but not as total as in Pakistan.

However it is grossly egregious to call the Muslims foreigners and different from the locals. Most modern muslims in India are just as likely (of not more so) to be descended from natives who converted as they are from those of pure turkish invaders. And the further into the Interior of Punjab and Northern India that you go, the less the likelihood of dominant Turkish ancestors is. It is also important to remember that while some few had foreign origins, their descendants were as much Indian as the natives. Cultures always intermingle and absorb influences, and there is rarely any such thing as a native and foreign culture for very long in any region. If this were not so, we would have to claim that Modern British or Spanish or American culture is all an Alien Culture and has nothing to do with the history of the land. Thus the History of the North West and the History of Muslims in India is not distinct from the History of the natives of India. This is also true of all other Indian groups that originated from outside such as the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Parthians, Shakas, Hunas, etc. Alexander and Seleucus Nikator would foreigners in India for example, but the Indo-Greek kingdom that they left behind is part of Indian History not Greek or Macedonian, although perhaps Persian history as well
tornada is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 08:02 AM   #35

Shaheen's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Sweden
Posts: 2,426

Quote:
Originally Posted by anusername View Post
Thank you for your work,can you explain why the people of Pakistan believe in Islam?They are including the Muslim conqueror and Indus who changed believe,right?If most Pakistans are foreigner conqueror,then they don't share same history with native Indus.
The regions maybe be shared ,but the people and culture not.
Well conversion of the populace to Islam was a gradual process and it didnt just take place suddenly. Even up till 1947 there was a substantial non Muslim population present (up to 20-25%) if I am not mistaken. However in the violence that came along with independence in 1947, most of the Hindus and Sikhs had to go to India and similarly most of the Muslims in Indian Punjab had to leave for Pakistan. As a result nowadays Pakistan is as I mentioned before, a profoundly Muslim country. Now coming to how the conversions took place that is a politically charged question and will get you different answers. The Pakistani narrative would be that it was voluntary, whilst many Indians would claim it was forced conversions. In reality it was probably I believe a mixture of the two.
As for most Pakistanis being foreign conquerors, no that is not true. Whilst a large number of foreign conquerors from the west and their offspring have indeed settled down in Pakistan, they have most of the time been immersed into the local population. The people and their languages hence have by and large remained the same. Having said that exceptions exist like the Karlugh Turks in Hazara and the Qazalbash who are spread throughout the country. So the Pakistani people today are still the people of the Indus even though they have been immersing and integrating into themselves foreign influences all the time (due to their geographic presence at the gateway between "India", "Iran" and Central Asia), in the shape of marriages with outsiders, cultural influences (disappearence of sari viz a viz arrival of Pashtun hat example that I gave before) and religious influences.

Last edited by Shaheen; January 4th, 2014 at 08:05 AM.
Shaheen is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 08:44 AM   #36

anusername's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Beijing China
Posts: 331

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
Islam is not an ethnic divider, its a religious one. Islam came both through conquerers/invaders as well as through perfectly peaceful means such as Arab Traders. Infact many traditions of Islam (Sufism in particular for example) were often as oppressed as the native religious traditions.

The Majority of Pakistanis today are Islamic because in 1947 Hindus and Sikhs were either massacred or forced to leave Pakistan, and few remained, mostly in the Major Punjabi cities, such as Lahore. India also say an exodus of Muslims, and massacres as well, but not as total as in Pakistan.

However it is grossly egregious to call the Muslims foreigners and different from the locals. Most modern muslims in India are just as likely (of not more so) to be descended from natives who converted as they are from those of pure turkish invaders. And the further into the Interior of Punjab and Northern India that you go, the less the likelihood of dominant Turkish ancestors is. It is also important to remember that while some few had foreign origins, their descendants were as much Indian as the natives. Cultures always intermingle and absorb influences, and there is rarely any such thing as a native and foreign culture for very long in any region. If this were not so, we would have to claim that Modern British or Spanish or American culture is all an Alien Culture and has nothing to do with the history of the land. Thus the History of the North West and the History of Muslims in India is not distinct from the History of the natives of India. This is also true of all other Indian groups that originated from outside such as the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Parthians, Shakas, Hunas, etc. Alexander and Seleucus Nikator would foreigners in India for example, but the Indo-Greek kingdom that they left behind is part of Indian History not Greek or Macedonian, although perhaps Persian history as well
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaheen View Post
Well conversion of the populace to Islam was a gradual process and it didnt just take place suddenly. Even up till 1947 there was a substantial non Muslim population present (up to 20-25%) if I am not mistaken. However in the violence that came along with independence in 1947, most of the Hindus and Sikhs had to go to India and similarly most of the Muslims in Indian Punjab had to leave for Pakistan. As a result nowadays Pakistan is as I mentioned before, a profoundly Muslim country. Now coming to how the conversions took place that is a politically charged question and will get you different answers. The Pakistani narrative would be that it was voluntary, whilst many Indians would claim it was forced conversions. In reality it was probably I believe a mixture of the two.
As for most Pakistanis being foreign conquerors, no that is not true. Whilst a large number of foreign conquerors from the west and their offspring have indeed settled down in Pakistan, they have most of the time been immersed into the local population. The people and their languages hence have by and large remained the same. Having said that exceptions exist like the Karlugh Turks in Hazara and the Qazalbash who are spread throughout the country. So the Pakistani people today are still the people of the Indus even though they have been immersing and integrating into themselves foreign influences all the time (due to their geographic presence at the gateway between "India", "Iran" and Central Asia), in the shape of marriages with outsiders, cultural influences (disappearence of sari viz a viz arrival of Pashtun hat example that I gave before) and religious influences.
thank you both all answered where Pakistanis Islam come from.
You both think Islam is a part of Indian cultural?
anusername is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 10:41 AM   #37

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,111
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by anusername View Post
thank you both all answered where Pakistanis Islam come from.
You both think Islam is a part of Indian cultural?
I do. Islam is certainly part of India's Culture, despite its foreign origins. Just as Roman Law is part of Britain's culture, despite foreign origins.
tornada is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 10:47 AM   #38

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Pakistanis are mostly Caucasians of Hunas, Scythic, Kushan/Yueh Chih (which are all Central Asian Caucasian tribes) ethnicity, with minor Australoid Indian type.

Click the image to open in full size.


In fact, many Sikh Punjabis, Rajputs, Jats etc are also of Central Asian origins.



The people of Pakistan are very similar to the people of Punjab and Haryana. But the people of Punjab and Haryana themselves are very different from people of, say, Kerala or Bengal which fall in India. India is a collection of nationalities.
Rakshasa is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 10:50 AM   #39

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,111
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Pakistanis are mostly Caucasians of Hunas, Scythic, Kushan/Yueh Chih (which are all Central Asian Caucasian tribes) ethnicity, with minor Australoid Indian type.

Click the image to open in full size.


In fact, many Sikh Punjabis, Rajputs, Jats etc are also of Central Asian origins.



The people of Pakistan are very similar to the people of Punjab and Haryana. But the people of Punjab and Haryana themselves are very different from people of, say, Kerala or Bengal which fall in India. India is a collection of nationalities.
India is a collection of various ethnic groups would be the better phrase. There are Australoids, Caucasoids, Tibeto-Burman, and a whole bunch of others. India could be termed as a collection of nations as well, but the majority of these nations were not on any ethnic grounds, but around specific dynasties and families. Few were specifically defined by a unique ethnic identity, and those quickly integrated with other ethnicities from their point of inception.

PS: Punjab and Haryana also happen to fall in India. And prior to the British Rule, the whole of undivided Punjab and surrounding regions were considered part of Hindostan
tornada is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 11:02 AM   #40

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
India is a collection of various ethnic groups would be the better phrase. There are Australoids, Caucasoids, Tibeto-Burman, and a whole bunch of others. India could be termed as a collection of nations as well, but the majority of these nations were not on any ethnic grounds, but around specific dynasties and families. Few were specifically defined by a unique ethnic identity, and those quickly integrated with other ethnicities from their point of inception.

PS: Punjab and Haryana also happen to fall in India. And prior to the British Rule, the whole of undivided Punjab and surrounding regions were considered part of Hindostan

Hindustan was a term used by the Mughals and Persian/Afghan Muslims to denote the territories they invaded, and excluded various parts of Southern India which are today parts of Republic of India.

Kashmiries, Punjabis, Pakistanis etc are all together closely related because of their Central Asian ethnic origins. Most of the other parts of India are more distantly related to them. Before the Guptas, parts of Punjab, Haryana etc were populated mostly by either Indian Australoid type or the Indo-Aryan Caucasian type. But after the invasions by HUnas, Yue-chih/Kushanas and INdo-Scythians, these Australoid Indians and Caucasian Indo-Aryans were forced to flee Southwards and Eastwards.
Rakshasa is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
indians, pakistanis



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you know about Mapuche indians? Jes American History 5 October 3rd, 2017 01:59 PM
American Indians vs. Asian Indians Thessalonian Speculative History 56 September 22nd, 2015 12:10 AM
Indians and Indians beeh Asian History 28 July 17th, 2013 09:45 PM
Difference between Pakistanis and Indians ... Greenblood07 Asian History 26 July 2nd, 2012 01:19 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.