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, 11:08 AM   #41

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,266
Blog Entries: 1

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.
No they are Anglo Saxon.

Click the image to open in full size.
Jinit is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2014, 11:19 AM   #42

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,106
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
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.
You do know that the Kushanas and Shakas preceded the Guptas do you not?
tornada is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 11:20 AM   #43

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,106
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
No they are Anglo Saxon.

Click the image to open in full size.
What? Who are Anglo Saxon? The people of Pakistan??
tornada is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 11:32 AM   #44

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,266
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
What? Who are Anglo Saxon? The people of Pakistan??
Why not? If they can become central Asian just because they were invaded by the Scythians, why can't they become Anglo saxon when they were invaded by the British?

Just Kidding... I was actually trying to point out the paucity of the argument that majority of the people are from central Asia because the area came under the invasion of Central Asian tribes. Invading armies don't change the demographic of entire area especially when they conquer an area with large population with a very short time. Not to mention that after sometimes most probably they assimilate within the local population. For eg Both British and the Mughals subjugated large part of India with very small amount of people in comparison to the population of India. Yet Even today Mughals consists of less than 1% (may be even less than 0.1%) of the population of the subcontinent. Same should be the case with the Central Asians.
Jinit is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 12:13 PM   #45

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
Why not? If they can become central Asian just because they were invaded by the Scythians, why can't they become Anglo saxon when they were invaded by the British?
It's interesting that Anglo Saxon in England themself were invaders too.Now British have became Anglo Saxon.

Last edited by anusername; January 4th, 2014 at 12:20 PM.
anusername is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 12:37 PM   #46

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,266
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by anusername View Post
It's interesting that Anglo Saxon in England themself were invaders too.Now British have became Anglo Saxon.
Thats true. However they migrated to the area with meager population (in comparison to the plains of Indus valley) and stayed in that area for much longer period of time. In context of England I think proper example is the Norman invasion.
Jinit is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 04:31 PM   #47

civfanatic's Avatar
Quasi-Civilized Primate
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 3,167
Blog Entries: 13

Pakistan is an artificial state that straddles the boundary between two historic civilizations - the Indic and the Iranic. The Eastern Pakistanis, including Panjabis and Sindhis, are historically a part of the Indic civilization, while the Western Pakistanis, including Pashtuns and Balochis, have historically been more affiliated with Iranic civilization. The "Pakistani" territories west of the Indus have historically been ruled by Afghans and Iranians. Indeed, Afghanistan does not recognize the Durand Line of 1893 (the border between modern Afghanistan and the erstwhile British India) as a legitimate boundary, since it is nothing more than an artificial line drawn on the map by the British. An interesting fact is that Afghanistan was the only country in the world to refuse to recognize Pakistan's entry into the United Nations:

Click the image to open in full size.

Source: Contemporary Problems of Pakistan

Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have been quite hostile since Pakistan's independence, and border skirmishes have been (and still are) quite frequent. Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand Line disregard the artificial border and cross between the two nations regularly.

As for the Eastern Pakistanis, despite their historical associations with Indic civilization, many of them now dislike India and do not want to associate with it. In their desire to be "different" from India they adopted Urdu as their official language over their own native languages like Panjabi and Sindhi. While Hindi-Urdu (also called "Hindustani") was essentially one language at the time of Independence, over the past 70 years there has been a divergence as Urdu is increasingly Persianized/Arabized while Hindi is increasingly Sanskritized. However, as it stands the two languages are still mutually intelligible to a considerable degree, though in the future this may change.

In conclusion, I think the best option on the poll is the third one if you are talking about Eastern "Pakistanis", while for Western "Pakistanis" the question is more nuanced due to heavy Iranic influence in language and culture.

Last edited by civfanatic; January 4th, 2014 at 04:34 PM.
civfanatic is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 04:59 PM   #48

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,854

Quote:
Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
Pakistan is an artificial state .
All states are artifical.
redcoat is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 05:00 PM   #49

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,854

Quote:
Originally Posted by anusername View Post
.Now British have became Anglo Saxon.
No we haven't
redcoat is offline  
Old January 4th, 2014, 05:01 PM   #50

civfanatic's Avatar
Quasi-Civilized Primate
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 3,167
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
All states are artifical.
Maybe, but some states are far more artificial than others.

Based on things like geography, ethnic makeup, language, and history, I would say that Sri Lanka (for example) is much more of a "natural state" than Pakistan.
civfanatic 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.