4500-year-old DNA from Rakhigarhi reveals evidence that will unsettle Hindutva nationalists

[MultaniGuy]

Yes, anyone can tell that they look totally nothing like North Indians from Delhi or Noida or Gurgaon. Isn't it @Iqbal Ali ?

Pakistani man:

Indian man:

I said there are substantial differences between Indians and Paksitanis. skin color, for the most part, is not one of them.

Skin colour is one of the substantial differences between Pakistanis and Indians. lol.

 

[Mamluk]

My point is that there are more to differences/similarities between peoples than skin color. Skin color is actually the most superficial of aspects. I do not think Indians and Paksitanis are the same, but as a whole, most Paksitanis are not as much fairer than Indians as some would like to think. The real differences are in culture, language, lifestyle, etc. That's why there are so many conflicts in Africa despite the fact that Africans look the same. Tell me, is it possible to tell the difference between a Huthu and a Tutsi?

Pakistanis on average are much fairer than Indians.

But there's more to phenotype than skin color. Nose shape, skull shape, height etc. etc.

That's why there are so many conflicts in Africa despite the fact that Africans look the same.

No they don't. It's very racist to say that. You lump them together just because they are all black.

You cant convince me that these two pics show the same people:

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Skin color is actually the most superficial of aspects. I do not think Indians and Paksitanis are the same, but as a whole, most Paksitanis are not as much fairer than Indians as some would like to think.

I agree about skin colour. I have seen Sikhs as fair as Italians. Skin colour is poor measure but there is a phenotype that is more prevalent in India but gets weaker in Pakistan. Which phenotype? I call it the aboriginal look best exemplified by your late President Narasima Rao.

This look [exploded nose, huge lips] persists even in Pakistan although further you go away from the Indian border it gets weaker. It has high concentration in Karachi for obvious reasons. On the other hand the deeper you go in India it gets stronger. You can't deny this.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I agree about skin colour. I have seen Sikhs as fair as Italians. Skin colour is poor measure but there is a phenotype that is more prevalent in India but gets weaker in Pakistan. Which phenotype? I call it the aboriginal look best exemplified by your late President Narasima Rao.

This look [exploded nose, huge lips] persists even in Pakistan although further you go away from the Indian border it gets weaker. It has high concentration in Karachi for obvious reasons. On the other hand the deeper you go in India it gets stronger. You can't deny this.

But Sikhs only make 2% of Indian population.

Sikhs is not a good sample of Indian population. lol.

In statistical science we should use someone from the majority.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

I agree about skin colour. I have seen Sikhs as fair as Italians. Skin colour is poor measure but there is a phenotype that is more prevalent in India but gets weaker in Pakistan. Which phenotype? I call it the aboriginal look best exemplified by your late President Narasima Rao.

This look [exploded nose, huge lips] persists even in Pakistan although further you go away from the Indian border it gets weaker. It has high concentration in Karachi for obvious reasons. On the other hand the deeper you go in India it gets stronger. You can't deny this.

You are correct for the most part. Although a very important concept in genetics many here do not know is genotype does not always translate into a certain phenotype PM Rao btw was a telugu

But Sikhs only make 2% of Indian population.

Sikhs is not a good sample of Indian population. lol.

In statistical science we should use someone from the majority.

Okay so what is the majority of Indians? What is the majority of Paksitanis? We can post pictures all day long. What you are doing is posting outliers from small sample sizes. A better method is posting street scenes.

Peshawar

Lucknow

BTW, there are some differences between these people, but they are mostly related to facial structure than skin color. Like I said, skin color is superficial, and for the most part, not too different between India and Paksitan, notwithstanding outliers.

 

[UnitedPak]

There was some solid research but the Indian media and certain Indian researchers have tainted this research with their sheer insecurity and self importance along with their flawed focus on modern India.

There is a major problem in the picture presented of the so called "ASI" who appear to have populated a lot of Asia. Even if this was a homogenous group/ethnicity in all of South Asia, the evidence clearly shows that Indus Valley "ASI" are the ones who built IVC, while the North Indian/South Indian "ASI" had nothing to do with IVC. This is what the researchers basically said. Then the Indian media (once again) invented/speculated on convenient migration events, either a drought or conflict to connect IVC with modern Indian populations.

If you look at the genetic map of Pakistan, none of these Indian theories hold true.

The Eurasian component exist in all of Indus Valley in meaningful quantities, clearly suggesting that a Eurasian population settled and heavily mixed in the Indus Valley a long time ago. This is not what a deportation event looks like.
Meanwhile, modern North India and South India have no meaningful quantities of Eurasian DNA, because there was no settling. This was an Indus Valley event, so it's pointless to investigate this from a modern Indian perspective.#

One thing is true however. North and South Indians are heavily mixed and not very different from each other (on average).

 

[Cobra Arbok]

I agree about skin colour. I have seen Sikhs as fair as Italians. Skin colour is poor measure but there is a phenotype that is more prevalent in India but gets weaker in Pakistan. Which phenotype? I call it the aboriginal look best exemplified by your late President Narasima Rao.

This look [exploded nose, huge lips] persists even in Pakistan although further you go away from the Indian border it gets weaker. It has high concentration in Karachi for obvious reasons. On the other hand the deeper you go in India it gets stronger. You can't deny this.

One more thing I forgot to mention. If anyone wants to have a constructive discussion about race, it is important to understand race is not equal to skin color. Here is a picture of PM Modi with Pres. Jinping

How strong is the difference in skin color? very miniscule. But the difference in facial features is strong.
BTW, @Indus Pakistan what do you think about the Huthu Tutsi example about how people who look similar can have strong differences? Because what happened in Rwanda makes the Indo Pak conflict looks like toddlers fighting over a toy.

There was some solid research but the Indian media and certain Indian researchers have tainted this research with their sheer insecurity and self importance along with their flawed focus on modern India.

There is a major problem in the picture presented of these so called "ASI" who appear to have populated a lot of Asia. Even if this was a homogenous group/ethnicity in all of South Asia, the evidence clearly shows that Indus Valley "ASI" are the ones who built IVC, while the North Indian/South Indian "ASI" had nothing to do with IVC. This is what the researchers basically said. Then the Indian media (once again) invented/speculated on convenient migration events, either a drought or conflict to connect IVC with modern Indian populations.

If you look at the genetic map of Pakistan, none of these Indian theories hold true.

The Eurasian component exist in all of Indus Valley in meaningful quantities, clearly suggesting that a Eurasian population settled and heavily mixed in the Indus Valley a long time ago. This is not what a deportation event looks like.
Meanwhile, modern North India and South India have no meaningful quantities of Eurasian DNA, because there was no settling. This was an Indus Valley event, so it's pointless to investigate this from a modern Indian perspective.#

One thing is true however. North and South Indians are heavily mixed and not very different from each other (on average).

I have to disagree that
north and South Indians are very similar. I also think that diagram is flawed because it fails to show the various ethnicities of India such as Marathis, Gujaratis, Tamils, Telegus, etc. The fact is all ASI is simply dna of the first people to inhabit the subcontinent from Africa. Most of these people came to South India. That makes sense considering East Africa's proximity to South India. ANI simply refers to people who migrated from the steppes and iran to Northern SA-Pakistan and parts of North India. All South Asians have some quantity of ASI, ANI, and Eurasion DNA, some more than others. Yes Pakistan overall has more Eurasian DNA but that is because of its geographic proximity to Iran and Central Asia. Also, as I explained, the IVC was diverse and spread out. This study was limited to Rakhigari, and has nothing to do with MD and Harrapa. One last thing I want to point out is genotype does not always translate into phenotype, which is why the physical differences between Indians and Pakistanis are not as strong as some believe. But yes, It is ridiculous to think this one study from one IVC site describes the population of one of the most diverse regions on earth, especially populations that have nothing to do with IVC.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

So where do we stand. Even the FATA regions on the Afghan border of Pakistan have people who could walk inconspiciously in Kolkatta. Conversely even some Tamils could walk about inconspiously in Peshawar. However this not to say these three regions are the same. We know many Americans could walk about in Africa without being noticed. People move. People migrate. People mix. And have for centuries.

But this is about average Joe. Just because some Americans can pass off as Nigerians or some Nigerians could walk about in New York does not mean America and Nigeria are the same. In fact over 10% or 30 million Americans could pass off in Nigeria as locals.

In South Asia we have two main looks. One is aquiline and generally fair [although both do not always go together] and then there is this aboriginal generally dark [although not always] look as is visible on the face of the late Indian President Narasimha Rao. Then there is the 99 grades of mixture inbetween. In my estimation and I think nobody can deny this in Pakistan the aboriginal prevelance is less and weaker but this is not to say it does not exist. As soon as you land at Islamabad airport you will see it although it is most obvious in the Christian community who are Hindu converts who moved there with the British during the Raj.

If the prevalence is less in Pakistan and weaker. In India it gradually increases and gets stronger as you move east and south until it becomes dominant. To sum it up India has far more aboriginal % in it's population stock and Pakistan has less % in it's stock. That is the differance between Pakistan and India. Posting random pictures is useless and absurd.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Here are some better diagrams in my opinion

 

[TopCat]

I m the descendant of Genghis Khan...

 

[Cobra Arbok]

So where do we stand. Even the FATA regions on the Afghan border of Pakistan have people who could walk inconspiciously in Kolkatta. Conversely even some Tamils could walk about inconspiously in Peshawar. However this not to say these three regions are the same. We know many Americans could walk about in Africa without being noticed. People move. People migrate. People mix. And have for centuries.

But this is about average Joe. Just because some Americans can pass off as Nigerians or some Nigerians could walk about in New York does not mean America and Nigeria are the same. In fact over 10% or 30 million Americans could pass off in Nigeria as locals.

In South Asia we have two main looks. One is aquiline and generally fair [although both do not always go together] and then there is this aboriginal generally dark [although not always] look as is visible on the face of the late Indian President Narasimha Rao. Then there is the 99 grades of mixture inbetween. In my estimation and I think nobody can deny this in Pakistan the aboriginal prevelance is less and weaker but this is not to say it does not exist. As soon as you land at Islamabad airport you will see it although it is most obvious in the Christian community who are Hindu converts who moved there with the British during the Raj.

If the prevalence is less in Pakistan and weaker. In India it gradually increases and gets stronger as you move east and south until it becomes dominant. To sum it up India has far more aboriginal % in it's population stock and Pakistan has less % in it's stock. That is the differance between Pakistan and India. Posting random pictures is useless and absurd.

I agree with you for the most part. I was simply saying skin color is a very superficial difference. Even NS Rao has a relatively fair skin color not too different than most Pakistanis. And as I posted, Modi is about the same skin color as Xi Jinping. It is facial structure/features that matter, and yes, as a whole, India has more "aboriginal" type people(for lack of better word)

With that being said, I really hope you don't think South, East, and Central Asians are inferior to other South Asian groups. I have posted historical threads on such groups that would dispel such an uneducated notion. Although judging by your knowledge and expertise, I am assuming that you do not believe that.

I m the descendant of Genghis Khan...

That is very possible. Do you know how many women he and his sons r*ped? It is possible one of his hundreds of thousands of descendents made it to BD.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

not too different between India and Paksitan, notwithstanding outliers.

But the mean average is lighter in Pakistan. That is we have bigger % of light people in Pakistan then India. Although some % is also similar. And the aquiline/aboriginal mix is differant in both countries.

 

[faithfulguy]

I agree with you for the most part. I was simply saying skin color is a very superficial difference. Even NS Rao has a relatively fair skin color not too different than most Pakistanis. And as I posted, Modi is about the same skin color as Xi Jinping. It is facial structure/features that matter, and yes, as a whole, India has more "aboriginal" type people(for lack of better word)

With that being said, I really hope you don't think South, East, and Central Asians are inferior to other South Asian groups. I have posted historical threads on such groups that would dispel such an uneducated notion. Although judging by your knowledge and expertise, I am assuming that you do not believe that.


That is very possible. Do you know how many women he and his sons r*ped? It is possible one of his hundreds of thousands of descendents made it to BD.

Skin color, facial features, and other physical traits goes only skin deep. Even intelligence does not define us as the integrity of our character. We should judge each other by the content of our character rather than physical traits or intelligent. Without good moral characters, everyone could be like Indian gang rapists. That would not be what humanity needs.

 

[Shamsher1990]

Pakistani man:

Indian man:
View attachment 496272


Skin colour is one of the substantial differences between Pakistanis and Indians. lol.

But what to do about this Iqbal Mian?

Lahore :

New Delhi

There is a major problem in the picture presented of the so called "ASI" who appear to have populated a lot of Asia. Even if this was a homogenous group/ethnicity in all of South Asia, the evidence clearly shows that Indus Valley "ASI" are the ones who built IVC, while the North Indian/South Indian "ASI" had nothing to do with IVC.

You do know that IVC "ASI" do not have R1a haplo-group unlike modern day Pakistani. From the research it seems IVC inhabitants were ancestors of modern day dravidians.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

But the mean average is lighter in Pakistan. That is we have bigger % of light people in Pakistan then India. Although some % is also similar. And the aquiline/aboriginal mix is differant in both countries.

That maybe true, but the main racial differences are in facial features, the thing about India and Pakistan is that the countries are so diverse, the "Mean" would get skewed by outliers. In statistics, the mean is rarely used for that reason. Instead the median is used. You are right about that aboriginal look being more prevalent in India, but as I said,genotype does not always translate into phenotype. Let me put it this way. A person who is 60%aquiline 40% aboriginal is not much different in phenotype than the opposite. Its only when the ration theavily tilts one way that the looks become more obvious. The most extreme example of an "aboriginal" would be a scheduled tribe such as the Yanadi in Andhra Pradesh

THe most extreme example of an aquiline would be the Kalash in Pakistan. Most people are in the middle of the two, and the ratio is not lopsided enough for one to clearly dominate the other. For most South Indians, the aboriginal side dominates, for pahstos and balochis, the aquiline side dominates. But for Gujaratis. Marathis, Rajasthanis, Punjabis, SIndhis, etc. The ratio is not as strong. Up close those people may be different, but the differences are not as strong as some think. Remember the key phrase genotype does not always translate into phenotype.

So yes, you are right, in raw numbers and percentage, India has more "aboriginals." But as with all statistics, this has to be interpreted accurately to get a picture of the ground reality.

BTW if you cannot tell, I am fascinated with domography and ethnography and find them interesting fields. It makes me sad some people use them to promote racism and give themselves a sense of superiority over others(I am obviously not talking about you).

But what to do about this Iqbal Mian?

Lahore :

New Delhi

You do know that IVC "ASI" do not have R1a haplo-group unlike modern day Pakistani. From the research it seems IVC inhabitants were ancestors of modern day dravidians.

I don't think he understands the basic statistical concept of sample size.