Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[UnitedPak]

I havent been following this thread for some time, but I will start replying to all the comments again.

Regards.

 

[roadrunner]

Okay, let me tell you this, these claims and counter claims are because some people from both sides of the border are either ignorant of their origin, or at best, wants to equivocally live in a stage of denial. The IVC was a civilization, that was scattered in an area comprising of the present day political entities, India and Pakistan. The present day Upper caste North Indians and Pakistanis are NOT two different ethenic races, who need to claim or counter claim as to who own the present day Pakistan or Indian states or the IVC in particular, because they belong to the same ancestors, living in the same geographic areas and most importantly are of the same genetic family, namely the R-2, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup, characterized by the genetic marker M124. Now stop treading on the typical Mulla/RSS stuff and keep going ahead like matured men and not like two disgrunted men scorning at a 60 year old glass of spilled milk.

There UPPER caste North Indian Brahmins, such as from Uttar Pradesh may definitely have some Pakistani ancestry.

But how much of India's population do they represent? A fraction is the answer. Perhaps 0.00001%. By now, they too will have reproduced with the locals and would be of a different subrace to the Pakistanis.

In fact, the Kapoors, Raj Kapoor was from the land mass known as Pakistan, but emigrated to India after Partition. These are the types of Indians that can claim relations to Pakistan.

The Muhajirs also can claim association with India.

In the studies you quote. Well, your conclusions have been disproven a long time ago. The subhaplogroups contained within Pakistan and India tend to be different. There has not been an extensive study of this, but there is as much continuity between India and Pakistan, as there is between Iran and Pakistan, perhaps even less, since several times in history, Iran was merged with Pakistan.

 

[UnitedPak]

Here is another Wikipedia Quote:



Basically, Lothal, Kalibangan, Surkotada are chronologically much later than the Pakistani sites.
This would indicate a large-scale eastward migration, since small groups cannot establish full-fledged Harappan cities.

Several small settlements Harappan in character have been found as far as Maharashtra and east of Delhi, which appear to flourish when the settlements in Pakistan are in their dying stages or have been abandoned.

I cannot say as of now, exactly what proportion of Harappans migrated east, but considering the theory of the drying Saraswati (Ghaggar-Hakra) river and the other evidence, it would seem that quite a substantial migration took place.

Regarding the "mixing" of Aryan settlers and indegenous people, it is possible. It is also possible that the Harappan sites were abandoned well before the arrival of the Aryan migrants. I'll have to find out about that.

You dont seem to understand the evolution of cities. As people progress they build technologically superior and bigger cities. Not smaller and more primitive.
There are no cities like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in India. There are settlements dating to a period far later, and they are nowhere near the size or complexity as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro.

Let me put it this way, without Harappa and Mohenjo Daro to define the Indus Valley, the other settlements wouldnt receive another look.

As for the Indus Valley people migrating? Any evidence of this what so ever? If there is, do you have any explanation for the people completely abandoning their architecture and love for massive cities?

The other theory points out the emergence of Pakistani cities some time after Indus Valley disappears, like Peshawar, Lahore, Multan etc.

I would suggest that you be more realistic than assuming everyone going eastward, and Pakistan becoming barren and uninhabitable.

 

[UnitedPak]

Ah, well then in that case we will simply have to wait til one of your favourite archaeologists decides to personally involve himself in the excavations.



I would not agree with that either. Modern Pakistanis would need to have a substantial proportion of harappan genes in order to claim this.

From what I can see, the majority of Pakistanis share little or no DNA with the original harappans.

It is impossible for any gene pool to remain pure. Obviously, Pakistanis today probably mixed with Greeks as well. That doesn't make them inheritors of the Greek civilization.

On the other hand, the gene pool within modern India has remained largely static throughout history. This would make it far more likely that modern day Indians carry a substantial harappan genetic component.

It could also be possible that the descendants of harappan tribes remained largely "pure" due to restrictions on inter-tribal mixing brought about by the caste system.

Once again, see my above post. You are assuming Pakistan became barren and uninhabitable, so the people moved East.
You are also assuming India (only 5000 years ago) was uninhabited and nearly empty?
5000 years, relatively speaking is not long ago. Human migration into India happened way way before.

The Indus Valley came to an end, and not long after we had the emergence of Pakistani cities like Peshawar, Lahore and Multan.
So are you telling me that Pakistan became barren and uninhabitable, only to flourish again in a very short period of time?
Geography doesnt work this way.

Your theories involve ultra fast geographical changes, mass migrations, vanishing rivers, and then fail to explain why Pakistan has continuously been inhabited for the past 5000 years, and why the land is still very much fertile if said Geographical changes did happen.

Yes Pakistan has seen the invasions of plenty of people, but the original population has never been wiped out entirely, (or even partly) like you are trying to prove.

 

[deltacamelately]

There UPPER caste North Indian Brahmins, such as from Uttar Pradesh may definitely have some Pakistani ancestry.

Correction, Aryan, not Pakistani ancestory. The state of Pakistan is a very recent developement.

But how much of India's population do they represent? A fraction is the answer. Perhaps 0.00001%. By now, they too will have reproduced with the locals and would be of a different subrace to the Pakistanis.

That's incorrect. Almost all the upper castes Hindus and also others like Sikhs, Dogras, Haryanwis, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis etc etc have the same genetic marker.

The Muhajirs also can claim association with India.

The only problem is that the Mohajirs are expatriot Biharis, UPites, MPites etc etc, and they migrated from India to Pakistan and not vice versa, so do you find them inferior to Sindhis and Punjabis?

In the studies you quote. Well, your conclusions have been disproven a long time ago. The subhaplogroups contained within Pakistan and India tend to be different. There has not been an extensive study of this,

I've provided the names of the authors who have done quite an extensive study on that. If you want to counter their studies, produce evidence.

but there is as much continuity between India and Pakistan, as there is between Iran and Pakistan, perhaps even less, since several times in history, Iran was merged with Pakistan.

Could you corroborate as to when Iran was merged with Pakistan? Back your arguments with facts, else I don't have any appetite for a pi$$ing contest.

 

[roadrunner]

Correction, Aryan, not Pakistani ancestory. The state of Pakistan is a very recent developement.

The term Aryan is overused in India.

I'll accept that 0.00000001% of India might be truly Aryan, but these too will have substantially mixed with the locals over time. Either way a much greater proportion of Pakistanis would be, since these "Aryans" would have derived from regions within Pakistan.

That's incorrect. Almost all the upper castes Hindus and also others like Sikhs, Dogras, Haryanwis, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis etc etc have the same genetic marker.

You don't understand genetic markers. This much is clear.

Sharing one or two markers is irrelevant, as subsharans and Europeans even will share some.

The only problem is that the Mohajirs are expatriot Biharis, UPites, MPites etc etc, and they migrated from India to Pakistan and not vice versa, so do you find them inferior to Sindhis and Punjabis?

Inferior is your word, not mine.

Why do you have a caste system that places the indigenous Indian people in a lower rank, and the foreigner, lighter skinned ones (such as the Pakistani derived upper castes of Northwest India), as upper rank?

I've provided the names of the authors who have done quite an extensive study on that. If you want to counter their studies, produce evidence.

A lot of research, especially by Indian authors on India is unbalanced. I've already refuted this, as have other researchers. Will write it up again later.

Could you corroborate as to when Iran was merged with Pakistan? Back your arguments with facts, else I don't have any appetite for a pi$ contest.

The Archemid Empire was one. I could name several others. And India was not part of the Archemid Empire, before you try to claim it as well!

 

[Flintlock]

Watch This (BBC Documentary) : Answers several questions about the end of the Indus Valley Civilization and the beginnings of civilization into the Gangetic plain.

Also explains the shift of civilization eastward into the Gangetic plains after the end of IVC, which we have been arguing over for quite some time:

 

[Vinod2070]

Great video. Explains how the center of gravity of the civilization moved to the Eastern parts of India from the North Western corner.

 

[UnitedPak]

Climate change is not an explanation.

The video doesn't explain why Pakistan has been continuously inhabited if said climate changes and mass migrations did occur. The video just seems to focus on Ganges and portraying it as something overly holy.
The professor even shows his bias with his ramblings about the Ghakkar Hakra river, at at time Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were at their peak. I cant take him seriously if he chooses to ignore the main Indus Valley cities and simply focus on eastern settlements in an attempt to link the civilisation to Ganges. Which he does...

 

[roadrunner]

The investigator is obviously of Indian descent, but I'm not interested in that. What he says is more important.

I watched the first 30 seconds of it. Here are my thoughts so far.

He's trying to establish a link between sites of the IVC and a HYPOTHETICAL Saraswati River. There's ample proof the Saraswati did not exist. He's hypothesizing it does exist based on what ground effect?

I'll pull up an article that shows it is impossible for the Saraswati to exist which would entirely contradict all that clip.

Secondly, there may have been an eastward flow of culture. This is not the same as an eastward flow of people. You guys tend to copy Pakistan a lot by adopting Pakistan's cultures. It is of no surprise if you adopted this culture.

I'll come back to it later.

 

[Flintlock]

You guys are simply nit-picking, scrambling to prove that he's somehow biased. Indian descent - ignored the Indus River - Ganges as "overly holy" - can't take him seriously etc. etc.

By the way, he's Dr. Sanjeev Gupta from Imperial College London:

HONOURS and AWARDS-s.gupta

Try and disprove what he's saying, preferably with peer-reviewed paper or a similar interview with a Geologist of the same or better reputation, that contradicts what he says here.

He's the same guy, BTW, who headed the research into the Geological history of Britain which showed that a catastrophic flood resulted in the creation of the British Isles:

http://www.physorg.com/news103980956.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7151/full/7151xva.html

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Correction, Aryan, not Pakistani ancestory. The state of Pakistan is a very recent developement.

So is the state of India...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You guys are simply nit-picking, scrambling to prove that he's somehow biased. Indian descent - ignored the Indus River - Ganges as "overly holy" - can't take him seriously etc. etc.

By the way, he's Dr. Sanjeev Gupta from Imperial College London:

HONOURS and AWARDS-s.gupta

Try and disprove what he's saying, preferably with peer-reviewed paper or a similar interview with a Geologist of the same or better reputation, that contradicts what he says here.

He's the same guy, BTW, who headed the research into the Geological history of Britain which showed that a catastrophic flood resulted in the creation of the British Isles:

Catastrophic flood separated Britain from Europe: study

Access : Making the paperSanjeev Gupta : Nature

Along with questioning the authors motives, I believe both RR and UP have also argued against his observations and theories ..

 

[Flintlock]

Along with questioning the authors motives, I believe both RR and UP have also argued against his observations and theories ..

UnitedPak is focussed on how the Professor is somehow biased, and RR here talks about Saraswati river (which the prof never mentioned), along with some strange reasoning about "you guys tend to copy Pakistan a lot". Ha ha?

If the culture shifted, may I ask what happened to the people? How did they go from large cities to no evidence of settled life? The only reasonable explanation is that because of climate change, the large cities were no longer sustainable, so they evolved into smaller, less sophisticated communities which shifted progressively over several centuries into the Gangetic plain, which is basically what the prof is saying. The regions of the older Harappan sites became uninhabitable, so people began to the region with a more favourable climate.

By bringing the current British-drawn border into the picture and asserting that "you guys copy us therefore", he's simply showing how immature his thinking is, and why nobody is going to take him seriously.

 

[DarkStar]

Great video. Explains how the center of gravity of the civilization moved to the Eastern parts of India from the North Western corner.

Doesn't explain the 1500 to 2000 year gap between the end of the late Harappan era and the vedic era (which is not a historical era at all, as no event, place or person of the vedic era has any proven hostiricity). The gap is enormous, and cannot be wished away.

As for disproving the Geologist's claims, how can one disprove conjecture and speculation? The mythical river of saraswati was believed to meet the gunga jamuna at sangam, not run parallel to them. If not the saraswati, what other mythical river is he talking about?