DNA Results From Rakhigarhi Are Now Being Reported

[Cobra Arbok]

I don't think we have more in terms of raw numbers, Hindustan is obviously larger and has more people so yes you guys will have more achievements, I only said that because you said our history is nothing in comparison to yours.

Some sources say Brahmagupta was born in Multan, but regardless as to whether or not he was, most intellectual figures from South Asia went to places in Pakistan like Taxila to obtain knowledge.

Sanskrit's not really been our thing. We have some excellent Pashto, Punjabi, Urdu and Farsi literature though.

We've got some pretty old architecture, like the Great Bath of Mohenjo Daro, the Kanishka Stupa, the Baluchistan Sphynx (although this one may be a natural formation), and some pretty old Hindu temples.

Hindustan itself is pretty huge and not at the crossroads of just about every major empire, but Pakistan is. So obviously you will have more empires from Hindustan, where as us Pakistanis will be descended from the different empires that came and conquered the region. However, we still have indigenous empires/dynasties, for example the Sur and Lodi dynasties were founded by Pashtuns from Pakistan, and Ahmed Shah Durrani was also born in Multan. There was also the Rind dynasty from Baluchistan that at one point sacked Delhi, the Shah Mir dynasty from Swat that ruled over Kashmir, The Samma dynasty from Sindh that ruled over southern Pakistan, the Sikh Empire came from Pakistani Punjab, etc. The Muslim dynasty of Mysore also had Punjabi ancestry, and IVC itself started in southern Pakistan (one of the worlds first civilisations) and spread to have outposts as far west as Turkmenistan. People from Gandhara also colonised parts of the Tarim Basin in China.

It's also important to note that the Mauryans themselves started in Taxila, where Kautilya (who himself was from Taxila) tutored the young Chandragupta, and they soon amassed a large army to conquer South Asia. People from what is now Pakistan as well as the land itself played a pretty crucial role for the Mauryans.

We've also been great soldiers for many different empires, particularly during the time of the Islamic invasions (their army's had large numbers of people from Pakistan).

Many things you said were wrong. You are correct some sources say Brahmagupta was born in Multan, but it is confirmed he lived most of his life in Ujjain. Nowhere did I deny that you have ancient sites and architecture, and I already said my previous post was poorly worded. I also explained that the IVC was not an Empire, and all IVC cities grew independently. As for indigenous Empires, India has never been invaded until about the 11th century when Ghaznavid invaded, whereas Punjab and SIndh had already fallen. It is still not clear whether Tipu SUltan had Punjabi ancestry, but he was still South Indian culturally. As for the Mauryans, the Mauryan Empire began from Patilputra. Chandragupta himself was Bihari, Maurya is a common North Indian last name.
We also don't only have Sanskrit, we also have ancient Tamil literature which predates Sanskrit. The earliest Tamil literature dates to 2500 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya

 

[Nilgiri]

I don't think we have more in terms of raw numbers, Hindustan is obviously larger and has more people so yes you guys will have more achievements, I only said that because you said our history is nothing in comparison to yours. I do think ours is better qualitatively though of course (which is cemented in my mind by the fact that so many Hindustanis try to claim it), but that's pretty subjective.

Some sources say Brahmagupta was born in Multan, but regardless as to whether or not he was, most intellectual figures from South Asia went to places in Pakistan like Taxila to obtain knowledge.

Sanskrit's not really been our thing. We have some excellent Pashto, Punjabi, Urdu and Farsi literature though.

We've got some pretty old architecture, like the Great Bath of Mohenjo Daro, the Kanishka Stupa, the Baluchistan Sphynx (although this one may be a natural formation), and some pretty old Hindu temples.

Hindustan itself is pretty huge and not at the crossroads of just about every major empire, but Pakistan is. So obviously you will have more empires from Hindustan, where as us Pakistanis will be descended from the different empires that came and conquered the region. However, we still have indigenous empires/dynasties, for example the Sur and Lodi dynasties were founded by Pashtuns from Pakistan, and Ahmed Shah Durrani was also born in Multan. There was also the Rind dynasty from Baluchistan that at one point sacked Delhi, the Shah Mir dynasty from Swat that ruled over Kashmir, The Samma dynasty from Sindh that ruled over southern Pakistan, the Sikh Empire came from Pakistani Punjab, etc. The Muslim dynasty of Mysore also had Punjabi ancestry, and IVC itself started in southern Pakistan (one of the worlds first civilisations) and spread to have outposts as far west as Turkmenistan. People from Gandhara also colonised parts of the Tarim Basin in China.

It's also important to note that the Mauryans themselves started in Taxila, where Kautilya (who himself was from Taxila) tutored the young Chandragupta, and they soon amassed a large army to conquer South Asia. People from what is now Pakistan as well as the land itself played a pretty crucial role for the Mauryans.

We've also been great soldiers for many different empires, particularly during the time of the Islamic invasions (their army's had large numbers of people from Pakistan).

I agree it is wrong to diminish/deny Pakistan local/regional connection to its history and accomplishments as well. There is exclusivist/absolute mindset too much in play among nationalists and reactionaries in both sides. There is much shared heritage just as there is much variance and difference/uniqueness too....we should approach all of it with as much open an unbiased mind as possible....and hopefully with time that will have more time to establish well in the mindset. Partition and lingering animosity from the lingering issues right now still clouds too much of the thinking/attitude....a time scale of 50 - 100 years is small compared to the 1000s of years preceding modern human existence in the area that we are all often guilty of completely extrapolating in some 1:1 way....everything to.

 

[Hamza913]

Many things you said were wrong. You are correct some sources say Brahmagupta was born in Multan, but it is confirmed he lived most of his life in Ujjain. Nowhere did I deny that you have ancient sites and architecture, and I already said my previous post was poorly worded. I also explained that the IVC was not an Empire, and all IVC cities grew independently. As for indigenous Empires, India has never been invaded until about the 11th century when Ghaznavid invaded, whereas Punjab and SIndh had already fallen. It is still not clear whether Tipu SUltan had Punjabi ancestry, but he was still South Indian culturally. As for the Mauryans, the Mauryan Empire began from Patilputra. Chandragupta himself was Bihari, Maurya is a common North Indian last name.
We also don't only have Sanskrit, we also have ancient Tamil literature which predates Sanskrit. The earliest Tamil literature dates to 2500 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya

He still went to Taxila, like most South Asian intellectuals of that era.

We can never know for sure since Indus script is yet to be deciphered, also, whether or not they were an empire is irrelevant. The whole point of an empire is to generate a sustainable society for you and our people, if one can do that via non violence, then that doesn't make it any less of an achievement.

There is evidence that IVC was one big community rather than numerous individual states, mainly because of how standardised a lot of things appear. But again, we can never for certain until their language is deciphered.

Right, which is why I'm saying it's not a fair comparison. We were always more prone to invasions than you guys were, but even then I still think we have a decent share of empires/dynasties/civilisations.

Hindustan was invaded prior to the arrival of the Muslim empire's, e.g the Kushans, Scythians, Aryans, etc.

It's pretty clear, almost every book about his ancestry mentions it, as do several sources online:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...nd-tumakuru-district/articleshow/61574823.cms

Tipu Sultan was most certainly not South Hindustani culturally, he was a great patron of Urdu and Farsi.

Chandragupta was Bihari, but his ancestry is disputed. Some say the name Maurya may be derived from the name Mor, which was a tribe in KPK at the time.

I know you have more than just Sanskrit literature, but I was explaining Pakistani literature focuses more on other languages.

 

[Nilgiri]

When we are clearly defining events in terms of Indus region, Ganges region, and Deccan plateau, while acknowledging the overlaps, I don't see how you get to make a strawman argument about modern political borders. As it happens, Pakistan largely encompasses the Indus region, Hindi speaking northern India: the Ganges region, and the Dravidian parts of India: Deccan plateau.

The modern borders are not perfect but there is a clear pattern that most Indians prefer to ignore for nationalist reasons.

The point is how relevant it is to that time period. Is anyone going to make a major exclusivist distinction between the regions of China on the same argument?

Heck there is enough nuance and difference between the Cauvery Delta area and Godavari area for example in the South when it comes to history, culture...even polity....doesn't mean that confers 1:1 exclusivism on everything of human endeavour today.

I am just asking for the pure scientific analysis that says the people inhabiting some part of the world has exclusive right to all of the millenia old civilisation that was founded there.....can easily find examples worldwide where its not the case....Hungary, Finland, Turkey large parts of Germany come to mind and that too for much more recent instances in the timescale. Heck even France comes from the name Frank which is a German tribe. Not going to even broach how complex the middle east is regarding this.

So why are we jumping the gun when we havent even unearthed anything close to the majority of the IVC and its connection to South Asia as it stands today? If anyone wants to make premature exclusive claim to anything, they are more than welcome to do so in the scientific paper outlet....Pakistan has universities and researchers on it right?...so let them present the analysis....we are all ears.

 

[Hamza913]

I agree it is wrong to diminish/deny Pakistan local/regional connection to its history and accomplishments as well. There is exclusivist/absolute mindset too much in play among nationalists and reactionaries in both sides. There is much shared heritage just as there is much variance and difference/uniqueness too....we should approach all of it with as much open an unbiased mind as possible....and hopefully with time that will have more time to establish well in the mindset. Partition and lingering animosity from the lingering issues right now still clouds too much of the thinking/attitude....a time scale of 50 - 100 years is small compared to the 1000s of years preceding modern human existence in the area that we are all often guilty of completely extrapolating in some 1:1 way....everything to.

What really frustrates me is the stupid racism being put forward by many Pakistanis, the idiotic name games a lot of Hindustanis play, and the accusation of Pakistanis being wannabe Arabs. Just because the word Pakistan wasn't used to describe the land prior to 1947 doesn't mean that all history prior to 1947 in the Indian sub-continent belongs to Hindustan, and just because we follow Islam or admire Muslims from different ethnic groups for what they did doesn't mean we have some sort of inferiority complex.

And just because Pakistan has a lot of great history doesn't mean Hindustanis are racially inferior to us.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

When we are clearly defining events in terms of Indus region, Ganges region, and Deccan plateau, while acknowledging the overlaps, I don't see how you get to make a strawman argument about modern political borders. As it happens, Pakistan largely encompasses the Indus region, Hindi speaking northern India: the Ganges region, and the Dravidian parts of India: Deccan plateau.

The modern borders are not perfect but there is a clear pattern that most Indians prefer to ignore for nationalist reasons.

Very well said. It's largely about how we abstract this. Do we use crude continentel or a more nuanced approach by giving each region it's own space. For instance take Europe. While there is considerable overlap in Europe, I would suggest more then in South Asia European history is nuanced to allow Germans, French, Italians, British, Poles, Danes, Swedes their own mark on the kalaidescope that is Europe. On the contrary in South Asia there is this push to bundle everything together into one package from the Khyber to Irrawady. From Karakorum to Tamil Nadu as one monolith called India. The reality is South Asia is even more varied, diffuse, then Europe is.

If as you aptly described we took a more nuanced approach that within South Asia there are roughly three separate eco-zones. Indus Basin, Ganga Basin and Dravidian Peninsula.

 

[Nilgiri]

What really frustrates me is the stupid racism being put forward by many Pakistanis, the idiotic name games a lot of Hindustanis play, and the accusation of Pakistanis being wannabe Arabs. Just because the word Pakistan wasn't used to describe the land prior to 1947 doesn't mean that all history prior to 1947 in the Indian sub-continent belongs to Hindustan, and just because we follow Islam or admire Muslims from different ethnic groups for what they did doesn't mean we have some sort of inferiority complex.

And just because Pakistan has a lot of great history doesn't mean Hindustanis are racially inferior to us.

Thanks man, you get it!

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Former Professor in Bachelors was a karnataka Brahmin with pure Nord Indic Facial features and Pale skin.

You are getting into Nazi eugenics and White supremacist pseudo-science here.

We have no problem with Gujaratis, Rajasthanis and East Punjabis claiming IVC.

I consider Gujuratis a South/Central Indian culture due to their racial and linguistic characteristics. They have very little in common with Indus Pakistan.

On average they can be as dark as Tamils with australoid facial features.

Gujurat is also a festering ground of religious and ethnic hatred, being exclusionist in nature. They follow a very hard brand of Hinduism. Very different than the accommodating and accepting cultures of the Indus Valley.

Rajastanis and some Sikhs (those without Hindu intermarriage) do resemble Indus Pakistanis in looks and culture. Many of the Rajastanis had been incompletely converted to Islam before Gandhi and Congress forcibly re-converted them back to Hinduism.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

You are getting into Nazi eugenics and White supremacist pseudo-science here.



I consider Gujuratis a South/Central Indian culture due to their racial and linguistic characteristics. They have very little in common with Indus Pakistan.

On average they can be as dark as Tamils with australoid facial features.

Gujurat is also a festering ground of religious and ethnic hatred, being exclusionist in nature. They follow a very hard brand of Hinduism. Very different than the accommodating and accepting cultures of the Indus Valley.

Rajastanis and some Sikhs (those without Hindu intermarriage) do resemble Indus Pakistanis in looks and culture. Many of the Rajastanis had been incompletely converted to Islam before Gandhi and Congress forcibly re-converted them back to Hinduism.

Your own national founder had gujarati heritage. as for that garbage about gujaratis being austronesians does modi look dark to you? keep in mind modi is low cast. And gujarat is hoke to some of the most important ivc sites such as lothal its first port city.

 

[Hell hound]

I have mostly given up on interacting in this topic in this forum for multiple reasons.

Those applying some notion of current (severely downstream) political borders and cultural "hearth" complete congruence to ancient civilisation of millenia ago can simply make their case in the more dedicated expert fora (both online and the more important one of research thesis and works etc) on the topic. But they rarely do, because they know they would be shown the door....and quickly. Hence they accumulate where more can be found of likewise thinking to perpetuate some groupthink feel on it....rather than actually partake in the complete scientific process of it (i.e actual full on rational debate, critical thinking and importantly willingness to change ones understanding when presented with better information and argument).

Extreme reverse chronologically applied hoarding/exclusivist emotional nationalism of this kind (especially at this kind of timeframe) when there is much that is obviously to be shared (as is done in any neolithic/bronze age civilisation worldwide in relevant enough proximity)...is quite foolish and is dispelled easily once put to any actual mettle in research circles. Thus this non-cognisance of it among those that actually research in depth this subject (archaeologists and anthropologists) just adds to the desperation.

The process often employed to sustain it therefore...is to instead filter through in some way to choose only the perceived results (often stripped entirely of the broader context) that agree with a pre-defined position/notion and reject anything else that has come about in the exact same studies (that doesn't agree). There is a word for this: pseudo-science....and it is quite expansive realm in itself in human thinking of all colours and variety these days....so I do not really blame those here that indulge in it for whatever reason (though I do keep tabs on where their "arguments" have stuck or evolved)...given the scale at play elsewhere on subjects much more pertinent to current human existence.

@Jungibaaz @Hell hound @waz @Water Car Engineer @Skull and Bones

mate truth be told i don't even care what our past is.it is what it is and nor i or anyone here is responsible for any achievements or blunders by our ancestors.what matters is what are we doing now.plus who cares what you look like or where you are from if you got a kind heart and an open mind you are better than many so called superior breeds.
baki yar mitti say baney ho sab mitti main mil jana hay kis bat ka gharor kis bat ki akar.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

What really frustrates me is the stupid racism being put forward by many Pakistanis, the idiotic name games a lot of Hindustanis play, and the accusation of Pakistanis being wannabe Arabs. Just because the word Pakistan wasn't used to describe the land prior to 1947 doesn't mean that all history prior to 1947 in the Indian sub-continent belongs to Hindustan, and just because we follow Islam or admire Muslims from different ethnic groups for what they did doesn't mean we have some sort of inferiority complex.

And just because Pakistan has a lot of great history doesn't mean Hindustanis are racially inferior to us.

I think something we can all agree on is what happens in Pakistan is Pakistan's history, what happens in India is India's history and etc. Mohenjo Daro- Ancient Pakistani heritage. Harrapa- Ancient Pakistani heritage. Rakhigarhi, Dholavaria, Lothal, Kalibangan, etc.- Ancient Indian heritage. The problem is some(not all) Pakistanis think that because the IVC sites are towards the western fringe of India, India somehow cannot claim them, or that India's IVC sites lack historical significance, a ridiculous claim refuted by archeologists from around the world. Even worse, some Pakistanis claim that other regions of India do not have any ancient civilizations or empires, an idiotic an racist claim that shows their ignorance of history. Similarly, I am sure Pakistan has civilizations and Empires other than the IVC.
I think we will all get along much better once we start respecting and appreciating each other's history.

 

[my2cents]

Another common mistake people make is that they view the IVC like Rome. The IVC was not a republic or Empire or even a centralized state(those concepts came much later). Instead, it was a series of city states that developed around the same time and share similarities in culture, architecture, planning, etc. Obviously there was inter-city trade, but other than that, the people of Harrapa had no relation with the people of Mohenjo-Daro who had no relation to the people of Rakhigarhi. To be honest, the IVC and Harappa is treated mostly as an era than a civilization by many archeologists. The tendency is to label anything found that's dated prior to 2500 Bc as "Harrappan era." Which I disagree with, because such sites are found in almost every state in India, but that's just the way archeologists do it.

I prefer to call it as Bronze age civilization because of its timeline 3000 BC to 1900 BC. Now the tendency is to label anything earlier as pre-harappan and anything after as late harappan only confounds the problem of disassociating a site with harappan tag. Also it would be nice to highlight the regional differences and highlight them instead of clubbing it all as harappan. Obviously there were connections to other sites because some of the seals that were found in Indian sites were common with sites on Pakistani sites. But the seals of Indus are found as far as Mesopotamia because of trade. More research will have to tackle how similar or rather dissimilar these people were with people belonging to other Indus sites.

 

[Hamza913]

I think something we can all agree on is what happens in Pakistan is Pakistan's history, what happens in India is India's history and etc.

Unfortunately, we haven't even reached that level of mutual respect. Plenty of Hindustanis say Pakistan cannot claim any history prior to 1947 as it's own, just because the word Pakistan is a recent invention (even though it's an acronym consisting of names that have existed for almost a thousand years).

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Unfortunately, we haven't even reached that level of mutual respect. Plenty of Hindustanis say Pakistan cannot claim any history prior to 1947 as it's own, just because the word Pakistan is a recent invention (even though it's an acronym consisting of names that have existed for almost a thousand years).

Those people are just as dumb as the people who claim North and South India contributed nothing to history, while ignoring the many achievement that came from there.

 

[Indus Priest King]

Biggest pile of bollocks I've come across...Rakhagiri is a pre-Harappan site anyway. There's a very good reason why Harappa.com has ignored this joke of a study. Harappan scholars with reputable backgrounds of study haven't even given this crap the light of day.

What particularly makes me laugh is the insinuation that because no Aryan genes have been found in the Ganga population, that Aryans never came to this region. I mean, check the arrogance of these people. Did it ever occur to you Dasyu trash that the Aryans only migrated upto the Indus Valley? They never went beyond that, which explains why Ganga Dasyus have no Aryan genes in them.

Ganga population (North Indians) are basically Dravidians who are confused and desperately want to be called Aryans. The recent study released just a couple of months ago further proved that the Indus populations were isolated and formed independently of the Ganga Dasyus.

And that source given in the first post doesn't even provide any evidence. Where exactly is this study to begin with?