What's new

Genetic proof that Pakistanis are different from Indians

I am a SIKH JATT and my caste is CHEEMA. If you go to Pakistani Punjab you can find CHEEMA caste all over. They are muslim JATS. My background is also Pakistani.

So if Pakistanis are different, then tell me how is Punjabi SIKH jatts and muslim jatts any different???? For centuries we have had the same surnames, same villages, same occupation which is farming and also similar looks.
I hear you. I was watching a documentary on partition and there was this village in Pakistan Punjab. It had Muslim Dhillion family living there and then they were visited by Sikh Dhillions who left the village in 1947. Both accepted that they had a common ancestor. However that is true but even you got to accept that this "cross border pollen" is mostly restricted to the Punjabis on both sides is a small drop in the ocean. My understanding is Siks make 2.5% of India. Hell they are swamped by the 25% Dalits. So there is common ground but it is limited. The Venn diagram below sums it up. The shared populations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh shown as overlaps. You as a Sikh belong to the Indo-Pak overlap which makes big chunk of Pak but a very small part of India.



mv0r9v.jpg
 
.
Indian race is varied and is a mixture of dravidian and caucasian race.

Punjabis/sindhis are a sub indic racial group of a super set of indian race

all the land stretching from the plains of hindukush to the west to the bharmaputra river to the east is indian subcontinent and i call it indian peninsula

geologically hindukush mountains were formed when indian subcontinent plate collided with the asian plate, the mountains at the afghan border to the west, the himalaya mountains in the north, the kirthar and sulaimani ranges in the sindh and balochistan sides define the indian sub continent

historically the KPK was always part of india but due to afghan invasions from the west, it came to become a mixture of afghan and indian race.

Afghan invasion effected the racial mixture of Punjabi and sindhi people, some Punjabis are lighter than other Punjabis, esp Punjabi areas to the north and to the west

Punjabis of Attock, gujrat, mianwali etc are completely different then the Punjabis towards east that is Lahore, or to the south that is Multan, rahimyar khan

but Punjabis are still indian people with indian blood in them, its just that some Punjabis are racially mixed with afghan people.

the hindkowans are Punjabis who mixed too much with pathan people and became distinct from Punjabis. but the presence of hindkowans proves that historically the indian sub continent always stretched from the hindukush plains to the bharmaputra to the east.

even the pathans to the east of hindukush have racial features which is distinct from pathans to the afghan side and many pathans are more of indian blood than central or caucasian blood

just to prove my point ill post this video


You went from defining the geology of the "indian subcontinent plate" and onto the concept of India, as if there is some sort of continuity. There is a missing link, or ten. No doubt the next stage in your mind is the modern nation of India. This is deeply flawed.

The presence of Hindkowans proves that the people of Asia fit on a spectrum and there is no such thing as "Indian (subcontinental)" people. Its a spectrum. There is barely anything such as Afghan ethnic groups, considering that Tajiks, Persians, Pashtuns and Balochis exist in greater numbers outside Afghanistan.

Punjabi is an ethnic group. I don't understand what you mean by them being of "Indian blood". It makes no sense. And seriously, I am trying very hard to understand your point of view.
 
.
I disagree with @Kaptaan

We have nothing in common with Indians.

WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH INDIANS AT ALL!


Genetic maps prove this.
 
.
I disagree with @Kaptaan

We have nothing in common with Indians.

WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH INDIANS AT ALL!


Genetic maps prove this.

I think the problem is that we all disagree on what "Indian" actually means.

Indian members here maintain that India is defined by geology (from Afghan to Burma), or British Indian empire, or anything that's linguistically Indo-Aryan + Dravidian.

Everyone has different ideas, but they all seem to use the definitions interchangeably with modern India too.


Indian claims would make a lot more sense if the clarified which definition they are actually going on about.
 
.
"Indian blood"
They come up with these terms in a attempt to reify a abstraction that suits their agenda - "Indic, Dharmic, Bharata" etc. We might as well come up with "Pakistanic, Islamic, Industanic" etc

I think the problem is that we all disagree on what "Indian" actually means.
The definition of "Indian" is by design left as very loose and amorphous. It's concept like liquid. It can be poured into any shape you want to which suits the Indians to the bone. If a guy from Bakshali, K-Pk had gone and planted a bomb in Times Square, New York all these guys would be sceaming "Pakistani, Pakistani". If and like what happened the Manuscript from Bakshali was revealed to be the earliest zero on record - then it became "Indian Zero". Its this duplicity that ensures definition of India is left flexible. It retracts or expands according to need.
 
.
They come up with these terms in a attempt to reify a abstraction that suits their agenda - "Indic, Dharmic, Bharata" etc. We might as well come up with "Pakistanic, Islamic, Industanic" etc
Yea, that one confused me too. It seems to be geology thing which can also be applied to blood, people, languages, rivers etc etc.

As far as the Indus valley region is concerned, the Indus River and its tributaries are the centrepoint. Indians can use the British Empire as theirs if they so wish, but sooner or later this colonial mindset will be dated and looked down upon.
 
.
i am planning to use ancestry.com , can anybody tell me if it is good/accurate?.
Not sure, but I saw an experiment where they tried it on twins in which the results were somewhat similar but still distinctively different.

I am a SIKH JATT and my caste is CHEEMA. If you go to Pakistani Punjab you can find CHEEMA caste all over. They are muslim JATS. My background is also Pakistani.

So if Pakistanis are different, then tell me how is Punjabi SIKH jatts and muslim jatts any different???? For centuries we have had the same surnames, same villages, same occupation which is farming and also similar looks.
Hey, there is no doubt that Pakistani ethnic groups overlap into India, but they make up a very minuscule amount of the Indian population. Punjabis for example make up around 3% of the Indian population but around 50% of Pakistan's population.
 
.
And @UnitedPak I have read your threads in Pakistan History in particular our glorious Indus River and want to thank you. Really inspirational. Hope you can contribute more. We as a nation really need to own our glorious past that is second to non - indeed it is there with the Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians. It is sad to see our heritage right under our feet being pelfed by our aboriginal neighbours.

@Talwar e Pakistan Would you agree with my Venn Diagram below?

mv0r9v.jpg
 
.
You went from defining the geology of the "indian subcontinent plate" and onto the concept of India, as if there is some sort of continuity. There is a missing link, or ten. No doubt the next stage in your mind is the modern nation of India. This is deeply flawed.

The presence of Hindkowans proves that the people of Asia fit on a spectrum and there is no such thing as "Indian (subcontinental)" people. Its a spectrum. There is barely anything such as Afghan ethnic groups, considering that Tajiks, Persians, Pashtuns and Balochis exist in greater numbers outside Afghanistan.

Punjabi is an ethnic group. I don't understand what you mean by them being of "Indian blood". It makes no sense. And seriously, I am trying very hard to understand your point of view.

punjabis and sindhis are racially/geographically/culturally indian people


Pashtuns of pakistan are partially indian racially/geographically but not culturally

balochs are not indian neither geographically nor culturally

punjabis/sindhi vary racially as well and thats basically due to north western Punjabi people got mixed with pashtuns, and pashtuns with Punjabis so many pashtuns are racially part indian and many Punjabis are racially part pashtun due to this and thats why north western Punjabis have paler skin compared to eastern punjabis like lahore or southern punjabis like multan

thus Punjabi people vary racially some are dark some are pale, but they all share indian blood and indian geography/culture
 
.
Hey, there is no doubt that Pakistani ethnic groups overlap into India, but they make up a very minuscule amount of the Indian population. Punjabis for example make up around 3% of the Indian population but around 50% of Pakistan's population.

There are some people on this forum claiming that Pakistanis have nothing to do with India. Clearly we do.

Jatts, Gujjars, Kamboj, Dogras, Mahtons, Pathans, Khatris, Rajputs, Bhattis, Butts, dalits, Kashmiris, Sindhis etc. These are just some groups I have listed which exist on both sides of the border. Religion can be different. For example,there are Hindu Gujjars and Muslim Gujjars and sikh Gujjars. There are Muslim Rajputs, Hindu Rajputs and Sikh Rajputs. Similarly there are Hindu Kamboj, Muslim Kamboj and Sikh Kamboj.

These groups make up almost all of Pakistani population. Pathans alone are 20% of Pakistani population. But on Indian side they make up 15-20% of total population. Most of these groups are central Asian Migrants and adopted Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism in south Asia.

So for the people who on this forum are claiming that Pakistanis have nothing in common with India. Think again. Pakistan is a subset of North Indian population. They might not have anything in common with South Indians.
 
.
There are some people on this forum claiming that Pakistanis have nothing to do with India. Clearly we do.

Jatts, Gujjars, Kamboj, Dogras, Mahtons, Pathans, Khatris, Rajputs, Bhattis, Butts, dalits, Kashmiris, Sindhis etc. These are just some groups I have listed which exist on both sides of the border. Religion can be different. For example,there are Hindu Gujjars and Muslim Gujjars and sikh Gujjars. There are Muslim Rajputs, Hindu Rajputs and Sikh Rajputs. Similarly there are Hindu Kamboj, Muslim Kamboj and Sikh Kamboj.

These groups make up almost all of Pakistani population. Pathans alone are 20% of Pakistani population. But on Indian side they make up 15-20% of total population.

So for the people who on this forum are claiming that Pakistanis have nothing in common with India. Think again.
As I have said, we have tribes/clans that overlap, but percentage wise they are very minuscule in India and are mostly restricted to IoK, Rajasthan and Indian Punjab.

This is the map of India before 1947. This is the proof that your forefathers were Indians and they fought against British for the independence of India, not for Pakistan.
View attachment 427172 View attachment 427172
That was the map of a British colony, not India.

Our forefathers never called themselves Indians, most of them probably didn't even know what "India" or "Indians" were. They called themselves Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Baloch and etc...
 
.
As I have said, we have tribes/clans that overlap, but percentage wise they are very minuscule in India and are mostly restricted to IoK, Rajasthan and Indian Punjab.
Not really Minuscule. These groups combined make up almost 100% of Pakistani population. On Indian side they make up 15-20%. If you don't believe go ahead and do your research. 15-20% of Indian population is minuscule by any standards.

Almost all of these tribes have central Asian origin and once again I agree that they have nothing to do with south Indians.
 
.
1280px-Carleton_Coon_races_after_Pleistocene.PNG


Distribution of the races after the Pleistocene according to Carleton Coon Caucasoid race Negroid race Capoid race Mongoloid race Australoid race

Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg


Ethnographic map", Meyers Konversations-Lexikon(1885–90)

please tell me where is Pakistan according to these maps any different from india?
If we go by the first picture, then Scandinavians are Indians as well and for the second one, I wouldn't use a 150 year old 'ethnographic map' written by people who thought they were the master-race that originated from Atlantis at that time.
 
.
As I have said, we have tribes/clans that overlap, but percentage wise they are very minuscule in India and are mostly restricted to IoK, Rajasthan and Indian Punjab.

Bhai, for the love of Ahura Mazda!

You guys are a small country. So is Bangladesh.

Hence the overlap between you and us or the Bangladesh and us is also interpolatedly small in comparison to the Indian whole.

Which is similar to overlaps found between contiguous parts of mainland India.

From north to south.

From east to west.

From river system to river system.

As the flow of human seed happened.

To put things into perspective. Both in terms of territory and populace, Pakistan and Bangladesh are two large Indian states that broke away 70 years ago.

Cheers, Doc
 
.
We have nothing to do with the people of the Republic of India.

Bhai, for the love of Ahura Mazda!

You guys are a small country. So is Bangladesh.

Hence the overlap between you and us or the Bangladesh and us is also interpolatedly small in comparison to the Indian whole.

Which is similar to overlaps found between contiguous parts of mainland India.

From north to south.

From east to west.

From river system to river system.

As the flow of human seed happened.

To put things into perspective. Both in terms of territory and populace, Pakistan and Bangladesh are two large Indian states that broke away 70 years ago.

Cheers, Doc
India refers to the Republic of India.

Today India refers to the Republic of India.

Pakistan is not Indian nor is Bangladesh.

Today the region Afghanistan to Bangladesh is referred to is South Asia.

Yes but India today refers to REPUBLIC OF INDIA
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom