India copying Pakistani/Western Culture

[aryan2007]

There is nothing concrete one can derive from thoe figures. For example, it says 14.5 million people crossed during partition (exagerrated but whatever). How many people crossed to Pakistan from India now? It doesn't say. Perhaps only 1 million crossed into Pakistan and 12 million from Pakistan into India. The only way you can work out how the demographics changed is by using census data, as I've done.

Your source is not authentic..

Then don't quote it.

I do.. the posts that I wish to agree or disagree on I post.. others who I find ludicrious I don't quote..

Yes, of course they are. Environmental factors and also the mixing in with the Delhi locals will ensure the features of those ex-Pakistanis that crossed over at partition will change.

Mixing??
Similarly the mixing of Pashtuns with Punjabis?/
Or MIxing of CHooras with Jatts?
Indians and Pakistanis generally marry amongst their castes/tribes/ethnic groups/religions etc..

IMO, there is no definitive look of a Pakistani, however ther is an average look, which is different to Indians, to Arabs, to Persians and so on.

see the Pakistan cricket team tell me what does an avg Pakistani look like..
I don't see any similarity..
Pashtuns have a big nose and are fair and Punjabis and are darker than them..and Mohajirs are more darker than them..

Tell me the avg look of the Indian cricket team
See the Indian cricket team.. 6 players are Punjabis 3 are Rajputs 1 Gujarati 4 Marathis 2 Kannada 2 tamil 2 Pathan 1 telugu...


Cheers Mr. White
REgards from,in your words, Mr. Black

 

[roadrunner]

Your source is not authentic..

My sources are the British Indian censuses. Yours are simply hearsay by some journalist. 15 million is a ridiculously exagerrated figure invented by some journalist to try and wow his audience. The most accurate data is census data, and that is what I've used. Your links don't prove anything.

Mixing??
Similarly the mixing of Pashtuns with Punjabis?/
Or MIxing of CHooras with Jatts?
Indians and Pakistanis generally marry amongst their castes/tribes/ethnic groups/religions etc..

Well you might wish it..But it's not true. Every population is mixed to a degree. There are no pure ones. Genetics clearly proves this. Some Pashtuns, mainly those on the Pak-Afghan border are quite unmixed. Some on the fringes of the area are mixed..as with anyone else.

see the Pakistan cricket team tell me what does an avg Pakistani look like..
I don't see any similarity..
Pashtuns have a big nose and are fair and Punjabis and are darker than them..and Mohajirs are more darker than them..

I actually have been saying all along that you will get instances of very Persian looking Pakistanis, or Indian looking Pakistani, or Afghan looking Pakistanis and so on. However averages are important, and this average defines the Pakistani look.

Looking at the cricket team, I would say Misbah ul Haq is Persian looking, Kamran Akmal is Indian looking, Younis Khan is Afghan looking, Salman Butt is somewhere in between (a mix), Afridi is Afghan looking, and so on. It's difficult to place the other players, as I havent seen much of them.

Tell me the avg look of the Indian cricket team
See the Indian cricket team.. 6 players are Punjabis 3 are Rajputs 1 Gujarati 4 Marathis 2 Kannada 2 tamil 2 Pathan 1 telugu...

The Pathan is the only one I know. Irfan Pathan looks very Indian. He doesn't even look Pakistani Punjabi or Sindhi. He looks like he's from Uttar Pradesh, but definitely not Pathan looking.

Cheers Mr. White
REgards from,in your words, Mr. Black

I'm Mr Brown in your words, not Mr White Color is unimportant though. You just seem to be desperate to prove Indians and Pakistanis are alike.

 

[aryan2007]

My sources are the British Indian censuses.

post 'em again please..

Yours are simply hearsay by some journalist. 15 million is a ridiculously exagerrated figure invented by some journalist to try and wow his audience. The most accurate data is census data, and that is what I've used. Your links don't prove anything.

Yeah BBC is now crap and Hindutva is correct..

Well you might wish it..But it's not true. Every population is mixed to a degree. There are no pure ones. Genetics clearly proves this. Some Pashtuns, mainly those on the Pak-Afghan border are quite unmixed. Some on the fringes of the area are mixed..as with anyone else.

Possible.. but the bloodlines of Indians are generally very pure.. there are centuries old records...Gothra, jatti etc..

I actually have been saying all along that you will get instances of very Persian looking Pakistanis, or Indian looking Pakistani, or Afghan looking Pakistanis and so on. However averages are important, and this average defines the Pakistani look.

What is Indian looking.. please post a foto of a person if you think he is Indian looking..

Looking at the cricket team, I would say Misbah ul Haq is Persian looking,

Alright he is fairer than an avg Pakistani..

Kamran Akmal is Indian looking,

He is outright ugly..
and what is Indian looking...
I go 500kms south and I see different faces than what I am used too..

Younis Khan is Afghan looking,

cool

Salman Butt is somewhere in between (a mix),

mix between whom?

Afridi is Afghan looking, and so on. It's difficult to place the other players, as I havent seen much of them.

Try having a look at then tell me this player looks Pakistani..

The Pathan is the only one I know. Irfan Pathan looks very Indian. He doesn't even look Pakistani Punjabi or Sindhi. He looks like he's from Uttar Pradesh, but definitely not Pathan looking.

So noe Indian looking = Uttar Pradesh looking??

The fact is that Indian looking for a westerner is the same.. for me I can make out the difference..

I'm Mr Brown in your words, not Mr White Color is unimportant though. You just seem to be desperate to prove Indians and Pakistanis are alike.

Nah.. I am countering the fact that you are saying that all
INdians are Same looking..
All pakistanis are fair.,,
Indians cannot be fair
Pakistanis don't look similar to any Indians..
there is a propaganda by Indians to appear white..

Bhaijaan watch south Indian movies which cater to 30-40% of the population or Bhojpuri+Bengali Movies which cater to further 30-40% of the population and then counter the propaganda of Bollywood geared for the rest 20% of the population...

Look at
Ishant Sharma, Vikram SIngh, Virender Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajhan Singh, Gautam Gambhir they are Punjabis..

RP Singh, Praveen Singh, MS Dhoni are Rajputs..

Zaheer Khan Irfan Pathan are Pathans.. though Irfan looks different I agree that much

Wasim Jaffer Sachin Tendulkar Rohit Sharma rahul Dravid are Marathis
Munaf Patel is Gujarati

Robin Uthapa Anil Kumble are Kannada

VVS Laxman is Telugu/Hyderabadi

Murali and Dinesh Karthick are Tamil...

Please have a look at them and then point out if all Indians look at the same.. are dark or generally try to show that they are fair etc..

 

[roadrunner]

Yeah BBC is now crap and Hindutva is correct..

Census data is correct. They are not figures from the Hindutva

Possible.. but the bloodlines of Indians are generally very pure.. there are centuries old records...Gothra, jatti etc..

Rubbish. Hardly anyone is pure, especially the Indians.

What is Indian looking.. please post a foto of a person if you think he is Indian looking..

Alright he is fairer than an avg Pakistani..

In fact Persians aren't so fair. Refer to the skin color map. Slightly fairer on average perhaps again, but some Persians I've seen could pass for even Indian.

The fact is that Indian looking for a westerner is the same.. for me I can make out the difference..

I agree. So?

Nah.. I am countering the fact that you are saying that all
INdians are Same looking..
All pakistanis are fair.,,
Indians cannot be fair
Pakistanis don't look similar to any Indians..
there is a propaganda by Indians to appear white..

Which of course isn't what I said. I said ON AVERAGE Pakistanis will be fairer than North Indians, as proved by the commonly accepted skin color maps. Quit trolling. The last two statements of what you say are true on average.

Bhaijaan watch south Indian movies which cater to 30-40% of the population or Bhojpuri+Bengali Movies which cater to further 30-40% of the population and then counter the propaganda of Bollywood geared for the rest 20% of the population...

Look at
Ishant Sharma, Vikram SIngh, Virender Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajhan Singh, Gautam Gambhir they are Punjabis..

He looks Indian to me..perhaps Tamil.

I could go on..

Zaheer Khan Irfan Pathan are Pathans.. though Irfan looks different I agree that much

Wasim Jaffer Sachin Tendulkar Rohit Sharma rahul Dravid are Marathis
Munaf Patel is Gujarati

Robin Uthapa Anil Kumble are Kannada

VVS Laxman is Telugu/Hyderabadi

Murali and Dinesh Karthick are Tamil...

Please have a look at them and then point out if all Indians look at the same.. are dark or generally try to show that they are fair etc..

In Bollywood they do for sure. Look there's many different factors that will affect a cricket team selection. One of them being you need a lot of time to waste, which would indicate priveledged backgrounds for each, would again indicate the Indian players would be of higher caste.

But anyway, just for comparison.



How does he look Pathan? He looks Indian. Because he's mixed.

 

[aryan2007]

Census data is correct. They are not figures from the Hindutva

well here are some more figures from academicians

Demographic data, for example, are scanty indeed. The governments
of the Indian Union and of Pakistan have had little time to gather and
publish statistics.

In the meantime one must depend on
the 1931 and 1941 censuses, whose usefulness as sources of information
concerning the two countries considered separately is limited by four
circumstances. (I) Publication of the 1941 census had to be curtailed
drastically because of the war. Such volumes as have been published
(representing only a small fraction of the data collected) are but thin
wraiths compared to the large and comprehensive ones published for
each previous census in a magnificent series beginning in 1872. (2) In
the award separating Pakistan from the Union of India, the boundary
cut through certain districts. Since in the census volumes the statistics
are not generally cross-tabulated for areas smaller than districts, the
numbers and kinds of people living on each side of the boundary in
the divided districts have to be estimated. (3) Certain of the princely
states have until recently been in dispute, and Kashmir still is in dispute.
(4) Use of the 1941 census to deduce current population characteristics
in India and Pakistan is affected by the mass migration which
occurred after partition. Since accurate statistics on this migration
could not be compiled, the roughest sort of estimates must be utilized.

Kingsley Davis, 1949, India and Pakistan:
The Demography of Partition


Therefore the census of 1941 was a guesstimate putting it kindly..

Rubbish. Hardly anyone is pure, especially the Indians.

Quote a source... I don't trust your hate propaganda..

Everyone said that the person to talk to if I wanted to understand the genealogies and the lineages was Pandit Harinandan Jha. He became my principal informant, the priest-expert who is the keeper of the genealogies of the Khandavala Dynasty and all the Srotriyas. Only he has a complete understanding of the system of patrilineages and the rules of marriage which determine the rank of the offspring. No Srotriya can marry without his permission. He maintains the genealogical records which proves a family's good bloodlines going back 24 generations
He taught me about the lineages of the Brahmans, how their records are maintained, how he goes about certifying that a proposed marriage is not incestuous, and how he writes the certificate on behalf of the maharaja which allows a marriage to proceed.
Interview with the Genealogist

There you go I suggest if you want to go actually academically try to prove that Indians are whatever then I suggest you interview and critically examine his records.. instead of picking up bits and pieces of info from at times Islamic or Hindutva sites.. don't trash your fine brain think tank..

Dying, Death and Bereavement in a ... - Google Book Search

The priest came with an enormous scroll my parents had told me about. It contained the record of my father’s past trip to Haridwar, as well as all of his father’s trips, as well as that of his father’s father’s trips, and his too! The scroll went back in time more than two hundred years and had recorded the visits of more than 10 generations of my ancestors before us.
BHARAT CHOPRA'S FIRST BLOG - Ma's passing : IntentBlog

Ashish Sharma Pawan, 28, a priest in Haridwar, northern India, records in a 144-year-old book the genealogies of families visiting the ancient city to pay homage to their dead.. ((Emily Wax - The Washington Post) )
With Pen and Paper, a Hindu Priest Helps Pilgrims Trace Their Past - washingtonpost.com

there 1st. Pandits check the gothras etc. and bloodlines are kept pure.
2nd all the past ancestors are recorded.. in some more orthodox families upto centuries..

as an academician you should come here and check them out..

In fact Persians aren't so fair. Refer to the skin color map. Slightly fairer on average perhaps again, but some Persians I've seen could pass for even Indian.

so???
Some Indians can pass of for Persians..
but on an average Persians are fairer than people from the subcontinent..
your maps are old and flawed as per academicians..

I agree. So?

this proves Your fixation with the fact you think you are fair and so are your countrymen is obsessive and stems from insecurities..

Which of course isn't what I said. I said ON AVERAGE Pakistanis will be fairer than North Indians, as proved by the commonly accepted skin color maps.

all your maps.. are crappy..
I have given a list of critiques..
shall I post 'em again..

Quit trolling.

What trolling? you are the one giving me advice on threads where it is not reqd like the begum one and also in the suggestion thread you came in unwanted and started attacking..
thanks..

The last two statements of what you say are true on average.

Well this is what you believe and is false..

He looks Indian to me..perhaps Tamil.

Not to me..
dinesh karthick and murali karthick are tamil players they don't look like Sehwag.. thanks for proving your inexperience..

I could go on..

be my guest..

what does Sohaib AKhtar look like?
Kamran Akmal?
Mohamaed Yousuf?
Sami?
Iftikhar Anjum?
Sarfaraz Ahmad?

cheers

In Bollywood they do for sure. Look there's many different factors that will affect a cricket team selection.

One of them being you need a lot of time to waste, which would indicate priveledged backgrounds for each, would again indicate the Indian players would be of higher caste.

I think talent counts for a lot as well..
they would not delibrately pick up people from high caste if they didn't perform ..
this is ridiculous..
there are 3 sikhs in the team out of 18.. shows 161% of the players in the team are Sikhs though SIkhs just make up only 2% of Indian population
there are 4 muslims in the playing 18 which is shows that 22.5% of the players are muslims .. though in India muslims are just 15% of the populations
there are a total of 6 punjabis in the team representing 33% of the team in which punjabi population is 6% of the Indina population..

cheers..

But anyway, just for comparison.

How does he look Pathan? He looks Indian. Because he's mixed.

Yep he is most definetly mixed.. so??
he will look similar to any kid/grandkid of a Pashtun married to a Subcontinental woman..

PS: Define an Indian & Pakistani look please... for starters...

 

[roadrunner]

well here are some more figures from academicians

Demographic data, for example, are scanty indeed. The governments
of the Indian Union and of Pakistan have had little time to gather and
publish statistics.

In the meantime one must depend on
the 1931 and 1941 censuses, whose usefulness as sources of information
concerning the two countries considered separately is limited by four
circumstances. (I) Publication of the 1941 census had to be curtailed
drastically because of the war. Such volumes as have been published
(representing only a small fraction of the data collected) are but thin
wraiths compared to the large and comprehensive ones published for
each previous census in a magnificent series beginning in 1872. (2) In
the award separating Pakistan from the Union of India, the boundary
cut through certain districts. Since in the census volumes the statistics
are not generally cross-tabulated for areas smaller than districts, the
numbers and kinds of people living on each side of the boundary in
the divided districts have to be estimated. (3) Certain of the princely
states have until recently been in dispute, and Kashmir still is in dispute.
(4) Use of the 1941 census to deduce current population characteristics
in India and Pakistan is affected by the mass migration which
occurred after partition. Since accurate statistics on this migration
could not be compiled, the roughest sort of estimates must be utilized.

Kingsley Davis, 1949, India and Pakistan:
The Demography of Partition

So the census figures which I quoted are the only estimates that one can use to estimate the number of people who migrated at partition. Totally agree, and I have been saying this all along.

Therefore the census of 1941 was a guesstimate putting it kindly..

Yes, but it is the most accurate information available.

Quote a source... I don't trust your hate propaganda..

Everyone said that the person to talk to if I wanted to understand the genealogies and the lineages was Pandit Harinandan Jha. He became my principal informant, the priest-expert who is the keeper of the genealogies of the Khandavala Dynasty and all the Srotriyas. Only he has a complete understanding of the system of patrilineages and the rules of marriage which determine the rank of the offspring. No Srotriya can marry without his permission. He maintains the genealogical records which proves a family's good bloodlines going back 24 generations
He taught me about the lineages of the Brahmans, how their records are maintained, how he goes about certifying that a proposed marriage is not incestuous, and how he writes the certificate on behalf of the maharaja which allows a marriage to proceed.
Interview with the Genealogist

There you go I suggest if you want to go actually academically try to prove that Indians are whatever then I suggest you interview and critically examine his records.. instead of picking up bits and pieces of info from at times Islamic or Hindutva sites.. don't trash your fine brain think tank..

Dying, Death and Bereavement in a ... - Google Book Search

The priest came with an enormous scroll my parents had told me about. It contained the record of my father’s past trip to Haridwar, as well as all of his father’s trips, as well as that of his father’s father’s trips, and his too! The scroll went back in time more than two hundred years and had recorded the visits of more than 10 generations of my ancestors before us.
BHARAT CHOPRA'S FIRST BLOG - Ma's passing : IntentBlog

Ashish Sharma Pawan, 28, a priest in Haridwar, northern India, records in a 144-year-old book the genealogies of families visiting the ancient city to pay homage to their dead.. ((Emily Wax - The Washington Post) )
With Pen and Paper, a Hindu Priest Helps Pilgrims Trace Their Past - washingtonpost.com

there 1st. Pandits check the gothras etc. and bloodlines are kept pure.
2nd all the past ancestors are recorded.. in some more orthodox families upto centuries..

as an academician you should come here and check them out..

I'm not interested to be honest. I know Indians are not super human, unlike your impression of them. I know all populations are mixed to a degree with surrounding populations and ethnic groups, and for sure after millenia of living with each other, people will get mixed to different degrees. How much do you think it would cost to bribe a priest in India for a geneaology tree of one's choice? Not a lot I would suspect.

so???
Some Indians can pass of for Persians..
but on an average Persians are fairer than people from the subcontinent..
your maps are old and flawed as per academicians..

Persians are on average a lot fairer than Indians as per the COMMONLY ACCEPTED MAPS BY EVERY ACADEMIC CURRENTLY.

Persians are not much fairer than Pakistanis though. In fact Persians have the same skin color distributions as Pakistanis. Visually there would not be a huge difference, except for those Karachiites and those on the Eastern fringe of Punjab and Sindh.

this proves Your fixation with the fact you think you are fair and so are your countrymen is obsessive and stems from insecurities..

I agree that Westerners cant tell Indians apart. How does that prove I have a fixation that I think I am fair?

all your maps.. are crappy..
I have given a list of critiques..
shall I post 'em again..

I explained that your maps are either predictions, or they show the exact same data as the Basutti map I posted. No difference. Post the maps again if you like, I will answer it the same way I answered them last time, and prove you wrong.

What trolling? you are the one giving me advice on threads where it is not reqd like the begum one and also in the suggestion thread you came in unwanted and started attacking..
thanks..

Well this is what you believe and is false..

It is not false to say Bollywood projects India to be much fairer skinned and European acting than it really is. Even Imran Khan agrees. And Indians don't look the same as Pakistanis. I've proved it with a scientific map the wider academic community accepts.

Not to me..
dinesh karthick and murali karthick are tamil players they don't look like Sehwag.. thanks for proving your inexperience..

If that is Sehwag on the front cover of TIME he looks very Indian to me, even though he's wearing Western clothes.

be my guest..

Lol, waste of time.

what does Sohaib AKhtar look like?
Kamran Akmal?
Mohamaed Yousuf?
Sami?
Iftikhar Anjum?
Sarfaraz Ahmad?

cheers

Well Iftikhan Anjum doesn't look Indian to me, unless you need glasses.

He could even pass for Iranian.

Sarfraz Ahmed doesn't look Indian to me either .. he's just a kid anyway, so it's difficult to tell. I'd put him perhaps Eastern Punjabi, or from the fringe of India or mixed a bit.

Akmal perhaps could pass for Indian.

Sami, no. Moyo no, though no far off the sort of North West Indian look, Shoaib Akhtar, no because of his build.

Sohail Tanvir, Younis Khan, Shahid Afridi, Misbah Ul Haq, Inzamam, Yasir Hameed, all under no circumstances look Indian. They are clearly very different.

Anyhow these individual examples are useless. On average, you will find the Pak team does not have similar features to the Indian team. I would say for a start that aside from facial features the Indians are on average much less well built. That is evident in the stature of the fast bowlers.

Yep he is most definetly mixed.. so??
he will look similar to any kid/grandkid of a Pashtun married to a Subcontinental woman..

PS: Define an Indian & Pakistani look please... for starters...

So that is the mid way to an Indian look. If you can imagine Irfan Pathan but slightly darker and perhaps a weaker build, smaller head, then that would be the Indian look.

 

[roadrunner]

Aryan, I'm not interested in discussing this with you anymore. I can see it's pointless. I'm not interested in Bollywood celebrities or cricketers. I have given you the maps for the shading of people that is accepted by almost all. It clearly shows a difference between the MAJORITY of Indians and the MAJORITY of Pakistanis (2 shades lighter).

You can ignore this evidence as you like. I'm out.

 

[aryan2007]

So the census figures which I quoted are the only estimates that one can use to estimate the number of people who migrated at partition. Totally agree, and I have been saying this all along.
Yes, but it is the most accurate information available.

RR for 5 mins think from the other POV would you like people to believe info that is incorrect??

I'm not interested to be honest. I know Indians are not super human, unlike your impression of them.

Superhumans hardly.. but neither are they sub-human..

I know all populations are mixed to a degree with surrounding populations and ethnic groups, and for sure after millenia of living with each other, people will get mixed to different degrees. How much do you think it would cost to bribe a priest in India for a geneaology tree of one's choice? Not a lot I would suspect.

Well if they could be bribed to throw away centuries year old record books is akin to saying a Mullah may be bribed to let a kafir in with pork in Mecca..

Persians are on average a lot fairer than Indians as per the COMMONLY ACCEPTED MAPS BY EVERY ACADEMIC CURRENTLY.

which map..? post it.. and I'll post a critique of it..
though agreeably irresp of the map as per empirical evidence Persians are fairr than any sub-continental people..

Persians are not much fairer than Pakistanis though. In fact Persians have the same skin color distributions as Pakistanis. Visually there would not be a huge difference, except for those Karachiites and those on the Eastern fringe of Punjab and Sindh.

Persians are fairer than Punjabis, Mohajirs and Sindhis..
as for Pashtuns, Balochs, Tajiks etc.. they share a similar colour tone..

I agree that Westerners cant tell Indians apart.How does that prove I have a fixation that I think I am fair?

Quite elementary.. actually most of your posts are a fixation on colour..

I explained that your maps are either predictions, or they show the exact same data as the Basutti map I posted. No difference. Post the maps again if you like, I will answer it the same way I answered them last time, and prove you wrong.

what?? your maps are incorrect.. and I posted other maps as well with shortcomings though Have a look at EBritannica's skin color map..

It is not false to say Bollywood projects India to be much fairer skinned and European acting than it really is. Even Imran Khan agrees.

Bollywood of India as I said targets mostly North India which have fairer people than rest of India.. and what about the dark famous actors??

Yeah now we follow what Imran Khan says and produce bastard kids.

though if you worship him.. he says in the extended clip that Pakistanis are also doing the same these days. cheers.

And Indians don't look the same as Pakistanis. I've proved it with a scientific map the wider academic community accepts.

Look??
yeah post the Basutti Map again.. it is full of misinfo and is rejected as it is inconclusive and incorrect..

If that is Sehwag on the front cover of TIME he looks very Indian to me, even though he's wearing Western clothes.

Define INdian looking..
you can make an algorith or some thing by which a person can be conclusively proved as Indian...

By this then some of the Pakistanis are Indian looking and some of the Indians are Pakistani looking..

Lol, waste of time.

Well actually..

Well Iftikhan Anjum doesn't look Indian to me, unless you need glasses.

He could even pass for Iranian.

He looks like a typical paindu Punjabi or any other north indian.. not Iranian..
though by his build he is not a Pakistani as you explain below

Sarfraz Ahmed doesn't look Indian to me either

Well he is a Mohajir..

Akmal perhaps.

because he is ugly innit?

Sami, no.

he is a mohajir.. though to me he looks a part Nepalese/Pahari ancestry..

Moyo no, though no far off the sort of North West Indian look,

Mo Yo looks like a typical Punjabi or North Indian..

Shoaib Akhtar, no because of his build.

Build?? eat steroids and make your build..
thanks for showing your shallowness...

these guys will look Pakistanis to you as well then?

or these guys?

Sohail Tanvir, Younis Khan, Shahid Afridi, Misbah Ul Haq, Inzamam, Yasir Hameed, all under no circumstances look Indian. They are clearly very different.

Inzaman looks like a typical well built tall Jatt of India..
here is a fattier version of Haq..

Sohail Tavir also looks like some Sikhs esp of West Punjab.. because of the Nose.
Umar Gul. Younis Khan, Yasir, Shahid look like Indian Kashmiris because of the nose and skin tone..

Anyhow these individual examples are useless. On average, you will find the Pak team does not have similar features to the Indian team. I would say for a start that aside from facial features the Indians are on average much less well built. That is evident in the stature of the fast bowlers.

See know you are talking..
Pakistani players have 3 distinct groups
Punjabis, Pashtuns and Mohajirs
Pashtuns have no similarity with rest of the Pakistani players and/ior Indian players largely..
Punjabi and Mohajir players are similar in appearance to North Indian players...

North Indian players are different from others regional players etc..

Build is something inherent
Akhtar is Punjabi well built.. anjum is punjabi kiddish build..
so it depends on genetics and drugs in case of akhtar..

So that is the mid way to an Indian look. If you can imagine Irfan Pathan but slightly darker and perhaps a weaker build, smaller head, then that would be the Indian look.

Racist.. hahaha..

 

[aryan2007]

Aryan, I'm not interested in discussing this with you anymore. I can see it's pointless. I'm not interested in Bollywood celebrities or cricketers. I have given you the maps for the shading of people that is accepted by almost all. It clearly shows a difference between the MAJORITY of Indians and the MAJORITY of Pakistanis (2 shades lighter).

You can ignore this evidence as you like. I'm out.

This map is crappy bhai.. it is old and inaccruate

 

[solid snake]

Who cares about skin color? I think Indian people from the northwest of that country look somewhat like us Pakis. Here in northern Virginia there are a lot of desis, and most times I guess correctly the nationality of a Pakistani/Indian. But I don't understand why it really matters that they are darker than us. How would you feel if an Irani kept saying their people are fairer than ours? I don't see why it matters.

Also, according to that map, Australians are as dark as Africans. Uhh..yeah.

 

[UnitedPak]

Who cares about skin color? I think Indian people from the northwest of that country look somewhat like us Pakis. Here in northern Virginia there are a lot of desis, and most times I guess correctly the nationality of a Pakistani/Indian. But I don't understand why it really matters that they are darker than us. How would you feel if an Irani kept saying their people are fairer than ours? I don't see why it matters.

Also, according to that map, Australians are as dark as Africans. Uhh..yeah.

Its not about skin colour. Its about Indians spreading their propaganda about Indians and Pakistanis being the same. This is what causes all the misconceptions about Indians owning Pakistan, and how they "gave us" Pakistan. This is also exactly the reason why ancient Pakistani history is considered Indian.
Pakistanis have their own identity which doesn't have anything to do with Bharat.

White Australians are of European decent. When the British discovered Australia, they sent their entire prison population to live there.
The native Australians aka Aborigines are darker than most Africans.

That map refers to the native populations of the region.

 

[roadrunner]

Who cares about skin color? I think Indian people from the northwest of that country look somewhat like us Pakis. Here in northern Virginia there are a lot of desis, and most times I guess correctly the nationality of a Pakistani/Indian. But I don't understand why it really matters that they are darker than us. How would you feel if an Irani kept saying their people are fairer than ours? I don't see why it matters.

I don't see how it matters to talk about it either. I certainly don't care about skin color, but it seems to matter to "Aryan2007", who wants me to believe that Pakistanis are the same color as Indians, that Pakistanis look the same as Indians. To do so, he will post a handful of selected "Pakistani looking Indians" that form a very small minority of the Indian population.

If you don't understand why Indians do this, and are flattered by the fact an Indian wants you to look like them, then you would need to get a more proper understanding of the realities of the intentions of people like "Aryan2007".

Also, according to that map, Australians are as dark as Africans. Uhh..yeah.

Uhh yeah genius, the map refers to the native populations, as United Pak has pointed out.

 

[roadrunner]

Its not about skin colour. Its about Indians spreading their propaganda about Indians and Pakistanis being the same. This is what causes all the misconceptions about Indians owning Pakistan, and how they "gave us" Pakistan. This is also exactly the reason why ancient Pakistani history is considered Indian.
Pakistanis have their own identity which doesn't have anything to do with Bharat.

White Australians are of European decent. When the British discovered Australia, they sent their entire prison population to live there.
The native Australians aka Aborigines are darker than most Africans.

That map refers to the native populations of the region.

Good post United Pak. One of the few on the board that truly understands what's going on. At least that goes to show the perception I have of some Indians (like Aryan2007) is something more widespread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But I don't understand why it really matters that they are darker than us. How would you feel if an Irani kept saying their people are fairer than ours? I don't see why it matters.

Also, according to that map, Australians are as dark as Africans. Uhh..yeah.

It doesn't matter whether anyone is fairer or darker than us. I would feel just fine if an Iranian said that he was fairer than me, or for that matter if a Nordic person said that to me - its obvious isn't it - people from different parts of the world have different skin color. Their is nothing wrong with being black, brown, yellow or white.

The whole point, as UP pointed out, is simply to point out that there are differences in physical characteristics between Indians and Pakistanis, and skin color is a physical characteristic is it not? Someone being darker or shorter is by no means a "bad thing" - the Nordic people would be considered on average "fairer and taller" than both Pakistanis and Indians, so should we feel bad about that? I am comfortable with who I am, and I accept that people from other nations look different.

Thats the only reason for RR and UP pointing out the differences between the "average Pakistani" and the "average Indian". Nothing wrong with being different.

 

[aryan2007]

Thats the only reason for RR and UP pointing out the differences between the "average Pakistani" and the "average Indian". Nothing wrong with being different.

Yep an "average" Pakistani being fairer or more well built than an "average" Indian I have no issues with that..

At the same time an average Pakistani is no different from an average North Indian...(Punjab, Kashmir, Hills etc) and in fact is most likely darker and more slightly built than them..

and is for us being the same people yes we are!! and as for the thread topic we are not copying Pakistani culture since before 1900's there was nothing known as Pakistani culture and it was all regional culture..

Punjabis are following Punjabi culture irresp of the country they live in though most live in Pakistan.
SIndhis are following Sindhi culture irresp of the country they live in though most live in Pakistan.
Urdu Muslims are following Urdu culture(I think this is what it is called).. as in Mohajirs have their own culture..
Pashtuns are following Pashtun culture(non-existent in India pretty much)
Baloch are following Balochi culture(again non-existent in India)

Rajputs are there in India and Pakistan
Jatts are there in India and Pakistan
Sheikhs are there in India and Pakistan
Tirkhan are there in India and Pakistan
etc.
go visit joshuaproject.net for a more detailed analysis..

and with several centuries of isolation and less p2p contact and otherwise pur countries will cease to have commonalities that are present at the moment which are again subtly changing... as in Pakistan is becoming a bit different so is India.. this depends on the socio-economic condition of the country..
60 years is to less a time to change significantly..

though my Issue is with these..

All Indians look the same.. like saying all Pakistanis look the same..

All Pakistanis are fair and well built and All Indians are dark and slightly built..

Indians cannot be fair and cannot have light eyes

Pakistanis are different from Indians and "North Indians"

There is a propaganda by Indians to appear white (because some one is
watching North Indian media and ignoring the other regional media)

Rest if a Pakistani comes visiting the Indian state bordering his.. he will be mistaken for a commoner.. and I believe vice versa..

if today India is divided into different parts North, North east, central, east, south and west.. all people will look different...

so in that there is no arguement that a Pakistani on an avg will look different though not as big that a third person is confused mind you.. Like to us all Chinese look the same.. but relying on shoddy and dubious info to highlight differences is appaling.. and then when someone fights it out to gang up on him or being a cry baby is also wrong..