India copying Pakistani/Western Culture

[Scorpius]

Oright I don't give a damn about the charts, the best way to judge is personal experience.

In my personal experience most pakistani men and indian men I know are of a similar skin color, the pakis being slightly fairer on average but not by such a great deal.

Pakis can be a mix from fair to dark brown. I really cant say your average Pakistani punjabi looks like "insert x color here". Because from my own experience it varies vastly.

My own family for example, two of my grandparents are dark brown, the other two very fair. My dada and nana are brothers yet my dada is extremely fair while my nana is dark brown.

I would say much more pakis share my nanas skin color then my dadas (very fair like european) but still there are various shades in between and as such I cant say the average pakistani punjabi looks like "x color".

Now as for women the majority of women in my family (mother, sister, dads and moms sisters, etc) are fair. And I can also say most pakistani women I come across range from very fair-medium brown. With very few being dark brown.

As for Indians, the ones I mostly know are sikh. I know a few hindus and one south indian. The sikhs look similar to pakistanis, some of them can be very fair others quite dark. There women are a mix though ranging from fair to dark brown with most being medium-dark brown.

So from my experience I must say most pakistani punjabi and indian punjabi men are of a very similar skin color with the pakistani punjabi women being lighter then there indian counterparts.


Now with that said I hope this stupid bickering over skin color ends.

 

[aryan2007]

Aryan, seriously, where are you getting such overblown figures?
Populations back then werent as big as they are today. The real figures were a few million people going either way.
A lot of Indians think they can increase this figure to compensate for the increase of growth rate in the past 60 years.

And correct me if I am wrong, but East and West Pakistans partition figures are always combined. And they still are under the banner of "Pakistan" to be as misleading as possible. Go Hindutvas.

20-30%???. "Baloney" doesnt quite cover this ridiculous figure.

I quoted wikipedia..

 

[Scorpius]

I quoted wikipedia..

Wiki does not equal truth. Many people make this mistake, as such in Universities non Wiki sources are often preferred for references and the like. Wikis are edited by normal people, you don't need to be an expert in the subject.

 

[aryan2007]

Wiki does not equal truth. Many people make this mistake, as such in Universities non Wiki sources are often preferred for references and the like. Wikis are edited by normal people, you don't need to be an expert in the subject.

I understand but the person asked me from where I got such overinflated figures...

By putting wiki in your reference list you immediately lose credibility but in these non-academic forums they are acceptable unless some one has a serious issue with it..

as for wiki I suggest you follow the references if given, this is acceptable and there is no need for secondary referencing or the need to name Wiki as a source.

I will try to post academic source as regards to the population exchange numbers that took place between the 2 nations..

 

[aryan2007]

Aryan, seriously, where are you getting such overblown figures?
Populations back then werent as big as they are today. The real figures were a few million people going either way.
A lot of Indians think they can increase this figure to compensate for the increase of growth rate in the past 60 years.

And correct me if I am wrong, but East and West Pakistans partition figures are always combined. And they still are under the banner of "Pakistan" to be as misleading as possible. Go Hindutvas.

20-30%???. "Baloney" doesnt quite cover this ridiculous figure.

Rubbish. The figure was around 1 million, but let's use official census figures.

If you need proof..

BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 6(2) September October 2003 (Table A2)

Total Muslim population of west pakistan (1951 census) = 28 million

Total Muslim population of west pakistan (1941 census) = 22 million

Growth rate of West Pakistan = approx. 2% per annum

10 years will see a 110% increase (apologies, this should be 120% increase so double everything from now!)

Expected Muslim population in 1951 = 24.2 million.

Actual minus expected = 3.8 million immigrants.. Total West Pak pop (1951) = 29 million

So percentage of immigrants from India (majority from East Punjab) = 3.8/29 = 13%. (edit, this should be 7%)

This isn't too far off the Urdu speaking population of 7% or something of modern day Pakistan.

The figure of 20-30% is just baloney though. As for India, getting "lighter", say even if 5 million moved from Pak to India (which it wasn't, it was perhaps 1 million), then it would have affected only 0.7% of a 350 million population..a negligible impact! Easy t prove..might do so later.

PS I've used a growth rate of 2% per annum, but in fact the figure is much higher.

It is estimated that around 14.5 million people moved to Pakistan from India or travelled in the opposite direction from Pakistan to India.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Partitioning India over lunch

The estimates of how many people died vary immensely, generally hovering in the 500,000 to 1.5 million range, and many scholars have settled upon the nice round figure of 1 million. There is nothing nice or comforting about this somewhat agreed-upon figure, and it is interesting as well that few scholars, if any, have bothered to furnish an account of how they came to accept any estimate that they have deemed reasonable.

Manas: History and Politics, Partition of India

15 million refugees poured across the borders to regions completely foreign to them, for though they were Hindu or Muslim, their identity had been embedded in the regions where there ancestors were from. Not only was the country divided, but so were the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, divisions which caused catastrophic riots and claimed the lives of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike.
The Partition of India

As the shield of Imperial British troops collapsed, more than ten million terrified Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, fled from one side to the other of two new borders, ineptly drawn through the heartlands of multi-cultural Punjab and Bengal. Some one million refugees never reached their destinations.
Amazon.co.uk: Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India: Books: Stanley Wolpert

ten million refugees, two million of them dead, seventy-five thousand women raped and so on and so forth
Borders and Boundaries in Partition Literature by Shivam Vij A paper presented in Delhi (September 12, 2003)

Tens of millions of Muslims on one side, and Hindus and Sikhs on the other, found themselves on what they regarded as the wrong side of the boundary line. Amid the tension, the communal clashes and the panicked mass migration, there was huge loss of life. No one knows the exact number.
Historians believe that upwards of half a million people were killed, tens of thousands of women were raped or abducted and more than 10 million people became refugees in a catastrophe which still haunts South Asian politics and diplomacy.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Sixty bitter years after Partition

No viceregal time had been wasted in planning for the feeding and housing and medical needs of ten million refugees. No British officers or troops remained to keep the peace in shattered Punjab, or in Bengal, nor in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, left in deadly limbo to become the source of increasingly violent conflicts between India and Pakistan, the cause of three wars to be waged between them over the next fifty-five years.
S. Arif Hussani


Radcliffe had never been to India before and never came again. Whatever line he had devised, tens of millions would have felt aggrieved. The hasty partition of these provinces triggered one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th Century.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Sixty bitter years after Partition



I feel ashamed really that we are fighting for lands devised by a person who never came to our land nor did have any idea..

 

[UnitedPak]

Tens of millions is a very bad way of putting it.
That is just the added migration figures of people going both ways and with Bengali and Pakistani figures combined.

Most of the displacement happened in Bengal not Pakistan.
The migration figures of Pakistan and India were just a few million people.

Take a look at this map and point out where all your imaginary hindus came from? Pakistan was Muslim majority by far, and at that time when Pakistans population was just 28 million, I find it hard to believe there were up to 3 million Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan.
Not to mention there are millions of Hindus still left in Pakistan today.
The proximity to middle east inevitably left Pakistan muslim majority.

Here is the 1909 map showing the religious makeup of South Asia.
http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=britindianempirereligioon8.jpg

The partition was not a random line through the sand as this map clearly shows.

 

[aryan2007]

Tens of millions is a very bad way of putting it.
That is just the added migration figures of people going both ways and with Bengali and Pakistani figures combined.

Most of the displacement happened in Bengal not Pakistan.
The migration figures of Pakistan and India were just a few million people.

Take a look at this map and point out where all your imaginary hindus came from? Pakistan was Muslim majority by far, and at that time when Pakistans population was just 28 million, I find it hard to believe there were up to 3 million Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan.
Not to mention there are millions of Hindus still left in Pakistan today.
The proximity to middle east inevitably left Pakistan muslim majority.

Here is the 1909 map showing the religious makeup of South Asia.
http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=britindianempirereligioon8.jpg

The partition was not a random line through the sand as this map clearly shows.

Your Map is Bull..
Gimme a source.. that Map proves no Muslims in India..
BTW Ludhiana in East Punjab was Muslim majority but was granted to India
Indian Kashmir here appears to be majority non Muslim...
Punjab is shown majority HIndu which is not..

1 suggestion : Let RR do the talking on ur behalf..

 

[UnitedPak]

Your Map is Bull..
Gimme a source.. that Map proves no Muslims in India..
BTW Ludhiana in East Punjab was Muslim majority but was granted to India
Indian Kashmir here appears to be majority non Muslim...
Punjab is shown majority HIndu which is not..

1 suggestion : Let RR do the talking on ur behalf..

Unlike you, I dont make maps. So "my" map is not "bull".

Its a map showing the Majority of the religion make up, surely there are Hindus in Pakistan but not that many. And of course there are Muslims in India, just not in any majority. Why do you insist on twisting my words?

And please, the map is 100 years old, not accurate but it makes a point.

I dont know where you think Kashmir is, but both Jammu and Kashmir are shown as Muslim majority. Remember its a 100 year old map, you cant rely on the positioning, but try looking out for the cities to give you an idea.
The may is drawn according to the provincial maps of that time.

I bother looking at actual evidence, not manufactured hindutva and wikipedia "sources". This is a British drawn map which can be found in any library. Could you possibly give anything more accurate than a lousy photo shopped, excuse of a map which you probably found on hinduonnet.com?

 

[aryan2007]

Unlike you, I dont make maps. So "my" map is not "bull".

Its a map showing the Majority of the religion make up, surely there are Hindus in Pakistan but not that many. And of course there are Muslims in India, just not in any majority. Why do you insist on twisting my words?

And please, the map is 100 years old, not accurate but it makes a point.

I dont know where you think Kashmir is, but both Jammu and Kashmir are shown as Muslim majority. Remember its a 100 year old map, you cant rely on the positioning, but try looking out for the cities to give you an idea.
The may is drawn according to the provincial maps of that time.

I bother looking at actual evidence, not manufactured hindutva and wikipedia "sources". This is a British drawn map which can be found in any library. Could you possibly give anything more accurate than a lousy photo shopped, excuse of a map which you probably found on hinduonnet.com?

gimme a source...please.. imageshack is not a source..


Hinduonnet.com is the online version of the most respected paper of India, The Hindu

from wiki...

The Hindu is a leading English-language newspaper in South India, with its largest base of circulation in Tamil Nadu. Begun in 1878, it was founded on the principles of fairness and justice. Headquartered at Chennai (formerly called Madras), The Hindu was published weekly when it was launched and started publishing daily in 1889.

The Hindu became, in 1995, the first Indian newspaper to offer an online edition.. aka Hinduonnet.com

If you offer source from that site I would believe blindly mostly..


PS: Do not let your hate for the word Hindu blind you... as I said let RR do the talking..
If you want a map go to google scholar and search... I have an athens account therefore most of the stuff that you find out I will be able to check.. thanks..

 

[roadrunner]

It is estimated that around 14.5 million people moved to Pakistan from India or travelled in the opposite direction from Pakistan to India.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Partitioning India over lunch

Ayran, you can't have it both ways. I've given you the census data, and performed the calculation. 7% of the current Pakistani population are Muhajirs from India, the majority of these from Delhi. 7% is around 12 million. Of these I suspect 5 million are from South India, Kerala and the other places. This would make a virtual negative impact on the demongraphics of Pakistan. 12 million out of 160 million people would not change the demographics of a country. If 80 million out of the 160 million people were Muhajirs, this would have changed the demographics. One could easily say that the 3 million Afghans will balance out the 12 million Muhajirs to a degree, so over time there is no change to the underlying population.

 

[aryan2007]

Ayran, you can't have it both ways.I've given you the census data, and performed the calculation.

Census data from which site again??
I am giving more academic and reputable sources puh-lease..

7% of the current Pakistani population are Muhajirs from India, the majority of these from Delhi. 7% is around 12 million. Of these I suspect 5 million are from South India, Kerala and the other places. This would make a virtual negative impact on the demongraphics of Pakistan. 12 million out of 160 million people would not change the demographics of a country. If 80 million out of the 160 million people were Muhajirs, this would have changed the demographics. One could easily say that the 3 million Afghans will balance out the 12 million Muhajirs to a degree, so over time there is no change to the underlying population.

I would like to say that one must look at the demographics of the time..
Anyways you guys are whites we are blacks.. I am sure this will make you happy!!!

 

[roadrunner]

Census data from which site again??

The census data I quote is from Bharat-Rhaska, a Hindutva site. They will, if anything exagerrate the figures of people that crossed over to increase the appearance of a genocide. You do not quote any link for your figures. Quote me your figures again, along with a link (wiki is not a link btw).

I am giving more academic and reputable sources puh-lease..

Wiki is not an academic or reputable link, especially on the subject of Partition.

I would like to say that one must look at the demographics of the time..
Anyways you guys are whites we are blacks.. I am sure this will make you happy!!!

2 shades darker, but not the same appearance.

 

[aryan2007]

The census data I quote is from Bharat-Rhaska, a Hindutva site. They will, if anything exagerrate the figures of people that crossed over to increase the appearance of a genocide. You do not quote any link for your figures. Quote me your figures again, along with a link (wiki is not a link btw).

I don't believe in Hindutva porpaganda..

here are my links
http://www.defence.pk/forums/119902-post65.html

Wiki is not an academic or reputable link, especially on the subject of Partition.

I agree.

2 shades darker, but not the same appearance.

How dissimilar appearance as different as a Persian and Pakistani or an Arab and Pakistani.. or a Pashtun and Punjabi?? etc..

What about Punjabis on both sides are the Indians one darker or dissimilar in appearance?? cheers

 

[UnitedPak]

Aryan,

Whats with the mood swings? You choose two extremes of an argument and cant seem to provide credible arguments for either. At the end you just end up being the "victim".

You went on and on about the "same people" thing, which doesnt quite make sense due to the vast distances involved and the cultural and religious differences, but I know you are trying to prove that Pakistan really belongs to Indians or something similar.
Or that you just see India as a huge influence on everything.

You said South East Asia had been influenced by India. Why couldnt it be the other way around?
What does the land of Paistan or Pakistanis have to do with modern Indians?
Why cant Pakistanis own their own land?
Why does India have to be the reason for everything in Asia?

Your views are clearly nationalist, and I suspect that the reason you have been banned from so many other forums.
"Same people" at least need to be of the same ethnicity. So yea, Indian and Pakistani Punjabis may be similar (not taking into account that they havent mixed because of religion for 100s of years). But saying Indians and Pakistanis are the same is very far fetched.

 

[roadrunner]

I don't believe in Hindutva porpaganda..

here are my links
http://www.defence.pk/forums/119902-post65.html

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.

I agree.

Then don't quote it.

How dissimilar appearance as different as a Persian and Pakistani or an Arab and Pakistani.. or a Pashtun and Punjabi?? etc..

What about Punjabis on both sides are the Indians one darker or dissimilar in appearance?? cheers

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. 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.