Is India one people?

[Indus Pakistan]

Some parts of Afghanistan too figure in our mythology. Eg. 'Kandahar' is termed as the ancient 'Gandhar' kingdom referred in Mahabharat. But it was Islamized pretty early and given no shared British rule, the bond and nostalgia with Afghanistan is weaker

How come you guys ignore Nepal, a country more Hindu then India, or Burma, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia extending to Bali which have association with you guys?

And Gandhara is my part of Pakistan.

Celebrated in the Islamabad Airport

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Nepal is known as KIrata in Ancient India...Gupta empire started as a marriage between the royal dynasties of Bihar and Nepal---The powerful Licchavis...

 

[Chhatrapati]

Rather, the point is that India isn't really the hindutva definition of India at all because of its disparate and mixed genetic origins.

Most Pakistanis and folks like you have no clue on the topic relating to India and pretend to be all-knowing on the subject, then make Himalayan blunders, which people who wanted to debate will have to take too much time repealing. And yet they keep coming with new theories that come out of their fallacies.
The Hindutva or Hinduism definition doesn't involve genetics to begin with, rather traditions and customs. That's how you can find Brahmins as dark as an African or a Dalit as light and blue-eyed as European. They are still Dalit, having light skin doesn't change their caste so is a dark Brahmin.

In short, nobody gives a damn about mixed genetic origins, but are more into the caste - class construct. This whole thread is about genetic similarity which matters less in the Indian context.

 

[magra]

How come you guys ignore Nepal, a country more Hindu then India, or Burma, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia extending to Bali which have association with you guys?

Nepal misses out because British did not rule it, neither it was part of Mughal / Delhi Sultanate empires. So it is separate since more than 1000 years atleast. Although yes there are a lot of cultural similarities. If they want to be part of India, they are welcome (like we welcomed Sikkim). Same goes with Bhutan as well.

Burma and beyond are beyond the eastern jungles. Historically, it was never easy to travel by land to these places. So not much contact. Burma came into contact only when Britain ruled it and sent Indians to work over there.

Thailand, Laos, Indonesia etc did have Hindu kingdoms historically at some point but they are too far away and beyond seas to be thought of as part of India.

And Gandhara is my part of Pakistan.

I am not sure then. I thought Kandahar is Gandhara.

 

[Srinivas]

In the past people in online forums could argue for hours and days based on nothing but personal opinions and very subjective observation of phenotypes, but with recent advances in dna tests and analysis over the last couple of years, we can now measure genetic distance between different groups of people and put an end to this debate.

There's an online tool called Vahaduo which is used very commonly by both the academic and amateur genetics enthusiasts. Publicly available dna result data can be entered into this tool to calculate genetic distance between two different ethnicities.

I have used the data available here to find the distances posted below.

Here's just one example why Indians cannot be seen as one people and no amount of argument can change hard scientific data and results.

Here is the distance between an Englishman and a Dutch, below. This means nothing by itself, but compare this number with the comparison further below, between an UP Brahmin and an average person from UP.

View attachment 727977


Distance between UP Brahmin and average UP person:

View attachment 727980



So basically an average guy in UP (India) is 6 times further away from a Brahmin living just next to him, compared to genetic distance between Englishman and Dutch.


So it's really absurd when Indians talk about Akhand Bharat including Pakistan, Tibet and Malaysia, when India itself is really not a single race but a continent containing extremely genetically diverse people!

what are the rules to be a single entity?

what is the connection between Balouch and a Kashmiri?

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

I am not sure then. I thought Kandahar is Gandhara.

This sort of historic blunders should have been out of Indian netizens by early 2010s....given the huge amount of historical resources available, there is no excuse for misinterpreting Gandhara (which is a historical region around Taxila,Pakistan extending out into Khyber Pakhtunwa) with Kandahar of Afghanistan

 

[magra]

This sort of historic blunders should have been out of Indian netizens by early 2010s....given the huge amount of historical resources available, there is no excuse for misinterpreting Gandhara (which is a historical region around Taxila,Pakistan extending out into Khyber Pakhtunwa) with Kandahar of Afghanistan

Gandhar was not a city but a kingdom. Is it possible that it stretched from Pakistan to Afghanistan?

Does Afghanistan have a link with Mahabharata?

As per the experts, the Gandhara kingdom covered portions of today’s northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. It was spread over Pothohar Plateau, Peshawar Valley and Kabul River Valley.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Indus Pakistan]

This sort of historic blunders should have been out of Indian netizens by early 2010s....given the huge amount of historical resources available, there is no excuse for misinterpreting Gandhara (which is a historical region around Taxila,Pakistan extending out into Khyber Pakhtunwa) with Kandahar of Afghanistan

Gandhara covered the region between Kabul - Peshawar- Islamabad with the centre being around where River Kabul and River Indus meet. Taxila is actually today on the suburbs of Islamabad.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Gandhar was not a city but a kingdom. Is it possible that it stretched from Pakistan to Afghanistan?

Does Afghanistan have a link with Mahabharata?

As per the experts, the Gandhara kingdom covered portions of today’s northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. It was spread over Pothohar Plateau, Peshawar Valley and Kabul River Valley.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Technically once for 100 years from 680 AD Ato 780 AD ..what you are thinking of is the Turkic Hindu Kingdom of Zabulistan that existed around Kandahar after the Hunnic invasions of Afghanistan and then
India...These Turkic people were originally Tengrists with their own Tamgas who later converted to Hinduism

Kandahar is at completely different place to Gandhara..there is no etymological overlap between the two eventhough they sound similiar

this link will show you all the Kingdoms in modern day western Pakistan from roughly 300 AD to 1000 AD (the first link)

Showcases | Digitaler Ausstellungskatalog

The Countenance of the Other The Coins of the Huns and Western Turks in Central Asia and India

www.khm.at

 

[Hiptullha]

In short, nobody gives a damn about mixed genetic origins, but are more into the caste - class construct. This whole thread is about genetic similarity which matters less in the Indian context.

Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past: Reich, David: 9781101870327: Books - Amazon.ca

Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past: Reich, David: 9781101870327: Books - Amazon.ca

www.amazon.ca

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Arachosia, Gedrosia are the two ancient names of the western halfs of Pak in Ancient Greek...The correct self-identifier of Pakistan should be Gandhara....even the name Pakistan sounds hollow as its an acronym...the founding fathers of Pakistan really botched up with the nomenclature

We not India, where people are happy given an identity by forigen colonial power. None of your ancestors called themselves "Indians" before becoming subjects of British raj.

Gandhara was relatively new civilisation, restricted to north west of Pakistan, and doesn't in any shape of form, cover the truly ancient nature of Pakistan. Indus does however. Pakistan, "land of pure", pure by lineage, culture, civilisation, all points to the ancient credentials of our people and our lands. Cant be more fitting then this.

 

[Hiptullha]

Gandhara....even the name Pakistan sounds hollow as its an acronym...the founding fathers of Pakistan really botched up with the nomenclature

Pakistanis founders fucked up; they should have named it after an ancient Greek word not in use instead of a popular name which hundreds of millions voted for.

Gangadeshis crack me up man

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Pakistanis founders fucked up; they should have named it after an ancient Greek word not in use instead of a popular name which hundreds of millions voted for.

Gangadeshis crack me up man

I donot think the word Gandhara comes down from the ancient Greeks...I may be wrong..but highly unlikely i am wrong in this regard

We not India, where people are happy given an identity by forigen colonial power. None of your ancestors called themselves "Indians" before becoming subjects of British raj.

Gandhara was relatively new civilisation, restricted to north west of Pakistan, and doesn't in any shape of form, cover the truly ancient nature of Pakistan. Indus does however. Pakistan, "land of pure", pure by lineage, culture, civilisation, all points to the ancient credentials of our people and our lands. Cant be more fitting then this.

India is called by different names by different peoples across the world...

it's also called Bharatiy Ganarajya officially

Indians did call thenselves Bharatiya and their land as Bharata Varsha..........I donot know what Pakistanis called their land before

 

[Indus Pakistan]

they should have named it after an ancient Greek word not in use instead of a popular name which hundreds of millions voted for.

You are aware that the guy who coined the name 'Pakistan' died a unsung death in Britain. His burial was paid by for his alma mater - Cambridge University. His was effectively disowned.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

The question is not who came when and from where.
The question is whether one considers the identity of 'Indian' above any other identity of caste, religion, region, ethnicity, race etc.

If you genuinely believe this, Modi and the BJP will declare you anti-national. The hindutva OOI narrative is categorically dependent on "who came when and from where".

Most Pakistanis and folks like you have no clue on the topic relating to India and pretend to be all-knowing on the subject, then make Himalayan blunders, which people who wanted to debate will have to take too much time repealing. And yet they keep coming with new theories that come out of their fallacies.
The Hindutva or Hinduism definition doesn't involve genetics to begin with, rather traditions and customs. That's how you can find Brahmins as dark as an African or a Dalit as light and blue-eyed as European. They are still Dalit, having light skin doesn't change their caste so is a dark Brahmin.

In short, nobody gives a damn about mixed genetic origins, but are more into the caste - class construct. This whole thread is about genetic similarity which matters less in the Indian context.

So basically, you have nil to say viz Aryans and their origins/philosophies/culture being similarly "foreign" to the subcontinent as Muslims, so you obfuscate. The reason this is actually relevant is precisely because it forms a counter-narrative based in science to the prevailing "Mughal-phobic" rubbish that pervades throughout India's modern psyche to obsessive levels.

Please do continue.