Is Pakistani principally a race or ideology?

[Hamza913]

It's a mix. It was made as a homeland for the Muslims of what was British India. The religion is the ideology, and the fact that it was made for Muslims from what was British India (most of which were loosely similar to each other culturally/genetically) is where the culture/ethnicity/race/whatever-you-call-it comes in.

but wanted to point out that the quoted part of your post shows how desperate you guys have become in removing any trace of your association with your heritage.
'Desi' is by no means a Pakistani term

This is such a retarded thing to say, the term Desi is used by and for all people from the sub-continent, it's not based in some sort of inferiority complex.

 

[Philip the Arab]

I think its more of a racial group than an ideology.

 

[paritosh]

This is such a retarded thing to say, the term Desi is used by and for all people from the sub-continent, it's not based in some sort of inferiority complex.

Did you read the part that I had quoted in my post? The person I quoted had mentioned how it is a Pakistani term, first used by Pakistanis and then by other south asians. Was pointing out the inaccuracy of that claim.
I agree with it being used by all South Asians.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

This is such a retarded thing to say, the term Desi is used by and for all people from the sub-continent, it's not based in some sort of inferiority complex.

In Indians’ case, it would still be ‘Desh/Deshi’ as in Bangladesh. It still means countrymen or compatriot, and has no place in its current corrupted form which is applied in the West towards any and all people of South Asia.

Although the word doesn’t apply to people but to produce or country as a whole, the ‘Desi’ (for lack of a more correct term) of a Pakistani would only ever be another Pakistani.

 

[paritosh]

In Indians’ case, it would still be ‘Desh/Deshi’ as in Bangladesh. It still means countrymen or compatriot, and has no place in its current corrupted form which is applied in the West towards any and all people of South Asia.

Although the word doesn’t apply to people but to produce or country as a whole, the ‘Desi’ (for lack of a more correct term) of a Pakistani would only ever be another Pakistani.

Desh/Deshi is the pure form, Bengali people don't have 's' sound in their phonetics. So Sourav is called Shourav.
All others in India use Desi instead. You are confused, the word when used as adjective or as a noun, has the same usage in India

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Not a Pakistani, and not participating in this discussion, but wanted to point out that the quoted part of your post shows how desperate you guys have become in removing any trace of your association with your heritage.
'Desi' is by no means a Pakistani term, its origin is sanskrit and Indians were the first south asians to claim this term (right around the time the infamous 'dot busters' and other white hate groups had started attacking the 'Patels' in New Jersey in the 1950s and 60s). Please don't claim sanskrit as yours as well.

I wonder where Sanskrit was formed?

"Desi" was a term first used by Punjabis on both sides of the borders to identify each other abroad; it was later on that other ethnic groups began to jump in and I have now even seen Sri Lankans and Nepalis use the term.

 

[paritosh]

I wonder where Sanskrit was formed?

"Desi" was a term first used by Punjabis on both sides of the borders to identify each other abroad; it was later on that other ethnic groups began to jump in and I have now even seen Sri Lankans and Nepalis use the term.

Pray tell where was Sanskrit 'formed'? See this is why it is so disingenuous of Pakistanis of wanting to claim selective heritage, do you claim that most Pakistanis have Hindu/vedic heritage?
Plus the fact that there is no evidence that vedic sanskrit was written/spoken only in Pakistan, historians and linguists claim that it was the second urbanisation wave (when indo-aryans settled in the ganetic plains) that the rig vedic sanskrit was recorded as hymns. Many modern hindus have a continuous descent from the vedic settlers (the case system for all its evils preserved bloodlines), they speak sanskrit (I do as well).
Yet Pakistanis who claim to be of the same stock as the plunderers and invaders, are opportunists in claiming anything that seems shiny from our shared heritage. Be like Iranians or the Egyptians, forget that you ever were anything but islamic.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Dude I have read enough, please quote the research that backs your hypothesis. You think our border was stopping any mixing from happening on your side?

Eastern part of your country and north-west India are racially the same.

The Indus Region (Pakistan) and modern-day India has historically been divided by the massive Thar Desert, while the Northern region of Punjab indeed overlaps into India, along with parts of Himachal Pradesh. Having overlapping ethnic groups is a characteristic shared by nearly every country of this world.

Just because Sudan and Egypt have overlapping ethnic groups and share some parts of their history, does not mean they are the same.

We do acknowledge that there are Punjabis, Kashmiris (who do not consider themselves as Indians), etc... on both sides of the borders, however you must also acknowledge that these ethnic groups make up around 50-60% of Pakistan while only 4-6% of India.

Western Pakistan is where the central asian gene traits start showing up more. Are you claiming that vedic Sanskrit was developed in a single region?

The difference between Western Indus and Eastern Indus ethnic groups is actually very slight, in genetic distance graphs they all cluster together and form distinction from both Iranians and Indians (except for overlapping ethnic groups like Punjabis).

 

[paritosh]

The Indus Region (Pakistan) and modern-day India has historically been divided by the massive Thar Desert, while the Northern region of Punjab indeed overlaps into India, along with parts of Himachal Pradesh. Having overlapping ethnic groups is a characteristic shared by nearly every country of this world.

Just because Sudan and Egypt have overlapping ethnic groups and share some parts of their history, does not mean they are the same.

It is all about degrees. We can quantify the extent of overlap at some level, and then compare how much of an overlap we are looking at.

We do acknowledge that there are Punjabis, Kashmiris (who do not consider themselves as Indians), etc... on both sides of the borders, however you must also acknowledge that these ethnic groups make up around 50-60% of Pakistan while only 4-6% of India.

The state of Punjab before being split up in the 60s had Himachal and Haryana as well. You are not taking West UP (Awadh/Oudh) and Delhi (which were mughal culture centres) into account as well. Neither are you considering the fact that East and Central Pakistan before Islamisation, was ruled by Rajputs. I am not denying that the proportion is higher for Pakistan, but the exact ratios need some calculation, but in any case would show commonalities within our north west regions (including Gujarat and Rajasthan). There are a lot of factors that we are not looking at for the sake of oversimplifying our arguments, for example - there are populations in Bangladesh that have arabic/afghan ancestry (tribes were gifted provinces in bengal during the mughal rule, sea-faring traders settling in Bengal,etc.).

The difference between Western Indus and Eastern Indus ethnic groups is actually very slight, in genetic distance graphs they all cluster together and form distinction from both Iranians and Indians (except for overlapping ethnic groups like Punjabis).

Love the graphs, Indians is a very broad term but the graphs like you said, show commonalities with North western Indian groups.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[BATMAN]

to be a Pakistani is to batter the Pakistani that forget who he is etc.

That's what you think... but the way street scene in Pakistan looks like, no one in the world would like to associate him /her self with Pakistan.
Only thing which is reason for Pakistan's existence and value is it's armed forces.

 

[Apocalypse]

AoA,
What then are the stranded Biharis in Bangladesh if not ideologically Pakistani.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Pray tell where was Sanskrit 'formed'?

Sapta-Sindhavas, modern-day Pakistan. It was later spread to the Ganges region by a sub-tribe of the Vedic Aryans who used their martial prowess (chariots/cavalry) to subjugate the natives and install minority rule through the caste system (racial hierarchy). There is a difference between the Vedic Sanskrit (Indus Region) and late Sanskrit (Ganges Region).

If you go further back, you can trace it's prime source to Central Asia, where it diverged as different migrations split, hence why the extreme similarity with Avestani, while other significant differences are theorized to have been due to linguistic influence of the native peoples.

 

[B.K.N]

Pakistan is country ideologies are found only in books but Pakistan is reality a reality which no one in this world can deny when 500 thousand men are ever ready to give their lives at a moment's notice for something then it in itself becomes an ideology

 

[Krptonite]

Op wanted to know what makes a Pakistani, a Pakistani, PDF members started debating sanskrit origins.

God I love this forum

 

[Hamza913]

Did you read the part that I had quoted in my post?

I did, and whilst he said something stupid, so did you. Next time, use appropriate wording.