Is The Taj Mahal Pakistani ?

[bronxbull]

there is no sophistication in architecture,the tiles are nice,they are a speciality of turks.

 

[Pakistani E]

Well it belongs Pakistanis as it does to Indians. If south or east Indians can claim Indus civilization as their own, which I have seen them do, then yes Taj Mahal in that sense is Pakistanis also.

 

[KingMamba]

Well it belongs Pakistanis as it does to Indians. If south or east Indians can claim Indus civilization as their own, which I have seen them do, then yes Taj Mahal in that sense is Pakistanis also.

I say Pakistani stop claiming anything in India and India likewise anything in Pakistan.

 

[Pakistani E]

I say Pakistani stop claiming anything in India and India likewise anything in Pakistan.

Fine with me, as long as Indians stop saying that Pakistanis are invaders and have no right to Indus civilisation. I've had Indians tell me that Indus civilization belongs to them and not Pakistanis as they are invaders. LoL.

 

[KingMamba]

Fine with me, as long as Indians stop saying that Pakistanis are invaders and have no right to Indus civilisation. I've had Indians tell me that Indus civilization belongs to them and not Pakistanis as they are invaders. LoL.

Really I have had Indians say since they are Hindu it is theirs and they also say roman civilization doesn't belong to Italians because of different religion, or Greek to the Greeks, or even Egyptian to current Egyptians for the same reasons.

 

[Pakistani E]

Really I have had Indians say since they are Hindu it is theirs and they also say roman civilization doesn't belong to Italians because of different religion, or Greek to the Greeks, or even Egyptian to current Egyptians for the same reasons.

Yeh, which is absurd to say the least. I have genetics proof that my ancestors have been in South Asia for thousands of years. (My interest in that sort of stuff was sparked by that previous thread)

 

[Dillinger]

@Hyperion You is wanting to lay claim on the Taj?

 

[Hyperion]

Yes I iz..... what you gonna do about it?

@Hyperion You is wanting to lay claim on the Taj?

 

[Dillinger]

Yes I iz..... what you gonna do about it?

Yalgar ho! A swift armored trust into the Marala headworks..lets see you use ERWs then!

 

[ShahidT]

Taj Mahal either belongs to all South Asians or it belongs to none of us (meaning only Turko-Mongol Chagtais which are extinct can claim it in their graves).

The problem with modern national boundaries and extrapolating that to claims over four to five thousand year old civilizations is, that its very hard to tell who are the real natives amongst inhabitants today, unaffected or least affected by outside admixture. If science is to be followed, which I suggest over jingoism, then we can only be sure that australoid tribes and proto-dravidians were the original inhabitants of the geographical subcontinent (east of suleiman range/hindu kush, and west of arrakan range near burma). This, mind you, was approximately 10,000-15,000 ybp, possibly earlier, as they are postulated to have split off from settlers that arrived either in the first wave of migration from Africa (60kya) by sea or the second wave (roughly 30-25kya) across the Arabian peninsula, along the coast to malabar region.

The confirmed ethnolinguistic groups which came to the subcontinent later, apart from the Northeastern mongoloids from present-day Burma, Yunnan and Tibet, include Pashtuns that arrived to khyber/hindu kush region approximately 1st to 6th century A.D. during the mixed Turkic/Iranic Hephthalites' migrations (or invasions), and Baloch who by their own traditions migrated from Aleppo or the Arabian peninsula around 1500 years ago, though the former is more likely evidenced by their language being part of the northwest Iranic branch.

Now of Punjabis and Sindhis who claim native origins as opposed to those of Gilan, Shiraz, Quraysh/Hashemite tribes, etc. there is contention in the scientific domain. But the two most debated and plausible explanations are, them being an admixture of an Indo-Aryan migration and earlier native proto-dravidians, or that the proto-dravidians about 15,000 years ago moved to the northern plains, diverging from southern populations over time in language, traditions and to a small extent, appearance. The age of ANI markers, coupled with their posited migratory timeframes, suggests that it does not predate the decline period of IVC, whereas the ASI markers obviously are more that 20,000 years old (at least). This should give a hint as to the possible and likely genetic composition of IVC inhabitants before the civilization's decline, caused by *unestablished event*, made them migrate eastwards to other fertile plains and rivers.

Which explanation you prefer is up to you, but it is still quite vague and contended, apart from a more general consensus that these are the two likeliest possibilities compared to any others. As I've said before, this is an area best appreciated with an open mind, and where petty racism/nationalism brings nothing but an egg on the face when confronted by science.

 

[Dillinger]

Taj Mahal either belongs to all South Asians or it belongs to none of us (meaning only Turko-Mongol Chagtais which are extinct can claim it in their graves).

The problem with modern national boundaries and extrapolating that to claims over four to five thousand year old civilizations is, that its very hard to tell who are the real natives amongst inhabitants today, unaffected or least affected by outside admixture. If science is to be followed, which I suggest over jingoism, then we can only be sure that australoid tribes and proto-dravidians were the original inhabitants of the geographical subcontinent (east of suleiman range/hindu kush, and west of arrakan range near burma). This, mind you, was approximately 10,000-15,000 ybp, possibly earlier, as they are postulated to have split off from settlers that arrived either in the first wave of migration from Africa (60kya) by sea or the second wave (roughly 30-25kya) across the Arabian peninsula, along the coast to malabar region.

The confirmed ethnolinguistic groups which came to the subcontinent later, apart from the Northeastern mongoloids from present-day Burma, Yunnan and Tibet, include Pashtuns that arrived to khyber/hindu kush region approximately 1st to 6th century A.D. during the mixed Turkic/Iranic Hephthalites' migrations (or invasions), and Baloch who by their own traditions migrated from Aleppo or the Arabian peninsula around 1500 years ago, though the former is more likely evidenced by their language being part of the northwest Iranic branch.

Now of Punjabis and Sindhis who claim native origins as opposed to those of Gilan, Shiraz, Quraysh/Hashemite tribes, etc. there is contention in the scientific domain. But the two most debated and plausible explanations are, them being an admixture of an Indo-Aryan migration and earlier native proto-dravidians, or that the proto-dravidians about 15,000 years ago moved to the northern plains, diverging from southern populations over time in language, traditions and to a small extent, appearance. The age of ANI markers, coupled with their posited migratory timeframes, suggests that it does not predate the decline period of IVC, whereas the ASI markers obviously are more that 20,000 years old (at least). This should give a hint as to the possible and likely genetic composition of IVC inhabitants before the civilization's decline, caused by *unestablished event*, made them migrate eastwards to other fertile plains and rivers.

Which explanation you prefer is up to you, but it is still quite vague and contended, apart from a more general consensus that these are the two likeliest possibilities compared to any others. As I've said before, this is an area best appreciated with an open mind, and where petty racism/nationalism brings nothing but an egg on the face when confronted by science.

As much as I admire the attempt to inject rationality into an inane debate..ME AND @Hyperion WERE HOPING TO TURN THIS INTO A TROLL THREAD WHERE EVERY NEXT PERSON WOULD BE FROTHING AT THE MOUTH AND BANGING ON HIS/HER KEYBOARD!

 

[Hyperion]

I hate rational people and their explanations.... as Dilli mentioned.... this was prime troll thread, and you come in and justify the argument.....

Somebody unleash the @RAMPAGE on this guy!

Taj Mahal either belongs to all South Asians or it belongs to none of us (meaning only Turko-Mongol Chagtais which are extinct can claim it in their graves).

The problem with modern national boundaries and extrapolating that to claims over four to five thousand year old civilizations is, that its very hard to tell who are the real natives amongst inhabitants today, unaffected or least affected by outside admixture. If science is to be followed, which I suggest over jingoism, then we can only be sure that australoid tribes and proto-dravidians were the original inhabitants of the geographical subcontinent (east of suleiman range/hindu kush, and west of arrakan range near burma). This, mind you, was approximately 10,000-15,000 ybp, possibly earlier, as they are postulated to have split off from settlers that arrived either in the first wave of migration from Africa (60kya) by sea or the second wave (roughly 30-25kya) across the Arabian peninsula, along the coast to malabar region.

The confirmed ethnolinguistic groups which came to the subcontinent later, apart from the Northeastern mongoloids from present-day Burma, Yunnan and Tibet, include Pashtuns that arrived to khyber/hindu kush region approximately 1st to 6th century A.D. during the mixed Turkic/Iranic Hephthalites' migrations (or invasions), and Baloch who by their own traditions migrated from Aleppo or the Arabian peninsula around 1500 years ago, though the former is more likely evidenced by their language being part of the northwest Iranic branch.

Now of Punjabis and Sindhis who claim native origins as opposed to those of Gilan, Shiraz, Quraysh/Hashemite tribes, etc. there is contention in the scientific domain. But the two most debated and plausible explanations are, them being an admixture of an Indo-Aryan migration and earlier native proto-dravidians, or that the proto-dravidians about 15,000 years ago moved to the northern plains, diverging from southern populations over time in language, traditions and to a small extent, appearance. The age of ANI markers, coupled with their posited migratory timeframes, suggests that it does not predate the decline period of IVC, whereas the ASI markers obviously are more that 20,000 years old (at least). This should give a hint as to the possible and likely genetic composition of IVC inhabitants before the civilization's decline, caused by *unestablished event*, made them migrate eastwards to other fertile plains and rivers.

Which explanation you prefer is up to you, but it is still quite vague and contended, apart from a more general consensus that these are the two likeliest possibilities compared to any others. As I've said before, this is an area best appreciated with an open mind, and where petty racism/nationalism brings nothing but an egg on the face when confronted by science.

 

[Dillinger]

@Hyperion So who should we poke to get the ball rolling. Mamba knows us too well to bite at the bait, perhaps some naive and hyper posters from both sides of the fence?

 

[Hyperion]

Yara, no one is going to bite on this topic..... we need something which hits more close to home.... something that has the potential to spiral out of control....... I'm looking........ as soon as I spot an opportunity, I'll tag you!

@Hyperion So who should we poke to get the ball rolling. Mamba knows us too well to bite at the bait, perhaps some naive and hyper posters from both sides of the fence?

 

[Dillinger]

Yara, no one is going to bite on this topic..... we need something which hits more close to home.... something that has the potential to spiral out of control....... I'm looking........ as soon as I spot an opportunity, I'll tag you!

Hmm...true..people are far too detached wrt this topic..we need something REAL egregious.