Following are Indians:-
Not wise to play this kind of game.
Sure.
"The Indian population originated from three separate waves of migration from Africa, Iran and Central Asia over a period of 50,000 years, scientists have found using genetic evidence from people alive in the subcontinent today.
The Indian Subcontinent harbours huge genetic diversity, in addition to its vast patchwork of languages, cultures and religions.
Researchers at the University of Huddersfield in the UK found that some genetic lineages in South Asia are very ancient.
The earliest populations were hunter-gatherers who arrived from Africa, where modern humans arose, more than 50,000 years ago.
However, further waves of settlement came from the direction of Iran, after the last Ice Age ended 10-20,000 years ago, and with the spread of early farming.
These ancient signatures are most clearly seen in the mitochondrial DNA, which tracks the female line of descent.
However, Y-chromosome variation, which tracks the male line, is very different, according to the study published in the journal BMC Evolutionary Biology.
"Here the major signatures are much more recent. Most controversially, there is a strong signal of immigration from Central Asia, less than 5,000 years ago," said Marina Silva, co-author of the study.
"This looks like a sign of the arrival of the first Indo- European speakers, who arose amongst the Bronze Age peoples of the grasslands north of the Caucasus, between the Black and Caspian Seas," Silva said.
They were male-dominated, mobile pastoralists who had domesticated the horse - and spoke what ultimately became Sanskrit, the language of classical Hinduism - which more than 200 years ago linguists showed is ultimately related to classical Greek and Latin, the study found.
Migrations from the same source also shaped the settlement of Europe and its languages, and this has been the subject of most recent research.
The origin of the Indian population is an area of huge controversy among scholars and scientists.
A problem confronting archaeogenetic research into the origins of Indian populations is that there is a dearth of sources, such as preserved skeletal remains that can provide ancient DNA samples.
In the latest study, researchers used genetic evidence from people alive in the subcontinent today."
Source:
https://www.business-standard.com/a...ves-from-africa-iran-asia-117051100378_1.html
What was my point again?
This: "As I pointed out before,
Ancient India did not belong to a particular race at any point in time due to numerous set of migrations from other regions to this region from time to time."
The pictures you posted still do not resemble general Pakistanis. Even dark skinned Pakistanis look very different to Indians.
There is no such thing as ancient India. If you mean IVC, Harappa, Mohenjo daro, and Taxilla, all those were in modern-day Pakistan.
There was no fabled mass migration of Coterminous Pakistanis to modern India and no monolithic Hindu rashtra.
These are all fantasies of Hindutva zealots.
Nevertheless, I notice many Pakistani who resemble typical Indians in features (Urdu speaking communities in particular). Below is a minor glimpse:
Muhajirs are ethnically UP, Bihari, Hyderabadi people and this is why they resemble the modern-day Indians from those regions.
They were immigrants from what is now India so they will look like them.
Also drop the "we wuz Arabs and Turks" mentality and "wahhabism" and we should make cultural links with Iran to balance out the Desi culture
A tribe or clan whose patrilineal descent goes back to an Arab, Turk, or Persian has every right to claim his lineage.
There is no shame in acknowledging your heritage. Every other nation on Earth can do this, but here in PDF we have Indians, Bangladeshis, and others abusing Pakistanis for referring to themselves by their tribe or ethnic origin.
Instead of worrying about someone claiming ancestry, worry about how to deal with our current problems.
Those of us who are of Arab, Turk, Persian blood will claim it regardless of what anyone things.
If it wasnt for the petro sheikh dollars and their wahhabi ideology of the 70s we would not be larping or trying to look like Arabs
A very small minority of Pakistanis are Ahl e Hadith, which itself is a native Islamic movement in this region.
We resemble Arabs, Turks, and Persians because we live in this region and are descended from common ancestors.
I consider myself Pakistani not Punjabi/Pathan yes my family is Rajput but I consider myself Pakistani first, again I am not against people being proud of those clans and their history but seriously we are Pakistani first
Most Pakistanis don use the retarded castes but I noticed Punjabis are the most to harp about Desiness than Pathans
Your idea of caste is inflated with race and tribe. You have to take the Hindu nonsense out of it.
There is nothing wrong with being from local heritage of this region stretching from IVC, Harappa, Mohenjo daro, Taxilla.
The only Desi we recognize is a Pakistani which includes Punjabis, Pukhtoons, Kashmiris, etc.
Rajput is a noble lineage which goes back to as far as the founding of Lahore and the migration of Iranic tribes to this region thousands of years ago.
Funny thing is that Persian is more native to Pakistan than Urdu is. People of Quetta, Peshawar, Hazara, and whole Eastern block were fluent in Persian. Persian was also very much spoken in Lahore. While the Sikhs spoke Punjsbi and only Punjabi. Muslims of Punjab were more versatile, closer to Islamic culture. For example they read Arabic, memorized Quran, knew some Persian. Every Muslim teacher with a B.A. had excellent knowledge of Persian in '40s. Due to this, there was a huge culture clash between Muslims in Punjab and Sikhs/Hindus (aboriginals).
Urdu is the language from north India, while Persian was a language actually understood naturally by Pakistanis.
Persian was a more natural language for Pakistan, but now we have made the Urdu tongue our own. No use in looking back.
