Mate, I'm well aware of the people who you're talking about. The story of those individuals is that they came to South India from the time of seljuks. They're were no more than 150 traders and settlers who settled in the region and intermixed with the local population who was at the time over a million. When 98% of your dna is South Indian and only 2% is actually of turkic, then you can't claim to be of turkic ancestry. Ancestry isn't based on which dna you choose to acknowledge and which you choose to not mention.
I'm of 4 different ethnicities. My father is half pakhtoon and half kashmiri, my mother is half Tajik and half Ozbek. This makes me a quarter each. I've done my DNA test and it also mentioned that I have Tatar, Iranian, turkmen, Punjabi, gujrati, Caucasus, and kypchak.
Now let's say I start identifying myself as of Tatar descent, even though I have only 3% Tatar in me, or let's say I'm identifying myself as gujrati, which I have 1.8% of. Do I have a justification for doing such thing. We're all mixed.
These cunts remind me of South Asians who claim to be of Arab. I had a friend who was half **** half Indian and he told me that he's of Arab descent. But when he did his DNA test, it came up 99% south Asia and 0.8 or something like that of Arab ancestry. And I laughed at his face because he decided that he's only going to talk about his 0.8 percentage rather than the other 99%
